The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega--the Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

However, it's not perfect. The book's subtitle ("From Alpha to Omega") is somewhat deceptive--the "meat" of the book (after the first few chapters) deals almost entirely with the fine structure constant (alpha). Barrow talks a great deal about constants in general, but never devotes much time to any of the others specifically. Furthermore, at times, Barrow seems to become sidetracked--an inexplicable discussion of the value of contemplating "alternative histories" (i.e., speculating what would have happened if Germany had won World War II, and similar endeavors) awkwardly interrupts the flow of one chapter, for instance. Also, the book has several errors that were immediately obvious to me (for instance, it says light from the Sun takes 3 seconds to reach the Earth; the correct value is more than 8 minutes), which makes me suspect that there are probably many more errors that I missed, but which would be obvious to someone with a marginally greater degree of physics sophistication.

However, perhaps the biggest disappointment was in the introduction of the values of the Planck length, Planck time, etc., all of which are central to the book. Barrow justifies the signifiance of these values simply by stating that they are the only values of the appropriate dimensions that can be derived by combining certain other physical constants in straightforward ways. However, from there he makes the logical leap that the Planck distance, for instance, is the "natural" measure of length in the universe. This is certainly a fair statement, but it's hardly justifiable to make that statement based simply on the fact that it can be derived from a number of other constants--one could have selected another collection of fundamental constants and come up with a completely different "natural" unit of length. In short, the line of reasoning does not justify the conclusion.

In all, this is a thought-provoking work, but it's often short on detail and had a tendency to leave me with more questions than answers. The more technical reader will probably wish for more thorough arguments throughout; however, it's still an enjoyable read and a fine attempt at popularizing a difficult area of physics.

If, for instance, the proton / electron ratio were all of a sudden a little different, atoms might fly apart instead of maintaining their tiny orbital systems on which matter as we know it depends. There are other important numbers that we think are constant, like Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, and the speed of light. These three are linked within another constant, the fine structure constant. All these constants seem to have turned out just right for humans to have evolved to be investigating their physics. They all seem to be surprisingly bio-friendly. As surely as some insist that a conscious designer made the wonderfully baroque varieties of living things on our planet, others (who may admit that evolution rather than a conscious designer was at work) will say some godly entity picked the constants. But Barrow explains many alternatives, universes with the constants possibly turning out in some other way, and also explains ways that these universes might have come into being. If there are lots of universes out there, with lots of different constant combinations, it is no longer surprising that we are in one of them with the constants tuned just right to produce life, and intelligent life at that.

But in our own universe, are the constants constant? There have been some very interesting and comforting confirmations of constancy which are reported here. Barrow himself, however, has been a member of a team using a different technique to spot a shift, over a longer period of time, and, well, a shift seems to be there. There is not much you can count on in this strange universe; whether our strange universe is more strange or less for having produced us is not a question that science can answer. There are plenty of others pending; this engrossing and clearly-written book brings lots of them up. Are our constants linked to an expansive universe? Do they evolve or cycle? Are there plenty of other universes out there already, in a multiverse of possible worlds? The current view of cosmology is clearly presented here, although it is very peculiar; and the answers to these questions will be more peculiar still.

In chapter six the author discusses some curious coincidences surrounding Eddington's number. But after having debunked some other coincidental numbers he seems to leave himself open to claims that he is simply invoking meaningless coincidences. For example, he lays claim to an odd coincidence between the number of protons in the Universe and the ratio of the strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces between two protons. Why these particular numbers? There are some interesting twists and turns in the book but there are also enough things that seem rather shaky that I began to doubt how much of the book was truly reliable. As one reviewer has already pointed out, what does one say when a book is so careless as to claim that solar eclipses are caused by the Earth's shadow falling on the Sun? I am sure the author doesn't believe that to be the case but it shows a certain amount of carelessness that worries me about the remainder of the book.

There are some good parts to the book that I should mention. The discussion of the Anthropic Principle was clear and concise. His explanation of why intelligent life could not evolve unless there were exactly three spatial dimensions and one time dimension was convincing although I would have liked him to expand on this in more depth. Chapter eleven's discussion of natural nuclear reactors was also quite interesting. Overall there are some good parts in here but I didn't find the book as a whole delivered on its promise.