The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time Ebook

13 THINGS THAT DONT MAKE SENSE: THE MOST BAFFLING SCIENTIFIC MYSTERIES OF OUR TIME PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

The lowest-priced brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging where packaging is applicable. Packaging should be the same as what is found in a retail store, unless the item is handmade or was packaged by the manufacturer in non-retail packaging, such as an unprinted box or plastic bag. See details for additional description. I purchased this book on the recommendation of my daughter, as a Christmas present for my son-in-law. I am what I call a "free-thinker" - yes - there might be aliens. What constitutes "LIFE"? And he is always coming back at me with ,"Well, Science says Thanks to Michael Brook, I can evaluate scientific allegations with a "grain of salt" viewpoint. I guess that what I most appreciate is that this book has given me and hopefully my son-inlaw, also an open-ended viewpoint within which we can converse more Thank you, Michael Brooks! Read full review. Skip to main content. About this product. New other. Stock photo. Brand new: Lowest price The lowest-priced brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging where packaging is applicable. Buy It Now. Add to cart. About this product Product Information Science starts to get interesting when things don't make sense. Science's best- kept secret is this: Even today, there are experimental results and reliable data that the most brilliant scientists can neither explain nor dismiss. In the past, similar "anomalies" have revolutionized our world, like in the sixteenth century, when a set of celestial anomalies led Copernicus to realize that the Earth goes around the sun and not the reverse, and in the s, when two chemists discovered oxygen because of experimental results that defied all the theories of the day. And so, if history is any precedent, we should look to today's inexplicable results to forecast the future of science. In 13 Things That Don't Make Sense , Michael Brooks heads to the scientific frontier to meet thirteen modern-day anomalies and discover tomorrow's breakthroughs. From Solvay and the mysteries of the universe, Brooks travels to a basement in Turin to subject himself to repeated shocks in a test of the placebo response. Moreover, is 96 percent of the universe missing? I checked out some reviews here at GR and found that it goes from the cosmos to the human, so I started reading it backwards, going t'other way about, and virtually giving up when I got past sex and death. I'm sure that Mr Brooks is very competent at explaining physics stuff to science-challenged people like me, but I just couldn't summon the concentration when there is so much that I should be reading for school, for work, to justify my subscription to Die Zeit. It's all quite fascinating, but worryingly inconclusive. That is the message: there's still lots we don't know, but I for one certainly don't want to hear that there might actually be something in the quackery that is called homeopathy. I mean that friend of mine whose son had a stiff neck, and dashed off to the homeopath for 'globuli'. And here I read that there is a chance that the structure of water might be in some way significant. Ammunition for the quacks. Tsk tsk. View all 15 comments. Jul 17, David rated it really liked it Shelves: science , audiobook. I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". But I wasn't ready for the other fascinating mysteries, that truly surprised me. For example, I thought that the placebo effect was well understood. But evidently not. For example, the common drug Valium dizaepam has a strong effect; but only if the person taking it understands what the effect should be. Tests have shown that the drug is n I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". Tests have shown that the drug is no more effective than a placebo, when subjects are not told that it should reduce their anxiety levels. The FDA and the entire pharmaceutical industry relies on double-blind tests against placebos, but the author wonders if this may be a relatively meaningless test for some types of medicines. Other questions also surprised me. Why do organisms die? Still unknown. Is there life on Mars? Why has sexual reproduction evolved through natural selection? Also not understood. Is there such a thing as free will? Recent experiments have shown that our actions are not as self-induced as one might think. I thought that cold fusion was dead; but apparently not--research has been stymied by the career-breaking consequences that it has had on reputable scientists. Behold the Socratic paradox. Socrates said I know that I know nothing. Well, allegedly he said that, at least according to Plato's account of Socrates life. But it does sum up how one can walk away feeling after reading this book. It's a feeling that I've long contended with the more I read and learn about sciences, particularly astronomy. Several classes and many books on the subject later and there is still so much supposition and guesswork and uncertainty. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is co Behold the Socratic paradox. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is comprised of dark matter and dark energy of which everyone's pretty much in the dark about , what we know is infinitesimal, what we don't is daunting. And that's only one of the subjects. At least as of yet, until the paradigm shift enters into it. So it's a humbling kind of a reading experience, but it's interesting enough in a reader's digest sort of way, it provides some good basic information for those who are not familiar with the subjects and a nice refresher for those who are. It's fairly educational, concise and written in an easy to process manner. While personally I prefer nonfiction written with more personality and a humorous approach if possible, Brooks' MO is a more serious, personality free until the epilogue approach, but it still made for a pretty good read about our ineffable mysterious world. Sense shall be made. Jan 18, Bob rated it really liked it Shelves: owned. The further into the book I read the more I got into it as it progressed from the cosmological to the physical to the biological. Most intriguing to me were the looks at cold fusion, free will, the placebo effect, and homeopathy. With thirteen areas examined, including life, sex and death, there is probably something here for everyone. Everyone, except those who are unwilling to challenge their assumptions. Dec 11, Allison rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction , audio. Such a cool read. All of the chapters on astronomy caught my full attention -- from space probes to physics to dark matter to aliens -- it's all extremely COOL! The chapter on Free Will was also pretty neat. Do we really have free will? Looks like we may not. The other chapters are interesting too -- Life, Death, Sex, Placebo Effect, Microbiology, others -- and I really can recommend this book to anyone who gets a massive kick out of science reading, like I do. Loved it. I wonder if a Such a cool read. I wonder if an updated version of this book would change much Jan 22, Jigar Brahmbhatt rated it it was ok. The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". Somehow, we are aware of this limitation. I am still unsure of the writer's stance. Is he in favor of science? He explains one set of difficulties scientists faced in a certain area of research, before moving on to another. There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound a little smarter if a related conversation sparks up among your friends. This is not a science book with a vision to theorize or bring under an umbrella varied separated notions of reality. It has no such scientific goal as such. Neither it aims to illuminate with great clarity the complex theories of science for the laymen the way books by Feynman or say Brain Greene are written. What I mean is, if you have read a great deal of pop-science, then you already know most of what is discussed here. Because this book is what its title suggests, and if that's what you look for, it will work for you. I particularly enjoyed the sections on Dark Matter and Free Will. Firstly, because it teaches humility : never again shall you say to yourselves, I know all of it; there is nothing left to discover. Secondly, because it prods us to keep asking questions: What are we taking for granted? Is this bit of knowledge reached by consensus or established by conformity or worse yet, complacence? What other approaches are there to it? What 15 Oct Just finished editing the Bulgarian translation. What facts do not fit the picture? How do we adjust our goggles? More ruminations to follow. Oct 08, Peter rated it it was ok. Michael Brooks only really had about 11 interesting things that science has trouble explaining. View all 5 comments. Apr 25, Book rated it really liked it Shelves: astronomy-cosmology , science. Michael Brooks holds a PhD in Quantum Physics, editor and now consultant for New Scientist magazine, takes the reader on the wonderful journey of scientific mysteries. Since the publishing of this book a few of these mysteries have been resolved. The Missing Universe, 2. The Pioneer Anomaly, 3. Varying Constants, 4. Cold Fusion, 5. Life, 6. Viking, 7. The Wow! Signal, 8. A Giant Virus, 9. Death, Sex, Free Will, The Placebo Effect, and Positives: 1. A well-written, well-researched and entertaining book. The writing is fair and even-handed almost too much so. The fascinating topic of scientific mysteries in the capable hands of Dr. Excellent format! Each chapter is about a specific scientific mystery and the author cleverly leads the end of the previous chapter into the next one. Interesting facts spruced throughout the book. When we see a rainbow, what we see is radiation of varying frequencies. The violet light is a relatively high-frequency radiation, the red is a lower frequency; everything else is somewhere in between. Profound and practical practices in science. Provocative questions that drive the narrative. An interesting look at cold fusion. One of the deepest concepts, the concept of what constitutes life. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. Find out about some of the attempts made. A fascinating look at the Giant Virus. The other branch was the simpler prokaryotes, such as bacteria, which have cells without a nucleus. A look at death. Why the need for sex? Homosexuality in the animal kingdom. A fascinating look at free will. Though it is a scary and entirely unwelcome observation, we are brain-machines. We do not have what we think of as free will. So what about the placebo effect? Why is homeopathy still in existence? Notes and sources provided. Negatives: 1. Since the book was released in some of the anomalies have been resolved if not really not taken seriously. As an example, the Pioneer Anomaly was resolved; feel free to look it up. I felt Dr. Brooks was a little too generous toward the wrong side of scientific consensus. As example, the discarded homeopathy. Lack of charts and diagrams that would have complemented the sound narrative. Though immersed to various degrees here and there I would have liked to see Dr. Brooks be clearer on what the scientific consensus is for each chapter. In summary, I really liked this book. The book holds up quite well despite being released in My only gripe is not making perfectly clear what the scientific consensus is for each mystery, also, I would have discarded homeopathy as a scientific mystery. That said, a fun book to read, I recommend it! This is, all in all, pretty weak. There are certainly some interesting things raised in the book - good summaries of some of the alternative theories raised to explain things like the prevalence of dark matter, and so on. At the same time, science has moved on a fair bit since the book was written. The Pioneer Anomaly, for example, has been explained, to the apparent satisfaction of scientists. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and This is, all in all, pretty weak. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and perhaps not saying what they were thought to have said. Although, as a hard determinist and philosophy-hater, I don't think that the concept of free will is actually in any way meaningful, at least how it's usually expressed. Now, perhaps it's a bit unfair to criticise a book for stuff which has only come to light in the past few years. However, the fact that these things have gotten simple explanations - the roots of which have been around for a while - means it at least needs to be raised. I wouldn't be so churlish as to mark down the book for it, however. The real problem, I think, is Brooks' willingness to accept odd fringe theories as having equal validity as established ones. Yes, Kuhn, renegade scientists, paradigm shifts, blah blah blah. It is quite obvious that the standard theories do not adequately explain the universe, at least in quite the way we want. But that doesn't mean that the fringe stuff is right. After all, Newtonian physics are still, as a basic approximation, valid for most things, even after the development of Einsteinian physics into the standard model. And then there's the ludicrous stuff. Cold fusion gets a remarkably sympathetic treatment - we are led to believe that there's something important there, because the US military have invested money in it. Presumably we're meant to ignore their distance viewing experiments, and MKUltra, and whatever else. The military has lots of money, it can afford to throw cash at the fringes just in case that might be advantageous. The explanations for cold fusion which propose experimental errors or odd conditions such that it might be a function of the palladium samples used, for example are far more convincing, but they are, if not dismissed, certainly tainted by implication. And then there's homeopathy. Seriously, by now surely we've realised that it's probably best explained by a combination of placebo, regression to the mean, a good bedside manner, and perhaps a few other things? I mean, it's not like every study ever hasn't confirmed this. Feb 16, Ken Cramer rated it really liked it. This book offered a fascinating glimpse into the world of science — with all of its successes and still all of its lingering mysteries. It is engaging, well-written, and leaves you above all else — thinking! The author however makes two mistakes hence one less star : one grave, and the other… More grave. Early in the book, the author explains how science is not about people, it's about nature. This is a likely conclusion from someone ingrained in physics, which is what the book is mostly about. The truth is that ALL of science — physics and psychology and geography and chemistry — is about people, because it's people -- with all of their bias and all of their backgrounds and experiences -- who formed those theories. Science certainly does not have to study people, as physics doesn't; but science is about people, formed by people, tested by people, embraced by people — in short, WE are science. But the second more grave error is more fundamental, by taking on a topic like free will that does not belong to the playground of science — this is philosophy's baby grandfathered by religion , and the very idea that science will take this on and arrive at a conclusion to either accept or dismiss it is almost perverse; like practicing philosophy without a license! It truly is irrelevant that we can identify the brain mechanism that results in a finger twitch, and then conclude that we can circumvent your free will by activating that circuit. This is akin to our eye blink response, largely under the control of the autonomic nervous system which regularly regulates this for you — — but you can override the system, if you so CHOOSE. The author also may be confusing free will with thoughts or actions outside of awareness, as showing that the brain mechanisms are at work well before one's decision or intention toward a particular goal -- a related question, and perhaps more deserving of science's consideration. Every consumer of science needs to realize we have come a long way and discovered some amazing things but we are far from done. However, as any good citizen we have to be a watchdog for science too, and not let the tail wag the dog View all 3 comments. Jul 18, Cassandra Kay Silva rated it really liked it Shelves: science. Any book that makes you ponder subjects that are seemingly inherently necessary find a necessity for sexual reproduction or death in a new light are going to be getting a thumbs up from me. I enjoy that, it is defiantly on my track of thinking. He took on a number of controversial topics and some of them homeopathy for example I don't think I will ever agree with given the current state of affairs but the author doesn't really ask you to agree with anything. He just says there are things tha Any book that makes you ponder subjects that are seemingly inherently necessary find a necessity for sexual reproduction or death in a new light are going to be getting a thumbs up from me. He just says there are things that don't make sense and that is it. I am ok with that. He didn't seem to have any hidden agendas so the rest I can let pass as just interesting brain candy. I like thinking about different things and I am not the type to want to get so caught up in what "is" that I can't postulate other scenarios. I would never have homeopathy as a remedy on my list though nor would I recommend it for family or friends. That aside, also the space probe thing was missing a few well known refutes. Anyway as long as their is no view pushing I can swallow it. It was still a fun read. Jan 10, Tim Pendry rated it really liked it Shelves: public-policy , science. Michael Brooks' survey of anomalies in contemporary science - UK Edition might be regarded as a riposte to the 'end of science' thesis promoted by John Horgan in the mids. He makes a very good case although one has the suspicion that it is not that there is nothing else to know which this book shows would be an absurd proposition but perhaps that there are things that, because of the limitations of ourselves as human observers, we may never know. Brooks adopts a systematic approach, Michael Brooks' survey of anomalies in contemporary science - UK Edition might be regarded as a riposte to the 'end of science' thesis promoted by John Horgan in the mids. Brooks adopts a systematic approach, taking us from anomalies in cosmology and physics through those in biology thence to evolutionary studies, neuroscience and medicine. However, it might be better here to separate out the one-off nagging anomalies, which may or may not be important. They may, of course, be of considerable importance IF proven but the broader sets of anomaly that frustrate scientists in their fields and indicate the potential no more for a major 'Kuhnian' paradigm shift, equivalent to that from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican astronomical system, are much more interesting. Such paradigm shifts can have significant associated cultural and political effects whereas the one-off anomalies have largely yet to be settled even as anomalies and imply rather than state major paradigm change. Let's dispose quickly of these 'one-offs' - cold fusion, a navigational anomaly with the Pioneer spacecraft, disputed evidence for life on Mars and the freak alleged 'ET' signal received in These are fascinating but inconclusive. We are just going to have to admit that, as of today, we don't know whether cold fusion is possible, whether there is life on Mars or there are signalling aliens - not until more experiments can be mounted at considerable public cost , possibly not even then. The anomalies that imply paradigm shifts fall into two general areas - the nature of physics and of the universe and the nature of life and of matters affecting the relationship of mind and body. Perhaps the anomalies in the first zone which relate to serious problems with the current consensus derived from Einstein's revision of Newtonian mechanics might impact on the latter, but, at this point in history, such a leap would be so speculative as to be scientifically meaningless. This book is mostly an easy read by a science journalist and consultant with considerable skill in explaining complex matters to the lay reader but, be warned, you will have to keep your wits about you. The general reader is going to have to take many claims for granted. Nevertheless, he feels reliable and the only 'wobbly' section is that on free will which we will come to in a moment. The cosmology and physics anomalies are interesting but hard to make relevant to daily life. Our model of the universe works near to us but does not quite stack up the further that you move away from our immediate locality - issues of dark energy, dark matter, possible unknown gravitational forces and 'varying constants' suggest that some of the finest mathematical minds and some significant astronomical resources are going to be puzzling away at these issues for a good time to come. Brooks is effective in outlining, without except in one case - free will prejudice, the contrasting scientific theories and the inconclusive evidence in each case and he is not shy of making a subsidiary point of considerable importance about the flaws in scientists rather than in scientific method. Scientists themselves are not objective machines but are human beings dependent on their own perception, expectations both group and their own and prejudices and my opinion and not his on measurement and analytical tools created by humans for humans. Even peer review can be unreliable, although the track record of scientific method in uncovering reliable facts remains, on balance, a good and effective one - if a lot more long-winded and cumbersome and so expensive than some lay people think. Towards the end of the book, Brooks get a little less sure-footed. His account of the free will debate is not very convincing. In this area, many scientists are missing the point about free will and the human condition - or rather about the impossibility of measuring 'intent in the field'. One might concede that, for most of the time and in most conditions especially under conditions of both stability or extreme emergency , the human mind is much more on auto-pilot than we like to think. Free will is possibly meaningless insofar as actions undertaken on auto-pilot involve a suspension of will and a body and mind losing themselves to cause and effect. It is this phenomenon that the scientists are clearly recording. However, it is an unscientific and dangerous assumption to believe that a mind is not capable of setting the autopilot in the first place or of taking charge and making decisions, including positive decisions to reconform the mind to meet internal needs. Whether this proposition is true or false, it is also untestable for all the reasons noted by the philosopher Heidegger and others that each instant of consciousness is unique for each person - no instant can be held down and quantified without the fact of it being studied becoming part of the equation. Once observed in ways that meet the needs of scientific method, the 'will' may well disappear in the very decision to concede to the process. The quality of free will is its uniqueness. Scientific method is not good with highly contingent or random effects and consciousness deals in complexity, the contingent and the randomness of external inputs. The danger here given that the case is not proven either way is that experimental evidence will create, much as early Darwinism did, an inappropriate model of human behaviour that might meet the paradigm of what can be observed but cannot embrace what cannot be observed a similar problem to that of cosmology. A sufficient to academic or commercial purpose 'working model' of the mind, based on autopilot behaviour, might become integrated into cultural and political policy and so into social and economic regulation - the path to a state- or community-directed 'soft' tyranny. History has a precedent - the use of evolutionary studies in Rassenpolitik in the first half of the last century. We might see new attempts at social control which seem scientifically appropriate but which become massive perversions of the human condition as they are integrated into ideological presuppositions about human nature. However, before being too harsh on the neuro-scientists' potential political naivete, the research has one good side benefit - the destruction, even amongst scientists themselves, of any pretensions by humanity to ultra-rationalism or objectivity. The book could be seen as a running commentary on the lack of full rationalism in scientific treatment of anomalies but the point is a much bigger one and raised by Brooks himself - rational decision-making is an illusion. However, this does not tell the whole story. Decision-making is not rational by any external standard such as that of scientific positivism but it is perfectly rational from the point of view of the organism itself which fact irritates many rationalists. It is just that an outsider does not understand the base assumptions of the person making the decision - what appears irrational to an outsider is not to the insider. The issue then comes down to assessing why particular individuals have a 'will' to accept 'incorrect' assessments of their environment from the point of socially constructed reality that lead to apparently irrational responses and why this may have survival benefits or not. For example, if you are a victim of external power but cannot change things for the better, a decision to take up magic or religion might be a rational act a sort of social placebo effect amongst other things in order to avoid despair, to aid survival and to build community cohesion that offers survival advantages. This apparent irrationality is perfectly rational and may even be 'willed' - Sartre's famous case of the waiter who 'becomes' a waiter rather than a person is the type of all strategies of survival through inauthenticity. But it does not mean that persons are not capable of being authentic. It may also mean that neuroscientists are only investigating inauthenticity - some subjects decide not to be investigated and these may be the very persons who need to be investigated to make any progress in understanding free will say. Scientists, indeed all rationalists, have had real difficulty understanding these practical points of living in the world. It is good to see psychologists and neuroscientists beginning a journey towards understanding the counter-productiveness of pure 'objective' rationality even if unlike us 'existentialists' they still have a way to go yet and may blunder into politics along the way. Very different problems arise with the placebo effect where 'not-knowing' is part of the effect and with homeopathy. In both cases, there seem to be real effects. Yet the difficulty of proving or disproving these effects divides scientists into sceptics and those who are more open-minded in debates that can get increasingly bitter. One solution for some scientists in understanding the first effect is to allow doctors to turn into shamans and keep patients in the dark for their own good. Another in relation to homeopathy is to postulate that water has structural qualities that permit the phenomenon and that, one day, homeopathy might indeed be 'tamed' and introduced back into allopathic conventional medicine. The common denominators here sociologically are the desire of the 'expert' positivist-minded scientific community to accrue power to itself and to systematise any effects into what is acceptable on positivists' own terms. However, just as with the problem of free will, it may be that science is reaching the limit of its ability to know and is seeking to create boundaries beyond which there can be only 'magic' with magic's negative connotations. In fact, true scientists and there are many magnificent examples in this book remain open-minded about all anomalies at all times and remain determined to push scientific method to its limits. They know what they do not know. It may be that the human mind will not be able to know or grasp the true nature of the universe for a number of technical perceptual and measurement reasons and that the modelling will have to move from science to art - or rather to the art of increasingly sophisticated but ultimately untestable mathematical modelling that may pull cosmology back to the domain of belief i. At this level, science really does revert to religion but the religion of the 'most reasonable belief in the circumstances', certainly not as experimentally verified truth. A similar process may be happening at the 'mind' level too but under conditions which may be more dangerous for human social development and survival. Experimentally, it is impossible to know all actions or thoughts or all responses and feelings within a conscious human community but neuroscience and medecine may try to do precisely this - creating 'laws' that enter into consciousness and become self-fulfilling as socially constructed reality rather than as true representations of what is the case. This is important. A physical or cosmological law does not unless you believe in magic change the conditions of the universe through enunciation but a psychological or social 'law' changes the conditions of society when people with power decide to take it on and impose it throughout a culture. The power of 'incantation' is understood in the context of the placebo effect and probably applies to many more social conditions than health provision. Social Darwinism came to include racist nonsense but its acceptance by elites resulted in the masses adopting and believing in racial science as if it were true and many though not all by any means then became racists with conceptions of inferiority and superiority that may have been technologically true but were biologically idiotic regardless of morality. Given that scientists do not KNOW how either the placebo effect or homeopathy works or otherwise , they should continue to work in good faith and with a bit of humility to establish the mechanisms whether psychological or physical for the phenomena but they should not allow politicians and bureaucrats to purloin these studies at the expense of human freedom - nor state as law that something is not so when persons clearly experience it as so. Though Brooks would undoubtedly not agree given his status within the scientific community as one of its interpreters , it might be argued that, just as free will can never be known not to not exist in a human community amounting to several billion, so the public has a right not to trust scientists absolutely and to demand the right to homeopathic treatment even if it should be 'proved' to be wholly placebo in effect. If it works, don't knock it! Similarly, if a placebo works in many cases, as it clearly does in pain relief, then this fact should permit the public to accept guidance from people who are not in white coats but can also provide relief and comfort - even real shamans if necessary. What Brooks points out is the real danger that over-enthusiasm for placebo effects will result in a drift away from rational medicine to quackery that causes real damage to persons with severe and very real organic illnesses. He is absolutely right and the way forward is probably an easy tolerance of the self-healing within the mind thanks to a bit of TLC in order to ensure that patients continue to get checked up and take white coat advice where it matters. Whether free will, placebo or homeopathy, the men in white coats should continue to investigate and theorise but should not deny phenomena too eagerly from what amounts to ideological distaste or class self-interest. Where we may get to is a bad scenario or a good scenario. The bad scenario is where the new consensus is that we do not know our own minds and others must take care of us, perhaps by lying placebo effect or by controlling and limiting grey area therapies through massive regulation and integration into the mainstream. This is where some would have us go and I suggest that this derives from a personality type that is attracted into bureaucracy and politics. The second scenario is the good one. It allows persons to make choices as if they had free will all things being equal even if some neuroscientists might argue against it , is open and transparent about techniques including the dangerous new zone of neuro-marketing and political 'nudge' and allows, where not harmful, the public to find their own structures of coping that make may use of science and belief, even what positivists might dismiss as magic. In the meantime, if society wants rational behaviour, it can do its part by creating a society of equals with access to full information, power over their environment and sufficient resources. This review has gone off at a tangent because the book does not raise these questions directly itself. It stops at the science and avoids philosophy - and certainly politics. Whether we understand or do not understand the nature of the universe is unlikely to affect us directly unless resolution of anomalies such as cold fusion or new particles gives us new energy sources or weapons of war but any scientific theory about our minds has enormous import for the turn of our culture and our society. This book is worth reading if you are scientifically curious but it is also worth reading if you like to think of yourself as an educated citizen. 13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time on Apple Books

Comparing the chronology of Slipher's and Hubble's careers, and noting how Hubble is credited with the discovery, in , that the universe is expanding, Hawking makes a pointed reference to the first time Slipher publicly discussed his results. When the audience stood to applaud Slipher's discoveries at that American Astronomical Society meeting of August , Hawking notes, "Hubble heard the presentation. It was a shock because most of the stars in the sky were doing no such thing; at the time, the Milky Way was thought to be the whole universe, and the stars were almost static relative to Earth. Slipher changed that, blowing our universe apart. The nebulae, he suggested, are "stellar systems seen at great distances. When these velocity measurements were published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, no one made much of them, and Slipher certainly wouldn't be so vulgar as to seek attention for his work. Hubble, though, had obviously not forgotten about it. He asked Slipher for the data so as to include them in a book on relativity, and, in , Slipher sent him a table of nebular velocities. By Hubble had pulled Slipher's observations together with those of a few other astronomers and his own and come to a remarkable conclusion. If you take the galaxies moving away from Earth, and plot their speeds against their distance from Earth, you find that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving. If one receding galaxy is twice as far from Earth as another, it will be moving twice as fast. If it is three times more distant, its speed is three times greater. To Hubble, there was only one possible explanation. The galaxies were like paper dots stuck onto a balloon; blow it up, and the dots don't grow, but they do move apart. The very space in between the galaxies was growing. Hubble had discovered that the universe is expanding. It was a heady time. With this expansion, the idea of a big bang, first suggested in the s, bubbled to the surface of cosmology. If the universe was expanding, it must once have been smaller and denser; astronomers began to wonder if this was the state in which the cosmos had begun. Vesto Slipher's work had led to the first evidence of our ultimate origins. The same evidence would eventually bring us the revelation that most of our universe is a mystery. To understand how we know a significant chunk of the cosmos is missing, tie a weight to a long piece of string. Let the string out, and swing the weight around in a circle. Now pull the string in, so the weight is doing tiny orbits of your head. The same principle is at work in the motions of the planets. The Earth, in its position close to the Sun, moves much faster in its orbit than Neptune, which is farther out. The reason is simple: it's about balancing forces. The gravitational pull of the Sun is stronger at Earth's radial distance out from the Sun than at Neptune's. Something with Earth's mass has to be moving relatively fast to maintain its orbit. For Neptune to hold its orbit, with less pull from the distant Sun, it goes slower to keep in equilibrium. If it moved at the same speed as Earth, it would fly off and out of our solar system. Home 1 Books 2. Add to Wishlist. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Members save with free shipping everyday! See details. Overview Spanning disciplines from biology to cosmology, chemistry to psychology to physics, Michael Brooks thrillingly captures the excitement of scientific discovery. Show More. Then they changed their minds. Related Searches. The Malice of Fortune. When Pope Alexander orders the courtesan Damiata to the remote fortress city of Imola to View Product. The Andromeda Strain. First published fifty years ago, The Andromeda Strain redefined the science fiction genre, and immediately First published fifty years ago, The Andromeda Strain redefined the science fiction genre, and immediately established Michael Crichton as one of the brightest voices in contemporary literature worldwide. I love anything Michael Crichton writes. Coming Through Slaughter. Bringing to life the fabulous, colorful panorama of New Orleans in the first flush of Dark Back of Time. Brand new: Lowest price The lowest-priced brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging where packaging is applicable. Buy It Now. Add to cart. About this product Product Information Science starts to get interesting when things don't make sense. Science's best-kept secret is this: Even today, there are experimental results and reliable data that the most brilliant scientists can neither explain nor dismiss. In the past, similar "anomalies" have revolutionized our world, like in the sixteenth century, when a set of celestial anomalies led Copernicus to realize that the Earth goes around the sun and not the reverse, and in the s, when two chemists discovered oxygen because of experimental results that defied all the theories of the day. And so, if history is any precedent, we should look to today's inexplicable results to forecast the future of science. In 13 Things That Don't Make Sense , Michael Brooks heads to the scientific frontier to meet thirteen modern-day anomalies and discover tomorrow's breakthroughs. From Solvay and the mysteries of the universe, Brooks travels to a basement in Turin to subject himself to repeated shocks in a test of the placebo response. Moreover, is 96 percent of the universe missing? Is a signal from outer space a transmission from an alien civilization? Might giant viruses explain how life began? Why are some NASA satellites speeding up as they get farther from the sun-and what does that mean for the laws of physics? Spanning disciplines from biology to cosmology, chemistry to psychology to physics, Brooks thrillingly captures the excitement, messiness, and controversy of the battle over where science is headed. The things that don't make sense are, in some ways, the only things that matter. Additional Product Features Dewey Edition. In other words, scientists, too, suffer from the herd mentality. As proof, he cites the fact that Einstein couldn't get a job teaching physics even after publishing papers which radically altered the structure of physics. Biologists hesitate to report findings that many species of animals engage in homosexual behavior, fearing the consequences. Because of the career demolishing impact of the first report of cold fusion, most researchers now won't get anywhere near cold fusion, despite the fact that there is probably something there worth looking into. And the list goes on and on. So add to the 13 things in Brooks' book the curious timidity of many scientists to do research into or to report facts in areas which seem outlandish or contrary to conventional wisdom. Oct 28, Buck rated it liked it Shelves: pop-science. Consistently mind-blowing - until about the halfway point, where the focus shifts from the cosmic to the prosaic. Now granted, I'm a scientific ignoramus, but I can't be alone in feeling that cosmology is just way sexier than biology, so to go from heady speculations about a multiplicity of universes to - of all sublunary things - the wonders of homeopathy -- well, it kind of killed my buzz. Highly recommended, in any case, especially for those who, like me, are impatient with the nuts and bolts Consistently mind-blowing - until about the halfway point, where the focus shifts from the cosmic to the prosaic. Highly recommended, in any case, especially for those who, like me, are impatient with the nuts and bolts of science but take a dilletantish interest in the big questions. Oh - and here's a fun little tidbit I picked up from Brooks. It turns out that when Einstein made his famous remark about God's not playing dice with the universe, Niels Bohr was there to deliver a brilliant slapdown. Over the years, I could have confounded a lot of physics geeks and Jesus freaks with that one. View 1 comment. Sep 13, Marcus rated it really liked it Shelves: science , physics. I really enjoyed this book. In a world where most geographical frontiers have already been explored it's inspiring to read about the wild west of science where our knowledge is small and great discoveries are still to be made. The author did a good job of interweaving the 13 things so the book felt like a single work and not 13 distinct essays. There are interesting humans elements to the book. It's fascinating how the careers of so many scientists were affected by their 'discoveries. I also really enjoyed the discussion on dark matter and the way that single topic was interwoven throughout the book. Oct 31, Nicky rated it liked it Shelves: science-fact , nonfiction. As with the other book, Brooks gives clear explanations. In fact, reading both books illuminated more about the topics that were in both. Each topic leads to the next in a very logical way, too. It explores them quite well, without going into too much detail. Very much a pop science book, suitable for readers of New Scientist and similar publications. Originally posted here. I mean no-one ever puts it down, and if they do, do you want to touch a public toilet seat cover to lift it up? I don't. Most people put two socks into the wash, there surely can't be many who sniff their socks and decide that one of them could go another day. So what happens then? It is a complete mystery to me how the collection of single socks comes 14th thing that doesn't make sense: Covers on public toilet seats. It is a complete mystery to me how the collection of single socks comes about, and indeed continues to grow. Are there single socks orbiting the Earth somewhere? Does the washing machine in the cellar eat them? I checked out some reviews here at GR and found that it goes from the cosmos to the human, so I started reading it backwards, going t'other way about, and virtually giving up when I got past sex and death. I'm sure that Mr Brooks is very competent at explaining physics stuff to science-challenged people like me, but I just couldn't summon the concentration when there is so much that I should be reading for school, for work, to justify my subscription to Die Zeit. It's all quite fascinating, but worryingly inconclusive. That is the message: there's still lots we don't know, but I for one certainly don't want to hear that there might actually be something in the quackery that is called homeopathy. I mean that friend of mine whose son had a stiff neck, and dashed off to the homeopath for 'globuli'. And here I read that there is a chance that the structure of water might be in some way significant. Ammunition for the quacks. Tsk tsk. View all 15 comments. Jul 17, David rated it really liked it Shelves: science , audiobook. I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". But I wasn't ready for the other fascinating mysteries, that truly surprised me. For example, I thought that the placebo effect was well understood. But evidently not. For example, the common drug Valium dizaepam has a strong effect; but only if the person taking it understands what the effect should be. Tests have shown that the drug is n I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". Tests have shown that the drug is no more effective than a placebo, when subjects are not told that it should reduce their anxiety levels. The FDA and the entire pharmaceutical industry relies on double-blind tests against placebos, but the author wonders if this may be a relatively meaningless test for some types of medicines. Other questions also surprised me. Why do organisms die? Still unknown. Is there life on Mars? Why has sexual reproduction evolved through natural selection? Also not understood. Is there such a thing as free will? Recent experiments have shown that our actions are not as self-induced as one might think. I thought that cold fusion was dead; but apparently not--research has been stymied by the career-breaking consequences that it has had on reputable scientists. Behold the Socratic paradox. Socrates said I know that I know nothing. Well, allegedly he said that, at least according to Plato's account of Socrates life. But it does sum up how one can walk away feeling after reading this book. It's a feeling that I've long contended with the more I read and learn about sciences, particularly astronomy. Several classes and many books on the subject later and there is still so much supposition and guesswork and uncertainty. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is co Behold the Socratic paradox. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is comprised of dark matter and dark energy of which everyone's pretty much in the dark about , what we know is infinitesimal, what we don't is daunting. And that's only one of the subjects. At least as of yet, until the paradigm shift enters into it. So it's a humbling kind of a reading experience, but it's interesting enough in a reader's digest sort of way, it provides some good basic information for those who are not familiar with the subjects and a nice refresher for those who are. It's fairly educational, concise and written in an easy to process manner. While personally I prefer nonfiction written with more personality and a humorous approach if possible, Brooks' MO is a more serious, personality free until the epilogue approach, but it still made for a pretty good read about our ineffable mysterious world. Sense shall be made. Jan 18, Bob rated it really liked it Shelves: owned. The further into the book I read the more I got into it as it progressed from the cosmological to the physical to the biological. Most intriguing to me were the looks at cold fusion, free will, the placebo effect, and homeopathy. With thirteen areas examined, including life, sex and death, there is probably something here for everyone. Everyone, except those who are unwilling to challenge their assumptions. Dec 11, Allison rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction , audio. Such a cool read. All of the chapters on astronomy caught my full attention -- from space probes to physics to dark matter to aliens -- it's all extremely COOL! The chapter on Free Will was also pretty neat. Do we really have free will? Looks like we may not. The other chapters are interesting too -- Life, Death, Sex, Placebo Effect, Microbiology, others -- and I really can recommend this book to anyone who gets a massive kick out of science reading, like I do. Loved it. I wonder if a Such a cool read. I wonder if an updated version of this book would change much Jan 22, Jigar Brahmbhatt rated it it was ok. The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". Somehow, we are aware of this limitation. I am still unsure of the writer's stance. Is he in favor of science? He explains one set of difficulties scientists faced in a certain area of research, before moving on to another. There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound a little smarter if a related conversation sparks up among your friends. This is not a science book with a vision to theorize or bring under an umbrella varied separated notions of reality. It has no such scientific goal as such. Neither it aims to illuminate with great clarity the complex theories of science for the laymen the way books by Feynman or say Brain Greene are written. What I mean is, if you have read a great deal of pop-science, then you already know most of what is discussed here. Because this book is what its title suggests, and if that's what you look for, it will work for you. I particularly enjoyed the sections on Dark Matter and Free Will. Firstly, because it teaches humility : never again shall you say to yourselves, I know all of it; there is nothing left to discover. Secondly, because it prods us to keep asking questions: What are we taking for granted? Is this bit of knowledge reached by consensus or established by conformity or worse yet, complacence? What other approaches are there to it? What 15 Oct Just finished editing the Bulgarian translation. What facts do not fit the picture? How do we adjust our goggles? More ruminations to follow. Oct 08, Peter rated it it was ok. Michael Brooks only really had about 11 interesting things that science has trouble explaining. View all 5 comments. Apr 25, Book rated it really liked it Shelves: astronomy-cosmology , science. Michael Brooks holds a PhD in Quantum Physics, editor and now consultant for New Scientist magazine, takes the reader on the wonderful journey of scientific mysteries. Since the publishing of this book a few of these mysteries have been resolved. The Missing Universe, 2. The Pioneer Anomaly, 3. Varying Constants, 4. Cold Fusion, 5. Life, 6. Viking, 7. The Wow! Signal, 8. A Giant Virus, 9. Death, Sex, Free Will, The Placebo Effect, and Positives: 1. A well-written, well-researched and entertaining book. The writing is fair and even-handed almost too much so. The fascinating topic of scientific mysteries in the capable hands of Dr. Excellent format! Each chapter is about a specific scientific mystery and the author cleverly leads the end of the previous chapter into the next one. Interesting facts spruced throughout the book. When we see a rainbow, what we see is radiation of varying frequencies. The violet light is a relatively high-frequency radiation, the red is a lower frequency; everything else is somewhere in between. Profound and practical practices in science. Provocative questions that drive the narrative. An interesting look at cold fusion. One of the deepest concepts, the concept of what constitutes life. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. Find out about some of the attempts made. A fascinating look at the Giant Virus. The other branch was the simpler prokaryotes, such as bacteria, which have cells without a nucleus. A look at death. Why the need for sex? Homosexuality in the animal kingdom. A fascinating look at free will. Though it is a scary and entirely unwelcome observation, we are brain-machines. We do not have what we think of as free will. So what about the placebo effect? Why is homeopathy still in existence? Notes and sources provided. Negatives: 1. Since the book was released in some of the anomalies have been resolved if not really not taken seriously. As an example, the Pioneer Anomaly was resolved; feel free to look it up. I felt Dr. Brooks was a little too generous toward the wrong side of scientific consensus. As example, the discarded homeopathy. Lack of charts and diagrams that would have complemented the sound narrative. Though immersed to various degrees here and there I would have liked to see Dr. Brooks be clearer on what the scientific consensus is for each chapter. In summary, I really liked this book. The book holds up quite well despite being released in My only gripe is not making perfectly clear what the scientific consensus is for each mystery, also, I would have discarded homeopathy as a scientific mystery. That said, a fun book to read, I recommend it! This is, all in all, pretty weak. There are certainly some interesting things raised in the book - good summaries of some of the alternative theories raised to explain things like the prevalence of dark matter, and so on. At the same time, science has moved on a fair bit since the book was written. The Pioneer Anomaly, for example, has been explained, to the apparent satisfaction of scientists. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and This is, all in all, pretty weak. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and perhaps not saying what they were thought to have said. Buy It Now. Add to cart. About this product Product Information Science starts to get interesting when things don't make sense. Science's best- kept secret is this: Even today, there are experimental results and reliable data that the most brilliant scientists can neither explain nor dismiss. In the past, similar "anomalies" have revolutionized our world, like in the sixteenth century, when a set of celestial anomalies led Copernicus to realize that the Earth goes around the sun and not the reverse, and in the s, when two chemists discovered oxygen because of experimental results that defied all the theories of the day. And so, if history is any precedent, we should look to today's inexplicable results to forecast the future of science. In 13 Things That Don't Make Sense , Michael Brooks heads to the scientific frontier to meet thirteen modern-day anomalies and discover tomorrow's breakthroughs. From Solvay and the mysteries of the universe, Brooks travels to a basement in Turin to subject himself to repeated shocks in a test of the placebo response. Moreover, is 96 percent of the universe missing? Is a signal from outer space a transmission from an alien civilization? Might giant viruses explain how life began? Why are some NASA satellites speeding up as they get farther from the sun-and what does that mean for the laws of physics? Spanning disciplines from biology to cosmology, chemistry to psychology to physics, Brooks thrillingly captures the excitement, messiness, and controversy of the battle over where science is headed. The things that don't make sense are, in some ways, the only things that matter. Additional Product Features Dewey Edition. You will be amazed and astonished you when you learn that science has been unable to come up with a working definition of life, why death should happen at all, why sex is necessary, or whether cold fusion is a hoax or one of the greatest breakthroughs of all time. Strap yourself in and prepare for a WOW! Show More Show Less. Any Condition Any Condition. See all 11 - All listings for this product. Ratings and Reviews Write a review. Most relevant reviews. Best Selling in Nonfiction See all. Bill o'Reilly's Killing Ser. Varying Constants. This chapter discusses the reliability of some physical constants , quantities or values that are held to be always fixed. One of these, the Fine-structure constant , which calculates the behaviour and amount of energy transmitted in subatomic interactions from light reflection and refraction to nuclear fusion, has been called into question by physicist John Webb of the University of New South Wales who may have identified differences in the behaviour of light from quasars and light sources today. According to Webb's observations quasar light appears to refract different shades of colour from light waves emitted today. Brooks also discusses the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor , in which the natural conditions in caves in Gabon 2 billion years ago caused the uranium there to react. It may be that the amount of energy released was different from today. Both sets of data are subject to ongoing investigation and debate but, Brooks suggests, may indicate that the behaviour of matter and energy can vary radically and essentially as the conditions of the universe changes through time. Cold Fusion. A review of efforts to create nuclear energy at room temperature using hydrogen that is embedded in a metal crystal lattice. Theoretically, this should not happen, because nuclear fusion requires a huge activation energy to get it started. The effect was first reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in , but attempts to reproduce it over the ensuing months were mostly unsuccessful. Cold fusion research was discredited, and articles on the subject became difficult to publish. But according to the book, a scattering of scientists around the world continue to report positive results, with multiple, independent verifications, making the evidence difficult to deny. This chapter describes efforts to define life and how it emerged from inanimate matter Abiogenesis and even recreate Artificial life including: the Miller—Urey experiment by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago in to spark life into a mixture of chemicals by using an electrical charge; Steen Rasmussen 's work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to implant primitive DNA, Peptide nucleic acid , into soap molecules and heat them up; and the work of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter at the University of California. A discussion of the experiments by engineer Gilbert Levin to search for life on Mars in the s as part of the Viking program. Levin's Labeled Release experiment appeared to conclusively show that life does exist on Mars, but as his results were not supported by the other three Viking biological experiments , they were called into question and eventually not accepted by NASA , which instead hypothesized that the gases observed being generated may not have been a product of living metabolism but of a chemical reaction of hydrogen peroxide. Brooks goes into detail on some of Levin's other experiments and also describes how NASA's subsequent missions to Mars have focused on the geology and climate of the planet rather than looking for life on the planet. Several missions are searching for water and geological conditions which could support life on Mars currently or in the past. The Wow! Brooks discusses whether or not the signal spotted by astronomer Jerry R. Ehman at the Big Ear radio telescope of Ohio State University in was a genuine indication of intelligent life in outer space. A Giant Virus. Brooks describes the huge and highly resistant Mimivirus found in Bradford , England in and whether this challenges the traditional view of viruses being inanimate chemicals rather than living things. Mimivirus is not only much larger than most viruses but it also has a much more complex genetic structure. The discovery of Mimivirus has given weight to the theories of microbiologist Philip Bell and others that viral infection was indeed the reason for the emergence from primitive life forms of complex cell structures based on a cell nucleus. See viral eukaryogenesis. Study of the behaviour and structure of viruses is ongoing. Beginning with the example of Blanding's turtle and certain species of fish, amphibians and reptiles that do not age as they grow older, Brooks discusses theories and research into the evolution of ageing. These include the studies of Peter Medawar and George C. Williams in the s and Thomas Johnson, David Friedman and Cynthia Kenyon in the s claiming that ageing is a genetic process that has evolved as organism select genes that help them to grow and reproduce over ones that help them to thrive in later life. Brooks also talks about Leonard Hayflick , as well as others, who have observed that cells in culture will at a fixed point in time stop reproducing and die as their DNA eventually becomes corrupted by continuous division, a mechanical process at cell level rather than part of a creature's genetic code. This chapter is a discussion of theories of the evolution of sexual reproduction.

It's fascinating how the careers of so many scientists were affected by their 'discoveries. I also really enjoyed the discussion on dark matter and the way that single topic was interwoven throughout the book. Oct 31, Nicky rated it liked it Shelves: science-fact , non-fiction. As with the other book, Brooks gives clear explanations. In fact, reading both books illuminated more about the topics that were in both. Each topic leads to the next in a very logical way, too. It explores them quite well, without going into too much detail. Very much a pop science book, suitable for readers of New Scientist and similar publications. Originally posted here. I mean no-one ever puts it down, and if they do, do you want to touch a public toilet seat cover to lift it up? I don't. Most people put two socks into the wash, there surely can't be many who sniff their socks and decide that one of them could go another day. So what happens then? It is a complete mystery to me how the collection of single socks comes 14th thing that doesn't make sense: Covers on public toilet seats. It is a complete mystery to me how the collection of single socks comes about, and indeed continues to grow. Are there single socks orbiting the Earth somewhere? Does the washing machine in the cellar eat them? I checked out some reviews here at GR and found that it goes from the cosmos to the human, so I started reading it backwards, going t'other way about, and virtually giving up when I got past sex and death. I'm sure that Mr Brooks is very competent at explaining physics stuff to science-challenged people like me, but I just couldn't summon the concentration when there is so much that I should be reading for school, for work, to justify my subscription to Die Zeit. It's all quite fascinating, but worryingly inconclusive. That is the message: there's still lots we don't know, but I for one certainly don't want to hear that there might actually be something in the quackery that is called homeopathy. I mean that friend of mine whose son had a stiff neck, and dashed off to the homeopath for 'globuli'. And here I read that there is a chance that the structure of water might be in some way significant. Ammunition for the quacks. Tsk tsk. View all 15 comments. Jul 17, David rated it really liked it Shelves: science , audiobook. I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". But I wasn't ready for the other fascinating mysteries, that truly surprised me. For example, I thought that the placebo effect was well understood. But evidently not. For example, the common drug Valium dizaepam has a strong effect; but only if the person taking it understands what the effect should be. Tests have shown that the drug is n I realized, before starting this book, that some of the topics might be "old hat". Tests have shown that the drug is no more effective than a placebo, when subjects are not told that it should reduce their anxiety levels. The FDA and the entire pharmaceutical industry relies on double-blind tests against placebos, but the author wonders if this may be a relatively meaningless test for some types of medicines. Other questions also surprised me. Why do organisms die? Still unknown. Is there life on Mars? Why has sexual reproduction evolved through natural selection? Also not understood. Is there such a thing as free will? Recent experiments have shown that our actions are not as self-induced as one might think. I thought that cold fusion was dead; but apparently not--research has been stymied by the career-breaking consequences that it has had on reputable scientists. Behold the Socratic paradox. Socrates said I know that I know nothing. Well, allegedly he said that, at least according to Plato's account of Socrates life. But it does sum up how one can walk away feeling after reading this book. It's a feeling that I've long contended with the more I read and learn about sciences, particularly astronomy. Several classes and many books on the subject later and there is still so much supposition and guesswork and uncertainty. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is co Behold the Socratic paradox. Virtually 96 percent of cosmos is comprised of dark matter and dark energy of which everyone's pretty much in the dark about , what we know is infinitesimal, what we don't is daunting. And that's only one of the subjects. At least as of yet, until the paradigm shift enters into it. So it's a humbling kind of a reading experience, but it's interesting enough in a reader's digest sort of way, it provides some good basic information for those who are not familiar with the subjects and a nice refresher for those who are. It's fairly educational, concise and written in an easy to process manner. While personally I prefer nonfiction written with more personality and a humorous approach if possible, Brooks' MO is a more serious, personality free until the epilogue approach, but it still made for a pretty good read about our ineffable mysterious world. Sense shall be made. Jan 18, Bob rated it really liked it Shelves: owned. The further into the book I read the more I got into it as it progressed from the cosmological to the physical to the biological. Most intriguing to me were the looks at cold fusion, free will, the placebo effect, and homeopathy. With thirteen areas examined, including life, sex and death, there is probably something here for everyone. Everyone, except those who are unwilling to challenge their assumptions. Dec 11, Allison rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction , audio. Such a cool read. All of the chapters on astronomy caught my full attention -- from space probes to physics to dark matter to aliens -- it's all extremely COOL! The chapter on Free Will was also pretty neat. Do we really have free will? Looks like we may not. The other chapters are interesting too -- Life, Death, Sex, Placebo Effect, Microbiology, others -- and I really can recommend this book to anyone who gets a massive kick out of science reading, like I do. Loved it. I wonder if a Such a cool read. I wonder if an updated version of this book would change much Jan 22, Jigar Brahmbhatt rated it it was ok. The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". Somehow, we are aware of this limitation. I am still unsure of the writer's stance. Is he in favor of science? He explains one set of difficulties scientists faced in a certain area of research, before moving on to another. There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound The purpose of this book is to show, by 13 different examples, how science has a long way to go before it can assure us that "all is under control". There are interesting bits of information peppered in, which is all this book has to offer in my opinion, so that you can sound a little smarter if a related conversation sparks up among your friends. This is not a science book with a vision to theorize or bring under an umbrella varied separated notions of reality. It has no such scientific goal as such. Neither it aims to illuminate with great clarity the complex theories of science for the laymen the way books by Feynman or say Brain Greene are written. What I mean is, if you have read a great deal of pop-science, then you already know most of what is discussed here. Because this book is what its title suggests, and if that's what you look for, it will work for you. I particularly enjoyed the sections on Dark Matter and Free Will. Firstly, because it teaches humility : never again shall you say to yourselves, I know all of it; there is nothing left to discover. Secondly, because it prods us to keep asking questions: What are we taking for granted? Is this bit of knowledge reached by consensus or established by conformity or worse yet, complacence? What other approaches are there to it? What 15 Oct Just finished editing the Bulgarian translation. What facts do not fit the picture? How do we adjust our goggles? More ruminations to follow. Oct 08, Peter rated it it was ok. Michael Brooks only really had about 11 interesting things that science has trouble explaining. View all 5 comments. Apr 25, Book rated it really liked it Shelves: astronomy-cosmology , science. Michael Brooks holds a PhD in Quantum Physics, editor and now consultant for New Scientist magazine, takes the reader on the wonderful journey of scientific mysteries. Since the publishing of this book a few of these mysteries have been resolved. The Missing Universe, 2. The Pioneer Anomaly, 3. Varying Constants, 4. Cold Fusion, 5. Life, 6. Viking, 7. The Wow! Signal, 8. A Giant Virus, 9. Death, Sex, Free Will, The Placebo Effect, and Positives: 1. A well-written, well-researched and entertaining book. The writing is fair and even-handed almost too much so. The fascinating topic of scientific mysteries in the capable hands of Dr. Excellent format! Each chapter is about a specific scientific mystery and the author cleverly leads the end of the previous chapter into the next one. Interesting facts spruced throughout the book. When we see a rainbow, what we see is radiation of varying frequencies. The violet light is a relatively high-frequency radiation, the red is a lower frequency; everything else is somewhere in between. Profound and practical practices in science. Provocative questions that drive the narrative. An interesting look at cold fusion. One of the deepest concepts, the concept of what constitutes life. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. Find out about some of the attempts made. A fascinating look at the Giant Virus. The other branch was the simpler prokaryotes, such as bacteria, which have cells without a nucleus. A look at death. Why the need for sex? Homosexuality in the animal kingdom. A fascinating look at free will. Though it is a scary and entirely unwelcome observation, we are brain-machines. We do not have what we think of as free will. So what about the placebo effect? Why is homeopathy still in existence? Notes and sources provided. Negatives: 1. Since the book was released in some of the anomalies have been resolved if not really not taken seriously. As an example, the Pioneer Anomaly was resolved; feel free to look it up. I felt Dr. Brooks was a little too generous toward the wrong side of scientific consensus. As example, the discarded homeopathy. Lack of charts and diagrams that would have complemented the sound narrative. Though immersed to various degrees here and there I would have liked to see Dr. Brooks be clearer on what the scientific consensus is for each chapter. In summary, I really liked this book. The book holds up quite well despite being released in My only gripe is not making perfectly clear what the scientific consensus is for each mystery, also, I would have discarded homeopathy as a scientific mystery. That said, a fun book to read, I recommend it! This is, all in all, pretty weak. There are certainly some interesting things raised in the book - good summaries of some of the alternative theories raised to explain things like the prevalence of dark matter, and so on. At the same time, science has moved on a fair bit since the book was written. The Pioneer Anomaly, for example, has been explained, to the apparent satisfaction of scientists. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and This is, all in all, pretty weak. The experiments supposedly debunking free will have, possibly, been shown to be deeply problematic and perhaps not saying what they were thought to have said. Although, as a hard determinist and philosophy-hater, I don't think that the concept of free will is actually in any way meaningful, at least how it's usually expressed. Now, perhaps it's a bit unfair to criticise a book for stuff which has only come to light in the past few years. However, the fact that these things have gotten simple explanations - the roots of which have been around for a while - means it at least needs to be raised. I wouldn't be so churlish as to mark down the book for it, however. The real problem, I think, is Brooks' willingness to accept odd fringe theories as having equal validity as established ones. Yes, Kuhn, renegade scientists, paradigm shifts, blah blah blah. It is quite obvious that the standard theories do not adequately explain the universe, at least in quite the way we want. But that doesn't mean that the fringe stuff is right. After all, Newtonian physics are still, as a basic approximation, valid for most things, even after the development of Einsteinian physics into the standard model. And then there's the ludicrous stuff. Cold fusion gets a remarkably sympathetic treatment - we are led to believe that there's something important there, because the US military have invested money in it. Presumably we're meant to ignore their distance viewing experiments, and MKUltra, and whatever else. The military has lots of money, it can afford to throw cash at the fringes just in case that might be advantageous. The explanations for cold fusion which propose experimental errors or odd conditions such that it might be a function of the palladium samples used, for example are far more convincing, but they are, if not dismissed, certainly tainted by implication. And then there's homeopathy. Seriously, by now surely we've realised that it's probably best explained by a combination of placebo, regression to the mean, a good bedside manner, and perhaps a few other things? I mean, it's not like every study ever hasn't confirmed this. Feb 16, Ken Cramer rated it really liked it. This book offered a fascinating glimpse into the world of science — with all of its successes and still all of its lingering mysteries. It is engaging, well-written, and leaves you above all else — thinking! The Missing Universe. This deals with astronomy and theoretical physics and the ultimate fate of the universe , in particular the search for understanding of dark matter and dark energy and includes discussion of: the work of astronomers Vesto Slipher and then Edwin Hubble in demonstrating the universe is expanding; Vera Rubin 's investigation of galaxy rotation curves that suggest something other than gravity is preventing galaxies from spinning apart, which led to the revival of unobserved "dark matter" theory; experimental efforts to discover dark matter, including the search for the hypothetical neutralino and other weakly interacting massive particles ; the study of supernovae at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Harvard University under Robert Kirshner that point to an accelerating universe powered by "dark energy" possibly Vacuum energy ; and finally the assertion that the proposed modified Newtonian dynamics hypothesis and the accelerating universe disproves the dark matter theory. The Pioneer Anomaly. This discusses the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes, which appear to be veering off course and drifting towards the sun. There is growing speculation as to whether this phenomenon can be explained by a yet-undetermined fault in the rockets' systems or whether this obliges us to rethink theories of physics such as gravity. The lead investigator into the progress of the rockets is physicist Slava Turyshev of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California who is analysing the data of the rockets' launch and progress and "reflying" the missions as computer simulations to try to find a solution to the mystery. However, in , after the book was published, Turyshev was able to give an explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly. Varying Constants. This chapter discusses the reliability of some physical constants , quantities or values that are held to be always fixed. One of these, the Fine-structure constant , which calculates the behaviour and amount of energy transmitted in subatomic interactions from light reflection and refraction to nuclear fusion, has been called into question by physicist John Webb of the University of New South Wales who may have identified differences in the behaviour of light from quasars and light sources today. According to Webb's observations quasar light appears to refract different shades of colour from light waves emitted today. Brooks also discusses the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor , in which the natural conditions in caves in Gabon 2 billion years ago caused the uranium there to react. It may be that the amount of energy released was different from today. Both sets of data are subject to ongoing investigation and debate but, Brooks suggests, may indicate that the behaviour of matter and energy can vary radically and essentially as the conditions of the universe changes through time. Cold Fusion. A review of efforts to create nuclear energy at room temperature using hydrogen that is embedded in a metal crystal lattice. Theoretically, this should not happen, because nuclear fusion requires a huge activation energy to get it started. The effect was first reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in , but attempts to reproduce it over the ensuing months were mostly unsuccessful. Cold fusion research was discredited, and articles on the subject became difficult to publish. But according to the book, a scattering of scientists around the world continue to report positive results, with multiple, independent verifications, making the evidence difficult to deny. This chapter describes efforts to define life and how it emerged from inanimate matter Abiogenesis and even recreate Artificial life including: the Miller—Urey experiment by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago in to spark life into a mixture of chemicals by using an electrical charge; Steen Rasmussen 's work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to implant primitive DNA, Peptide nucleic acid , into soap molecules and heat them up; and the work of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter at the University of California. It was a stunning set of results, so stunning, in fact, that when he presented them at the August meeting of the American Astronomical Society, he received a standing ovation. Slipher is one of the unsung heroes of astronomy. According to his National Academy of Sciences biography, he "probably made more fundamental discoveries than any other twentieth century observational astronomer. Out there, beyond the sky, two craters bear his name. The reason for this scant recognition is that Slipher had a habit of not really communicating his discoveries. Sometimes he would write a terse paper disseminating his findings; at other times he would put them in letters to other astronomers. According to his biography, Slipher was a "reserved, reticent, cautious man who shunned the public eye and rarely even attended astronomical meetings. But it was one that set an English astronomer called Edwin Powell Hubble on the path to fame. Comparing the chronology of Slipher's and Hubble's careers, and noting how Hubble is credited with the discovery, in , that the universe is expanding, Hawking makes a pointed reference to the first time Slipher publicly discussed his results. When the audience stood to applaud Slipher's discoveries at that American Astronomical Society meeting of August , Hawking notes, "Hubble heard the presentation. It was a shock because most of the stars in the sky were doing no such thing; at the time, the Milky Way was thought to be the whole universe, and the stars were almost static relative to Earth. Slipher changed that, blowing our universe apart. The nebulae, he suggested, are "stellar systems seen at great distances. When these velocity measurements were published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, no one made much of them, and Slipher certainly wouldn't be so vulgar as to seek attention for his work. Hubble, though, had obviously not forgotten about it. He asked Slipher for the data so as to include them in a book on relativity, and, in , Slipher sent him a table of nebular velocities. By Hubble had pulled Slipher's observations together with those of a few other astronomers and his own and come to a remarkable conclusion. If you take the galaxies moving away from Earth, and plot their speeds against their distance from Earth, you find that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving. If one receding galaxy is twice as far from Earth as another, it will be moving twice as fast. If it is three times more distant, its speed is three times greater. To Hubble, there was only one possible explanation. The galaxies were like paper dots stuck onto a balloon; blow it up, and the dots don't grow, but they do move apart. The very space in between the galaxies was growing. Hubble had discovered that the universe is expanding. It was a heady time. With this expansion, the idea of a big bang, first suggested in the s, bubbled to the surface of cosmology. If the universe was expanding, it must once have been smaller and denser; astronomers began to wonder if this was the state in which the cosmos had begun. Vesto Slipher's work had led to the first evidence of our ultimate origins. The same evidence would eventually bring us the revelation that most of our universe is a mystery. To understand how we know a significant chunk of the cosmos is missing, tie a weight to a long piece of string. Let the string out, and swing the weight around in a circle. Now pull the string in, so the weight is doing tiny orbits of your head. The same principle is at work in the motions of the planets. The Earth, in its position close to the Sun, moves much faster in its orbit than Neptune, which is farther out. The reason is simple: it's about balancing forces. The gravitational pull of the Sun is stronger at Earth's radial distance out from the Sun than at Neptune's. Something with Earth's mass has to be moving relatively fast to maintain its orbit. For Neptune to hold its orbit, with less pull from the distant Sun, it goes slower to keep in equilibrium. If it moved at the same speed as Earth, it would fly off and out of our solar system. Home 1 Books 2. Add to Wishlist. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Members save with free shipping everyday! See details. Overview Spanning disciplines from biology to cosmology, chemistry to psychology to physics, Michael Brooks thrillingly captures the excitement of scientific discovery. Show More. Then they changed their minds. Related Searches. The Malice of Fortune. When Pope Alexander orders the courtesan Damiata to the remote fortress city of Imola to

https://files8.webydo.com/9585976/UploadedFiles/8563702B-9C81-9682-54AC-DCC8077EC34C.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/6fb6b428-55c0-4cdc-ad92-4b2b1ebfc4c6/impulse-der-erlebnispadagogik-fur-eine-oekosystemische- heilpadagogik-758.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4641159/normal_60208d9943276.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4640984/normal_601fe591b309a.pdf