![]() |
Darwin Day 12
February 2025 |
Last year population geneticist Zach Hancock made a video 10 most influential papers on evolution. His list is a personal list and reflects his areas of research: Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution. Although this covers a large part of what is called 'Evolutionary Biology' today, my own list would be significantly different. However, I hadn't made such a list yet. When a visitor of my website asked whether I could produce my own top-20 books, I decided that after 20 years of devouring books that have 'evolution' or 'Darwin' in the title, it was about time!
Surprise: this requires some additional thinking! What are the most important books? Choices have to be made. Perhaps the biggest difference with Hancock's list and with many of the popular evolution textbooks is that I have sought to include books that place evolution in its planetary and cosmological context. Life happens on a planet, so this fact must show up in the evolution textbooks. Practically speaking, Evolutionary biology textbooks are aimed at biology students preparing for a job in biological research, mostly lab research, sometimes field work. Evolutionary biology has become a specialized field separated from related scientific disciplines such as ecology, geology, paleontology, climatology, cosmology and Earth System Science. But all these disciplinary borders are created for practical purposes only. Nature does not know these borders. They are artificial. They are created by humans [1].
An Evolution textbook should discuss questions such as: Why is the Earth a habitable planet? What are the necessary conditions? How likely is the origin of a planet suitable for life? (introducing astrobiology and Earth systems science). Does a habitable planet require a moon? Is a solar system like ours inevitable? Is a planet with oceans and continents necessary for complex life? Could complex life originate on a planet with only oceans or only continents? Does life require a geologically active planet with continental drift and vulcanism? Do we need a planet that is rotating around/on its axis? a tilted axis? an orbital period of one year? Does the earth have the right size for life or could it be significantly smaller or larger? What about the composition of the atmosphere? Assuming the Periodic Table of Elements, how many chemical elements are necessary for life? How likely is it that they are present on a planet in the right proportions? Which features of life are universal and which are earth-bound? Is the origin of life on the earth inevitable? Is life necessarily a far-from-equilibrium system? Is life necessarily cellular? Why DNA? Is DNA the only possible carrier of hereditary information? Why proteins? Is the DNA-protein system the only possible form of life? Could proteins be replaced with RNA? Why exactly this genetic code? Are there alternative genetic codes possible? Is the genetic code a 'frozen accident' or is it necessary or both? Is the genetic code earth-bound or truly universal? Is the universal genetic code the main proof of common descent of all life on earth? Is photosynthesis a necessary precondition for the evolution of animal life? Is the autotroph-heterotroph system necessary for the evolution of complex life? Is oxygen necessary for any form of life on any planet? What is the likelihood that life on earth has existed uninterrupted for 3,5 billion years without going extinct? Why did it take so long for life to invent multi-cellularity? Is multicellularity the most difficult transition in evolution? Is the soma-germline distinction (Weizmann) necessary for complex life? Must complex life necessarily be of the haploid-diploid system? Could complex life be haploid? Is Mendelian heredity necessary for complex life? Is sex necessary? Is the prokaryote-eukaryote dichotomy necessary or could there be intermediates? Must complex life originate from endosymbiosis harboring mitochondria? Or could evolution have developed alternatives for energy production? Does the human species need exactly 46 chromosomes? Do humans require 25,000 protein-coding genes? Do we require 3.1 billion base pairs in our genome? Why do we have so much junk DNA? Are there alternatives for all these features? Combining the probability of all events in the history of the Earth, is the origin of 'intelligent life' inevitable? Does evolution need millions or billions of species in order to be able to create humans? Is natural selection, that is the differential reproduction of heritable variants, the only way to create (complex) life? Must 'intelligent life' necessarily be a warm-blooded mammal with internal fertilization and gestation?
Ideally, evolutionary biology textbooks should discuss these questions to inspire the students, to stimulate the imagination, to ask exciting new questions and to make evolution an attractive study. Furthermore, both biology students and evolution doubters alike must be confronted with the fact that 'Darwin' and 'evolution' stand for evolutionary processes lasting 4.5 billion years on planet Earth. That planet is part of a planetary system which itself has a history. And that this planetary system itself is part of a universe which itself has a history. So, Darwin-doubters and evolution-deniers should be made aware that the theory of evolution is not an isolated biological theory that could be denied or replaced without consequences for the rest of the scientific knowledge. Textbooks should not make the same error of teaching evolution in isolation.
Surely, evolution textbooks are intended to prepare students for a research job in a biology department. Laboratory science is based on isolating organisms from the environment and from the whole earth system. But that is not a good reason for textbook authors to neglect the way in which evolution is connected with the earth as a system (geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere). The history of our planet shows that there were many geological disasters, resulting in several large extinctions, despite the fact that there is a continuous line of descent from the first forms of life to our own species. Students can not understand evolution if they don't understand why the earth is a habitable planet. Yes, in practice researchers have to specialize, they can't be allround scientists, but biology students should learn the essentials of the whole system. You can't have a scientifically correct worldview if it is restricted by the borders of your own scientific discipline. My choice of books is based on these criteria. A textbook that meets all these criteria doesn't exist, but taken together the following books come close to the perfect evolution textbook. They are listed here in no particular order:
-
John Maynard Smith & Eörs Szathmáry (1999)
The Origins of Life. From the Birth of Life to the Origin of
Language
(review) is a popular version of The Major Transitions in Evolution
(1995). The authors are authorities in the field of evolutionary biology and
write in a logical and factual style. They focus on the central and
often unsolved problems in evolutionary theory and discuss them in a way
understandable for the non-professional reader. A really unique
achievement.
-
Jerry A. Coyne (2009)
Why Evolution Is True.
We still need a book that focuses on the evidence for evolution without
the technical details present in a standard textbook. I hope an updated
edition will be published (and a separate chapter about common descent
will be added).
-
S J Gould (2002)
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. (review).
Not many people will want to read this intimidating book from page 1 to
page
1433, but what he wrote about the logical structure of evolutionary theory
is very useful (chapter 1,2,7).
-
Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrímsson (2008)
Strickberger's Evolution, Fourth Edition and Fifth edition 2013. This textbook includes the
planetary context and geological timescales. Compare with Stearns and
Hoekstra below. Listed on my
Introduction
page.
-
Mark Ridley (2000)
Mendel's Demon. (review). A popular and educational account of the fact and consequences of
the eukaryotic merger, uni-parental inheritance of mitochondria,
Mendelian inheritance, sexual reproduction, error threshold, mutational
meltdown. These are the fundamental issues in evolutionary biology. More
important than Dawkins' Selfish Gene.
- Nick Lane (2002) Oxygen. The Molecule that made the World. (blog). This work was an eye-opener for me. According to Lane, Oxygen made the existence of complex animals possible. More than that: he shows how life itself created a habitable planet. Absolutely crucial. Lane connects evolution, geology and biochemistry. Oxygen is a prime example of niche construction on a planetary scale. Amazingly, this fact is not reflected in the evolution textbooks. Quotes: "Viewing evolution through the prism of oxygen gives us some surprising perspectives on our lives and deaths. If water is the foundation of life, then oxygen is its engine. Without oxygen, life on Earth would never have got beyond a slime in the oceans, and the Earth would probably have ended its days in the sterility of Mars or Venus." p.340. "Oxygenic photosynthesis only ever evolved once" (p.145).
-
James Lovelock (1988)
The Ages of Gaia. A Biography of our Living Earth.
(review). Lovelock is important because he pointed out that the atmosphere of
a planet harboring life is in a chemical disequilibrium. This is a
signature of the presence of life on any planet. Again: one cannot have
full understanding of evolution without its planetary context. Darwin
didn't know this. Now, we do know. It's time this fact is included in
the textbooks.
-
Lynn Margulis (2002)
Acquiring Genomes. A theory of the origins of species
(review). Margulis deserved the Nobel Prize for the theory of eukaryotic
endosymbiosis. A revolution in biology. She is often ignored in the
textbooks because of her criticism of neo-Darwinism.
-
F. John Odling-Smee (2003)
Niche construction. The neglected process in evolution
(review). The reality of niche construction is undeniable. One can disagree
about the extent, but not about its existence. Organisms do not
passively adapt to their environments. Niche construction ought to be
discussed in the evolution textbooks. Compare with Dawkins
Extended Phenotype.
-
Stuart Kauffman (1995)
At Home in the Universe
(review). This theoretical biologist had a huge impact on my thinking. This
book was published 30 years ago, but still important. Kauffman developed
a theory about life and the origin of life build on first principles
(auto-catalysis). He is a critic of the gene- and DNA-centered worldview
of Neo-Darwinism.
-
Kevin W. Plaxco, Michael Gross (2006)
Astrobiology: A Brief Introduction. The emphasis is on the 'biology' part of astro-biology. Putting life
in its planetary and cosmic context. The best popular introduction with
the proper amount of detail.
-
Paul Davies (1999)
The Fifth Miracle. The Search for the Origin and Meaning of
Life. Important chapter 'Against the tide" (chapter 2): "One of the principal
ways in which life distinguishes itself from the rest of nature is its
remarkable ability to go "against the tide" and create order out of
chaos". Chapter 4: 'The message in the Machine' contains a superb
explanation of the fundamental concepts "order", "organization",
"entropy", "chance", "randomness", "information", "complexity".
Particularly his insightful explanation of what it means that genomes
contain information.
Davies explains life in a way no biologist could have done.
-
Tim Lenton (2016)
Earth System Science: A Very Short Introduction. Recommended introduction. Earth system science must be included in
the evolution textbooks simply in order to understand why the earth has
been a habitable planet for billions of years.
- Stephen Stearns, Rolf Hoekstra (2005) Evolution. Second edition. I include this evolution textbook (now 20 years old) because of the treatment of 'The history of life' (83 pages) including a chapter 'Key events in evolution' and 'Major events in the geological theater'. Unfortunately no new edition has been published.
- Ernst Mayr (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought. A conceptual and historical overview of Darwinism by one of the founders of neo-Darwinism. Very rich in content and complete. I learned a lot from this book. Very important is his identification of Darwin's Five Theories (page 505-510). A shorter version of this work is: One Long Argument. Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (1991).
-
Tibor Gánti (2003)
The Principles of Life
with commentary by James Griesemer & Eörs Szathmáry (review). His definition of life is superior. Based on first principles.
Withstood the test of time. A standard by which all other definitions
must be compared. It continues to have a fundamental influence on my
thinking on what 'life' is and how the problem of the origin of life
must be approached.
-
Sean Carroll (2001, 2004)
From DNA to Diversity. Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of
Animal Design. See also:
Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the
Making of the Animal Kingdom (2005). A beautifully illustrated popular exposition of evo-devo.
Animal development is under genetic control, and genetic modifications
create animal diversity.
-
Johnjoe McFadden (2021)
Life Is Simple: How Occam's Razor Set Science Free and Shapes the
Universe.
Not about evolution. An illuminating history of science viewed from
Occam's perspective. In a sense, Occam started the scientific revolution
in the 14th century. Original. Very well written. A rewarding and
entertaining read.
-
Edward Dolnick (2017)
The Seeds of Life. (blog in Dutch).
Evolution cannot be understood without a good understanding of sexual
reproduction.
The struggle to eliminate stubborn misconceptions about sex. What are
the contributions of males and females to the next generation?
-
David Sedley (2008)
Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity
(review). Greek philosopher Epicurus was opposed to creationism and advanced a
non-creationist explanation of adaptation. Paley argued against this
Epicurean explanation. Darwin argued against Paley and strongly improved
the Epicurean argument. Darwin in his historical and philosophical
context.
Disclaimer: when a book is not on this list, it certainly doesn't mean it
is unimportant! Very probably, it is on the
Introduction
page of my WDW website. If not, please leave a comment!
Finally, some books have wrong ideas, but nonetheless (or because of!) stimulated my thinking. Two of them are:
Periannan Senapathy (1994)
Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory That Distinct Organisms
Arose Independently From The Primordial Pond Showing That Evolutionary
Theories Are Fundamentally Incorrect.
(review). This is an extreme DNA-centric view of life and the origin of life
[1]. This book is wrong in unsuspected ways. Many problems are easy to
find. But, it took me many years to see the elephant in the room and
formulate the most decisive argument against this theory. While unraveling
the tangle of the facts and his arguments, I gained fundamental insights
about the DNA-centric view of life, the origin of life and evolution in
general. It showed me the best reasons
why we need a theory of evolution!
Michael Behe (1996) Darwin's Black Box. (review). Now nearly 30 years old. 'Irreducible Complexity' is an interesting potential falsifier of the theory of evolution by natural selection. According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is a requirement for a proper scientific theory. Michael Behe has been crucified over and over by the scientific community because he believes in Intelligent design. However, ID can safely be rejected without rejecting the idea of irreducible complexity as a potential falsifier. It highlights the fact the Darwinian gradualness has its challenges. It stimulated research in to seemingly irreducible complex biological systems in fruitful way.
Notes
- "...if we want to create a synthesis, we must understand that evolution is not something that pertains exclusively to biology, but rather to all domains of reality. Nature knows nothing about disciplines." David Obon (2024) Evolution: the invention of creativity: a new unifying vision.
- Craig Venter
made in essence the same mistake as Senapathy. See also: František
Baluška, Guenther Witzany (2014)
Life is more than a computer running DNA software, World J Biol Chem. (I think the authors didn't bring up
the most important objection).
Een prachtig mooi overzicht, veel dank hiervoor.
ReplyDeleteWat betreft Margolis: zij beschreef niet het ontstaan van species maar van kingdoms. Je kunt dit nog verder uitbreiden:
ReplyDeleteDarwin => soorten
SB Caroll => stammen?
Margulis => koninkrijken
Kauffman => cellen
N Lane => leven
Ze spreken elkaar niet tegen maar hebben elk hun eigen taxonomische domein. Als ze hun domein te buiten gaan krijg je onzin.
ID-ers, or IDiots as Larry Moran prefers to call them, are looking for "God in the Gaps". What they find Instead are "gaps in Darwin"
ReplyDeleteInteresting ref, btw, D. Obon.
@ gaps
ReplyDeletethe filling of one gap especially, seems very appropriate this Darwin day:
"The ability to perform such feats of imagination sprang, emergently, from the Darwinian gift of vicarious internal simulation within the safe confines of the skull, of predicted alternative actions in the unsafe real world outside. The capacity to imagine, like the capacity to learn by trial and error, is ultimately steered by genes, by naturally selected DNA information, the genetic book of the dead".
R. Dawkins, The Genetic Book of the Dead: A Darwinian Reverie,
a gift for which we all should be very grateful - we could only dream of it - within the safe confines of our skull
Margulis propageerde de endobiosis van mitochondria en chloroplasten , maar was niet de eerste met dat idee, en ook niet degene die de waarnemingen deed waarop de endosymbiose theory rust. Staat in haar bekendste artikel, Lynn Sagan (Margulis), 1967. On the Origin of Mitosing Cells Journal of Theoretical Biology 14: 225-274, en is te vinden op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis. Bovendien gaat dat artikel voor een goed deel over mitose, en dat deel is nooit geaccepteerd. Al met al, Margulis was een goed propagandist voor zichzelf, op een of andere manier, maar het goede onderzoek naar endosymbiose is niet haar werk.
ReplyDeleteGerdien, thanks for your comment. Let me ask a question first. Do you agree that the origin of eukaryotes by means of endosymbiosis is a Major Transition in the Evolution of life on earth? (JMS).
ReplyDeleteIn textbooks I never see somebody else credited with the discovery of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts. Who should be credited with this discovery? Who, if anybody at all, should be awarded a Nobel prize for the discovery?
Secondly, a preliminary short remark. In The Major Transitions in Evolution (1995), John Maynard Smith consequently refers to Margulis when symbiosis is discussed and not anyone of her predecessors. For example, on page 10 JMS writes: "The significance of symbiosis in the origin of the eukaryotes (Margulis, 1970*) is now familiar."
Furthermore, there are 7 publications of Lynn Margulis in the References section.
*) Lynn Margulis, 1970, Origin of Eukaryotic cells. Yale University Press.
Thank you for sharing your list, very interesting.
ReplyDelete-César
Gerdien, I discovered a publication that may explain hostility of many evolutionary biologists towards Lynn Margulis. It is a chapter in: Lynn Margulis, Doron Sagan (1997) Slanted Truths. Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution: Chapter 20 'Big Trouble in Biology: Physiological Autopoiesis versus Mechanistic neo-Darwinism'. The essay originally appeared in 1990. I read it many years ago and forgot about it. The style of the article is extremely rude and sarcastic, it is strongly dismissive of population genetics, and population geneticists. It will undoubtedly have contributed to nearly universal omission of Lynn Margulis in evolutionary textbooks...
ReplyDeleteIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis staat een historisch overzicht. Oa "The idea that chloroplasts were originally independent organisms that merged into a symbiotic relationship with other one-celled organisms dates back to the 19th century, when it was espoused by researchers such as Andreas Schimper. The endosymbiotic theory was articulated in 1905 and 1910 by the Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski" "Ivan Wallin advocated the idea of an endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria in the 1920s.[11][12] "
ReplyDeleteWallin, Ivan E. (1923). "The Mitochondria Problem". The American Naturalist. 57 (650): 255–61. Bibcode:1923ANat...57..255W. doi:10.1086/279919. S2CID 85144224.
Wallin, Ivan E. (1927). Symbionticism and the origin of species. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. p. 117
In het artikel van Lynn Margulis, JTB 1967, staat: "In 1927, Wallin argued that mitochondria originated as endosymbionts in higher cells."
En ook: "A plethora of recent studies elegantly reviewed by Gibor & Granick have resented inexorable testimony for the following: mitochondria contain specific DNA and RNA; they are self-duplicating bodies that do not arise de novo; the multigenic system of the organelle is responsible, in part, for the specific biochemical properties of the organelle; and mitochondrial development (in yeast cells, at least) are controlled by an adaptive mechanism which is responsive to oxygen" GIBOR, A. & GRANICK, S. (1964). Science, N.Y. 145, 890.
Al met al, Margulis kreeg en krijgt te veel eer.
Neem ook eens: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221959686_Caterpillars_evolved_from_onychophorans_by_hybridogenesis gepusht door Margulis voor PNAS. Gaf een rel.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis
ReplyDelete"Margulis' work on symbiosis and her endosymbiotic theory had important predecessors, going back to the mid-19th century – notably Andreas Franz Wilhelm Schimper, Konstantin Mereschkowski, Boris Kozo-Polyansky, and Ivan Wallin – and Margulis not only promoted greater recognition for their contributions, but personally oversaw the first English translation of Kozo-Polyansky's Symbiogenesis: A New Principle of Evolution"
Het JTB 1967 artikel leest helemaal niet baanbrekend.
Thank you Gert for the interesting list.
ReplyDeleteAbout the comment: Evolution shows up in planetary and cosmological context. a bit more can be said. For example, Francis Collins, who is Christian and was the director of NIH believes that the cosmos, galaxies and planets arose from a process of evolution that was guided by God in order to bring about man. What is much more interesting are the claims of cosmologists and physicists who indicate that evolution also took place during the creation of the universe itself. Time and space did not exist first and had to come into being, just like light. A nice book about this is by Thomas Hertog, The Origin of Time from 2023, which he wrote after studying with Stephen Hawking for many years.
You ask many questions that you think evolution books should address. The following questions are indeed interesting and yet they are never asked, except perhaps by astrobiologists. Does a habitable planet require a moon? Is a solar system like ours inevitable? Is a planet with oceans and continents necessary for complex life? Could complex life originate on a planet with only oceans or only continents? I copied just a few that could generate interesting discussions. You would think that these conditions apply to life as we know it and as such they are necessary for the origin of that life.
As you write it: this planetary system itself is part of a universe which itself has a history.
Although Dawkins is not on the list, he is fortunately mentioned a number of times as interesting comparable material.
Thanks Gerdien, Marleen, Klaas for your valuable comments. And thanks for the suggestions for further reading which require serious study from my part. This takes time! I am reading and discovering right now!
ReplyDeleteMarleen, thanks for your comment and especially the book Thomas Hertog, 'The Origin of Time', 2023. I didn't know this title). I have seen amazing remarks in the book description:
ReplyDelete-"the laws of physics are not set in stone but are born and co-evolve as the universe they govern takes shape."
- "a final theory proposing their radical new Darwinian perspective on the origins of our universe."
Gerdien,
ReplyDeleteThe German Andreas Franz Wilhelm Schimper (1883) published in German, wikipedia gives the English title!
The Russian Konstantin Mereschkowsk published in the Russian language (in wikipedia the title of his 1910 publication is given in English and German!). Furthermore, Mereschkowski rejected Darwinian evolution, believing that natural selection could not explain biological novelty.
Boris Mikhailovich Kozo-Polyansky (1883) published in German: "At the time of the publication of Kozo-Polyansky's theory and work on evolution and symbiogenesis, was ridiculed and rejected.";
"was never read in the West" ;
"However, the works of other symbiogeneticists and Kozo-Polyansky were brought back into academic consciousness in 1967 by the work of Lynn Margulis who *independently* proposed a near identical theory to Kozo-Polyansky's." (*my emphasis*)
Conclusion: all theories were incomplete and contain wrong ideas; the evidence was incomplete and they had certainly no DNA evidence supporting their theories. In general, if their theories were known at all, they were rejected.
Compare this situation with Darwin:
- Darwin had his predecessors (Patrick Matthew, Robert Chambers, Wallace, Lamarck, etc)
- ('Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' contained a simple 'Tree of Life')
- Darwin had no fossil evidence to support his theory.
- Darwin had no direct proof of natural selection occurring in nature.
- Darwin had a false theory of heredity (Darwin had a copy of Mendels publication in his library but did not read it)
- Darwin accepted Lamarckism as an additional mechanism
- Darwin did not explain the origin of species
- Darwin had wrong ideas about the age of the earth
If Darwin and Margulis are judged by the same criteria, they either fail both or they contributed to science with original ideas and should be recognized for their contributions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestiges_of_the_Natural_History_of_Creation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Mereschkowski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Kozo-Polyansky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Franz_Wilhelm_Schimper
Duits, niet Engels, was de voornaamste wetenschappelijke taal, ook in de biologie, tot 1940.
ReplyDeleteGerdien, one important difference between Darwin and Margulis (see above) is that Margulis was disrespectful towards colleagues with those she disagreed with. Darwin in his ORIGIN OF SPECIES was never disrespectful towards those he disagreed with (i.e. religious people, 'creationists' and other critics). I only now realize that. But it is important. This is in stark contrast with Richard Dawkins (especially his later writings).
ReplyDeleteMarleen (17 febr.), een interessant boek van Thomas Hertog. Ik moet zeggen: je leest stevige kost. Ik heb geprobeerd e.e.a. te begrijpen, maar dat valt niet mee.
ReplyDeleteGert (18 febr.), de auteur van dit boek beweert inderdaad indrukwekkende dingen. Je o.a. noemt dit:
-"the laws of physics are not set in stone but are born and co-evolve as the universe they govern takes shape."
En paar opmerkingen hierbij: De auteur(s) geven een model (gebaseerd op het holografisch principe) voor het ontstaan van het heelal en voor de oorsprong van de natuurwetten. Volgens mij is dit een circulair argument, omdat het model zelf geschreven is op basis van die natuurwetten en tegelijkertijd probeert die natuurwetten te verklaren.
En verder: de auteur probeert een verklaring te geven van de fine-tuning van het heelal (of anders gezegd van het antropisch principe). En dat gaat niet over de natuurwetten maar over de natuurconstanten.
Een natuurwet geeft een wiskundige beschrijving van een functioneel verband en daarbij passen bepaalde natuurconstanten. Denk aan een eenvoudig voorbeeld, wet van Newton:
F = G.M1.M2/R^2 hierin is G de constante van de zwaartekracht, de rest beschrijft het functionele verband: de kracht tussen twee massa's is evenredig met het product van die twee massa (M1 en M2) en omgekeerd evenredig met de afstand (tussen die twee massa's) in het kwadraat (R^2).
Als ik de beweringen van Thomas Hertog goed begrepen heb, zoekt zijn model een verklaring voor de natuurconstanten en niet voor het functionele verband. Daarom is spreken over een verklaring van de natuurwetten best verwarrend
Ik laat me graag corrigeren door iemand die het boek beter begrepen heeft.
Rolie, Marleen, e.a. Het boek van Thomas Hertog On the Origin of Time bevat eigenlijk een beschrijving van de theorie van Stephen Hawking. Beide heren zijn dus geen amateurs, maar ze werken wel aan de grenzen van kosmologische kennis. En ik weet niet of deze theorie breed geaccepteerd wordt in de kosmologie. In wikipedia staat:
ReplyDelete"that the laws of physics do not precede the Big Bang, but were born with it. The main hypothesis of their work is that physics laws evolve with time, at least during the very first moment of the Universe and are not transcendent and immutable at the scale of the birth of our Universe as supposed by the theories of Newton and Einstein."
Dit is inderdaad nogal revolutionair. Hoe Darwinistische evolutie dan zou moeten werken is mij onduidelijk.
Rolie: is het niet een probleem dat als je bijv. de natuurconstanten verklaard hebt, afgeleid hebt uit iets fundamentelers, (dat zou op zich een hele prestatie zijn), dat je dan het probleem verplaatst hebt naar een dieper /niveau? Want dan is de vraag: hoe is die begin situatie ontstaan, die dus uiteindelijk de oorzaak van een heelal is met precies de eigenschappen heeft van het huidige heelal waarin we nu leven? Zo'n vraag hoe je toch altijd over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hertog
Gert, hopelijk heb ik niet de indruk gegeven dat dit boek en de besproken theorie amateuristisch zijn, verre van dat. Maar ik heb meer van dit soort boeken gelezen en vind de geboden theorieën nogal speculatief (en daarin sta ik beslist niet alleen). En ook die waren geschreven door knappe koppen.
ReplyDeleteJe moet niet vergeten dat al deze theorieën (ook die van Hawking en Hertog) iets proberen te zeggen over de allereerste fase van het heelal en uitspraken daarover zijn niet verifieerbaar d.m.v. waarnemingen.
Wat betreft je vraag over de natuurconstanten: "... een heelal is met precies de eigenschappen heeft van het huidige heelal". Dat is precies wat het model van H&H beoogt: verklaren waarom we in een biofriendly heelal leven. Hun verklaring is o.a. hier te lezen:
https://independentleft.ie/quantum-holography/
Mij overtuigd dit niet.
Rolie en Gert,
ReplyDeleteThomas Hertog schrijft leesbaar, maar voor mij is zeker niet alles te begrijpen. Het leest als een speurtocht. Bijvoorbeeld over hoe Wheeler ons als observers plaatst in het kwantum universum (ik kende het volgende plaatje, maar had nooit begrepen wat er mee bedoeld werd, voor Rolie zal het wel overbekend zijn)
https://media.wired.com/photos/6442b0c8a6c1fece8f4baff7/master/w_1600,c_limit/Eye-U-byQuanta2-copy.jpg
Wheeler thought of a quantum universe
Uit On the Origin of Time, over Wheeler thought
p. 167
A quantum universe constantly puts itself together, piece by piece, out of a haze of possibilities, somewhat like a forest emerging out of the fog on a damp gray morning. Its history is not how we usually think of history, as a sequence of one thing happening after another. Rather it is a marvelous synthesis that includes us and in which what now unfolds retroactively shapes what was back then. This top-down element gives observers, in the quantum sense, a subtle creative role in cosmic affairs. It imbues cosmology with a delicate subjective touch. We, in our observership, are quite literally involved in the making of cosmic history.
Dit schrijft hij nadat hij met Hawking overeengekomen is dat wij ons niet buiten het universum moeten plaatsen, alsof met een ‘God’s eye’, maar erin, als deelnemers.
Dat is toch erg mooi geschreven en is nu ook voor mij duidelijk.
Waar het Darwinistische in zit begrijp ik ook niet helemaal (er is geen sprake van fitness), maar dat alle natuurwetten, tijd, ruimte en constanten na de oerknal ontstaan zijn is op zich al een interessant gegeven. Die lagen aan het begin niet vast.
De link die Rolie meestuurt is heel interessant, maar ook moeilijk te begrijpen. Dat is eigenlijk de theorie waar het boek mee eindigt. Voorafgaand zijn er de discussies met Hawking. Het boek is heel goed geschreven en erg de moeite waard om te lezen.