Looking for the dark matter of hidden meaning
Keith S. Taber
According to the UK Astronomer Royal,
"Our everyday world, plainly moulded by subatomic forces, also owes its existence to our universe's well tuned expansion rate, the processes of galaxy formation, the forging of carbon and oxygen in ancient stars, and so forth. A few basic physical laws set the 'rules'; our emergence from a simple Big Bang was sensitive to six 'cosmic numbers'. Had these number not been 'well tuned', the gradual unfolding of layer upon layer of complexity would have been quenched. Are there an infinity of other universes that are 'badly tuned', and therefore sterile? Is our entire universe an 'oasis' in a multiverse? Or should we seek other reasons for the providential values of our six numbers?"
Martin Rees
Martin Rees: Just Six Numbers
There are a small number of key physical constants that had they been slightly different would have led to our Universe developing very differently.
Figures of speech
Perhaps appropriately for a book that is about 'just six numbers' I wish to examine some of the figurative (see what I did there?) language used by an author in seeking to explain some abstract scientific ideas for a popular readership.
I have written quite a lot in this blog about the kinds of metaphorical and other figurative language used by teachers and other science communicators when trying to explain science, and here I want, in particular, to make a point about context: about the context in which such language is used,
"A technique that chemistry teachers share with teachers of other disciplines, as well as other communicators (such as journalists, but, indeed, people in general) is to draw comparisons with (what are assumed) familiar ideas, experiences and phenomena, simply by using language. This can be in the form of metaphors, similes and analogies…and these can sometimes be anthropomorphic in nature – that is, to put something (such as the 'behaviour' of a molecule) in terms of human feelings, thoughts and experiences.
Although, later, I make a distinction between metaphors, similes, and analogies – in practice, it is not always straightforward to distinguish between them. For example, our judgement about which category some comparison belongs in may change depending upon whether we consider a specific statement by itself, or examine it in the wider context in which it occurs. That is, material of relevance that is not explicit in the statement may be being assumed by the communicator as it has been previously referenced or alluded to, as part of the wider text or dialogue."
Taber, 2024
In a science classroom, that context might include earlier topics presented in the curriculum; some reading that was set ('homework') as preparation for class; what the teacher said last lesson; or something learners have just been asked to try out or to observe. In a text, such as an extract from a popular science book (as in the example above from 'Just Six Numbers'), the context that is provided is the rest of the text, and especially the part of the text preceding that extract – as this is the part an author can reasonable claim you 'should' have already read (though readers are of course free to engage with a book as they wish).
That is, 'should' does not here imply an imperative, but rather the author's reasonable defence that if you choose to read the text out of order, or just dip in, then the author cannot be considered to be responsible for anything you may have missed that is needed to make good sense of what is presented later in the book. Any teacher who has pointed out to a student claiming not to follow in class that they 'might have understood better if they had not missed the previous lesson' can appreciate this logic.
Interrogating the text
So, bearing in mind I have not reproduced the whole of Prof. Rees's book, but just an extract out of context, I would like readers to consider the extract at the start of this posting, and to ask themselves:
- what does this mean?
- how do I know what it means?
- what would it be reasonable to expect a 'typical' general reader (one with an interest in the topic, but not being a science specialist) to make of the extract?
- what terms or phrases in this extract can be considered to be used figuratively here (that is to not here strictly mean what those words, strictly, mean?)
I noticed this extract was rich in figurative language, such as metaphors with teir 'hidden' meanings. And then I re-read it, and further noticed I had actually read-through some of the metaphors without initially noticing them – so it was actually even richer in such language than I had first realised. Often we do not notice the metaphors and similes used in texts, but rather simply automatically make sense of them as part of the text. 1 Usually we read a text for meaning (semantics) rather than choice of vocabulary, and we 'automatically' (preconsciously) analyse the text in terms of pragmatics – that is what a term is likely to mean in this specific context:
- I am going to the bank to cash this cheque
- I am going to the bank to dangle my feet in the river
- I am going to the bank to see if we have any AB negative
Language is fluid (so to speak)
The extract from Rees's book presents a range of terms which need to be interpreted to identify what they mean within this particular context. Now I do not intend this as a criticism: I think two relevant general principles here are that:
- It is the nature of natural language (e.g., here English – 'other natural languages are available') to be somewhat fluid (so to speak), with many words and phrases being open to somewhat flexible use across a range of meanings: so it is generally the case that words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc., take their specific meanings within a text from the wider textual context.
And indeed, in everyday situations, also the broader shared context. If someone is shouting out 'Fire!' this may mean something quite different in the context of a quiet accounts department in a tall office block than in the context of a Fascist's state's execution of a political prisoner – or indeed at an Arthur Brown concert.
When musician Arthur Brown performed his song 'Fire', and sang loudly 'Fire!', he did not intend his audience to leave the venue. (Though given his stage headgear, which sometimes malfunctioned, a careful risk assessment might have suggested that course of action.)
- It is in the nature of unfamiliar abstract science concepts that they will not make good sense to learners (/readers/listeners) who cannot relate them to something already familiar. So science teaching (and science communication more generally) is often about making the unfamiliar familiar by showing how this unfamiliar idea is a bit like something you already understand and are comfortable with. This unfamiliar thing is not the same as that familiar thing (and differences will need to be addressed), but there is a similarity which can be used as a starting point for making the unfamiliar familiar.2
Using figurative language to explain science is therefore not a bad thing – although there can be poor examples which do not help or only confuse as well as very productive examples that support learning (and this may be relative to individuals, as each learner brings their unique set of 'interpretive resources' to make sense of learning). And indeed, sometimes, it may be a necessary teaching tactic if the gist of an abstract idea is to be effectively communicated. My discussion of examples in this blog then is certainly not intended to mock or deter this technique, but rather to highlight something of the complexity of using figures of speech in explaining science.
Let's start at the end…
The extract I present above is from the end of the book, as Prof. Rees concludes by summing up what he has been setting out to readers. This is then (most of) the very final paragraph in the text, so it is quite reasonable for Rees to assume that a reader getting to this point will have the context of having (in effect) read the book.
If you have not read the book, then perhaps that extract above may be too dense with ideas and figures of speech for you to fully appreciate it. But that depends: if you are a cosmologist or astronomer or physics teacher, then it is quite likely that you are sufficiently familiar with the ideas being communicated (and indeed some of the metaphorical language being used) to find the extract unproblematic. As always, each person brings their own unique set of interpretive resources to make sense of a text.
But, as an example, I am going to deconstruct the text to highlight some of the 'interpretation' involved in understanding it. Now, there are references made in the extract to scientific ideas which had been discussed earlier in the book, such as that of a multiverse, the Big Bang, and the expansion of the Universe. But my focus is on the non-technical figurative terms, or at least those that are likely seem non-technical to the general reader. 3
Tuning up the Universe
The terms well tuned (and in the marked form, 'well tuned') and 'badly tuned' are applied to the Universe. This notion has been well developed earlier in the preceding text. Tuning is originally a term used in relation to musical instruments that is figuratively used in other contexts. One might tighten the tension in a guitar string so it plays at the right frequency to give the required musical note.
Engines are also said to be tuned. Presumably this was originally used metaphorically, and because the process was done 'by ear' – by listening to the engine 'note'. Language develops over time so that engine tuning has become an accepted term and is no longer metaphorical. However, clearly there is something of a stretch (so to speak) to extend the notion of tuning to a universe. 4
Being well tuned (or badly tuned) is anthropomorphic or teleological. That is, there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about a universe having particular qualities. But for a universe to have been suitable for us to appear it needs certain properties – a well tuned universe is one that has particular qualities that are seen (by someone) as desirable. Being well tuned might then imply developing in accord with some sense of purpose. (Again these ideas had been addressed earlier in the text by Rees for anyone reading the whole book.) 5
Moulding and forging
To mould means to shape something, perhaps (as with clay) by manipulation or (as with cooling molten metal) by pouring in a pre-shaped mould. The term is widely used metaphorically, and here the term is extended to the effects of subatomic forces.
Forging is a term relating to metal working, where a blacksmith (for example) uses a forge as a hot environment to shape (and sometimes harden and temper) metals. The forge is (in human terms) very hot – although the forging is itself achieved by hammering the metal once it is hot enough to be sufficiently malleable. The term is again commonly used metaphorically – perhaps a famous example was a much quoted speech by UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson who referred to how his government was
"…re-stating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution…. Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution…"
The processes by which heavier atomic nuclei (i.e., anything heavier than helium nuclei in this context) are produced are nuclear process that only occur under what we would consider extreme conditions such as in the cores of suns (often considered 'nuclear furnaces') or during supernovae explosions or other events that irradiate material in space with highly energetic radiation. There is no forging as such, but the conditions may be seen as akin to those in a forge – e.g., unusually hot. If using 'forging' metaphorically to refer to the nucleosynthesis of elements, it is important to note that in the scientific context an important aspect of the original meaning does not transfer across: the blacksmith uses his forge to deliberately produce something, perhaps horseshoes, whereas there is no deliberate purpose or design to the nuclear changes going on in stars. 6
Unfolding the layers
The "gradual unfolding of layer upon layer of complexity" offers something of a mixed metaphor. We might argue that by definition it is only possible to unfold something that has previously been folded. But metaphorically we might see the opening of a flower, with its sepals and petals and pistil and stamens as being like a kind of unfolding – we can imagine these structures have been neatly folded away, though of course that never happened.
We might also say, metaphorically, that a story unfolds as new themes and characters and episodes are introduced (though here there is a sense that the author who planned the narrative has likely story-boarded this level of detail, and then (metaphorically) folded it away in the structure of the narrative.
The (metaphorical) unfolding referred to by Rees seems to be akin to that of a flower, in that as the Universe ages new structures appear through a developmental process just as the new organs appear on a plant when the flower develops. (Incidentally, astronomers tend to refer to the 'evolution' of the Universe although clearly there is no evolution in any sense parallel to that seen in organisms – through variation and natural selection. A better analogy would seem to be with the development of an individual living thing that passes through different stages of life.)
The layers of complexity are surely metaphorical, as it is only human cognition which finds it convenient to see them as layers. We can see the world in terms of a series of strata of increasing complexity with new phenomena emerging at the different 'levels': so perhaps sociology from psychology, which emerges from biology, chemistry, and ultimately physics.
We can consider structure in the Universe at 'levels' such as galactic clusters, galaxies, stellar clusters, solar systems…nuclei, quarks, etc. But in the Universe these do not occupy actual levels, rather this is an abstraction we impose to help analyse the complexity (we 'dig down' to the 'level' of molecules or nuclei or quarks or whatever). This is probably obvious to most readers as we are so used to imposing metaphorical layers on conceptual systems (but it might mystify a perfectly normal modern human who had not received a formal education 7).
Quenching
Quenching takes us back to the forge. I strongly remember metal work at school when I was eleven, and having to heat a piece of metal till it glowed a particular colour before plunging it into cold water to 'quench' it: to cool it rapidly. Having hardened the metal it was next 'tempered' by heating again before being thrust into sand to cool less rapidly. While I have forgotten much I did at that age at school, the sheer fear of using lathes, massive drills and blowtorches provided an emotional quality that seems to have 'forged' those memories. (But I do still have the screwdriver I made.)
One can also use water to quench a fire or one's thirst – so quenching is a process of removing. In Rees' text the metaphorical layers of complexity would not have occurred, and so could not have been metaphorically unfolded if the 'six numbers' had had very different values. Some minor shift in one or more of those numbers may have changed the timescale of universal development, so that some of the processes and structures in our Universe would not have had time to develop, or to have developed as much.
In either case it is only a potential which is 'quenched' as nothing that comes into being is removed, and there is no active quenching agent – it is more a (metaphorical) lack of formation of the combustible material than the action of some water to put out a fire.
Does this make for a poor metaphor? This is quite difficult to judge as words have aesthetic and other qualities (such as salience) as well as literal meanings, and a metaphor which seems less apt semantically may still have some impact on a learner/reader/listener and lead to engagement with the ideas being communicated. (And this will vary between individuals of course.) So the crux of the question of whether 'quench' is a good choice here is an empirical one: if it helps communicate Rees's intended meaning to (most of) his readers then it is effective: if instead it mainly mystifies or confuses or misleads them, then not so.
A desert of sterile universes?
If there are other universes which developed with different values of the key cosmic constants (constant, in any particular universe, that is) then in many of those universes there would be no galaxies and stars. And in some that did lead to galaxies and stars there would be no opportunities for life to evolve (if stars burned out rapidly, for example). And in some that gave opportunities for some kind of simple life, there would not be sufficient scope for the evolution of sentient beings capable of asking questions about other universes.
If sterile means unable to reproduce, then this is a metaphor which could be applied to any universe. 8 Sterile can also mean free from organisms (usually especially microorganisms) which could therefore seem as a non-figurative term when applied to some imaginable universes (which might include stars systems etc., but that are) incapable of supporting life.
If there is a multiverse – that is, if our Universe is one of many coexisting but completely non-communicating universes – where the different universes have widely different values of these cosmological constants, then likely most of them will not have developed with the complexity of ours, and so most would not support the evolution of life. Thus if we see the multiverse as a desert, then, metaphorically, a universe like ours would be an oasis – a small location where life can survive in the desert.
The metaphor requires us to step out of our Universe to take a view of the multiverse, and imagine a traveller moving across the desert and entering the oasis; when the 'oasis' is actually a self-contained world, not even hermetically sealed off (so to speak) from any other such worlds as it has no boundary with them, and there is no means of seeing out beyond the oasis. No traveller could move from one universe to another (so there would be no opportunity to look back in anger if they found the grass was not actually greener).
Despite this, my own feeling is this metaphor does communicate a meaning well, and it reminds me of a long-established metaphor where galaxies are seen as their own island universes in the ocean of space. 8 So again, I do not think we can judge the effectiveness of metaphor simply in terms of the technical aptness of that metaphor, but this does remind us that in interpreting a metaphor the reader or listener is selecting some, but not all, of the associations available for the term (and so of course may select different associations to those the author or speaker had in mind).
Coda: Texts may have their own dark matter
What this analysis is intended to do, is not to critique the specific figures of speech used here (which can only sensibly be evaluated by questioning a representative sample of readers who had finished the book to see how they made sense of the text), but rather to highlight just how many layers of complexity may be enfolded (so to speak) in forging even a short text, and so just how much interpretive work a reader needs to do in making sense of a text.
We think of scientific articles as being as explicit and precise as possible, and so rich in formal technical language; and this is appropriate as the intended readership can be expected to have mastered the relevant concepts and technical vocabulary necessary to make sense of such a text. But in explaining science to a non-expert audience (in teaching; in writing a popular science book) one has to mould an account to resonate with the audience members' available funds of interpretive resources. These resources may be rich and varied, but will be technically more limited.
So such texts can only be populated with the lower density of technical ideas and terminology that can either be assumed as common to the audience, or gradually introduced in the text. Technical terms therefore are widely interspersed among the 'space' of the text, with the meaning being held together by the use of figurative language such as metaphors with their 'hidden' (implicit) meanings. The work of making sense relies on a good understanding of the technical terms used, and a suitable interpretation of the supporting 'dark matter' of figures of speech.
Usually, most of this interpretive work is automatic – occurring outside the 'spotlight' of conscious awareness – but the reader still has to process the text to try and mould it into a reading that makes sense to them. A text needs to be well-tuned for its readers, or else that sense-making will be quenched, making the metaphors sterile. (So to speak.) Or worse? Perhaps being fertile grounds for unintended meanings to germinate.
This 'tuning' is always a challenge given that different readers will have different levels of background knowledge and other interpretive resources, and so may resonate across a wide range of different natural frequencies, so to speak. A well judged (tuned) book will at least largely resonate with most of its readers regarding most of the metaphors used. Then they will likely not even notice these figures of speech, as interpretation will be automatic and the text will simply, subjectively, make sense. Somewhat like the dark matter thought to make up much of the mass of the Universe, these figures of speech hold the text together semantically without being conspicuous. Of course, sometimes the wrong feature of the metaphor may be adopted, so the reader's meaning may not perfectly match what the author intended.
There may be outliers, including perhaps some readers not well prepared to tackle the text (lacking essential background knowledge or reading level perhaps) who may find themselves in a metaphorical semantic dessert with just the odd oasis that seems fertile with meaning. (So to speak.) An author, unlike a teacher, does not have the opportunity to constantly check on how they are being understood and make adjustments, so this is an unavoidable feature of texts of this kind.
All an author can do is choose their metaphors carefully, bearing in mind their expected readership; and offer context by incrementally forging a kind of customised metaphorical lexicon across the text. 9 As Rees does in his book.
If you are intrigued by the extract discussed, and wish to know more, the full textual context (Rees, 1999) is available!
Sources cited:
- Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its cultural and social foundations. Harvard University Press.
- Rees, Martin (1999) Just Six Numbers. The deep forces that shape the Universe. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. London.
- Taber, Keith S. (2024) Chemical Pedagogy: Instructional Approaches and Teaching Techniques in Chemistry. London, Royal Society of Chemistry. (Download sample chapter)
Notes:
1 By similes I mean those figures of speech which are marked by the author, for examples using inverted commas (speech marks) as in 'well tuned' as in "…not been 'well tuned', the gradual…", as well as metaphors such as well tuned in "our universe's well tuned expansion rate". Similes may also be marked by using like, as, in a sense, so to speak, etc.
Read about examples of science similes
Many examples of science similes are listed in 'Creative Comparisons: Making Science Familiar through Language. An illustrative catalogue of figurative comparisons and analogies for science concepts'. Free Download.
We usually 'read through' such figures of speech, but as I have become rather obsessed with the use of figurative language in science I tend to notice many of them, often reading a text both for the scientific meaning and also to see the way the author is explaining the science.
2 A key part of (science) teaching is making the unfamiliar familiar.
Read about making the unfamiliar familiar
3 I make this distinction because sometimes terms which are originally used metaphorically, such as the 'death' of a star, come to be habitually used; and so in effect become technical terms within a scientific field, while still appearing to be metaphorical to a non-expert in that field. They become phantom metaphors (something a non-expert will assume is a figure of speech, although it is being used as if a technical term).
4 Traditionally the Universe referred to everything there is, but (following Rees in his text) we can both consider other potential universes that could perhaps have existed instead of ours, and also that there may be totally separate non-communicating alternatives beyond what we can observer as our Universe which potentially have quite different natural laws. In this usage 'our' Universe may be one element in a 'multiverse'.
5 Anthropomorphism is when an inanimate object or non-sentient organism is spoken of as though it has human experience, desires and so forth. The atom needs another electron. The virus tries to hide in the tissue.
Read examples of anthropomorphism in science
Many examples of anthropomorphism are listed in 'Creative comparisons: Making science familiar through language. An illustrative catalogue of figurative comparisons and analogies for science concepts'. Free Download.
Teleology is about having a purpose or goal. Much of the functioning of living things seems purposeful (we can suggestion functions to the heart or to the gene as though they are working towards some outcomes, rather than having evolved to be like they are by natural selection). The idea of a well tuned universe could imply some ultimate goal (e.g., to be suitable for life to evolve) which is only achieved when the cosmic numbers Rees discusses have the 'right' values.
Read about teleology in science
Read examples of teleological (pseudo)explanations for scientific phenomena
Read about types of pseudo-explanations
Examples of teleological statements are included in a document listing a wide range of examples of science analogies, similes, metaphors and the like, drawn from diverse sources, which can be downloaded using this link: 'Creative Comparisons: Making Science Familiar through Language. An illustrative catalogue of figurative comparisons and analogies for science concepts.'
6 I am not here excluding the possibility that there may be a creator who has deliberately set up the system, but science is only concerned with natural mechanisms, not ultimate causes. The star has no purpose or intention – it makes heavier elements simply because that is what happens to that material under those conditions.
7 Some of the habits of mind we take for granted are acquired through the culture. For example, people with a formal academic education tend to readily appreciate the form of syllogism and how it is used. But this is something we learn from culture:
- fluency in using syllogism depends upon experience that is acquired through education;
- people in some traditional cultures have not received the formal education that introduces, and offers experience of thinking with, syllogisms;
- therefore people from such cultures will not tend to show fluency in using syllogism.
At least this was what the Russian psychologist Alexander Luria (1976) found when he did field work among traditional cultures just being introduced (indoctrinated?) into the collectivism of the Soviet Union.
8 Of course, as our Universe is by definition all we can directly know, it could only be speculation about whether a universe could in a sense reproduce. Such speculations exist. For example an expanding universe may slow, and contract, till eventually passing through a 'big crunch' back into a singularity – which some think could rebound into a new 'big bang', perhaps with a resetting of the laws and constants of nature. There is also speculation about the singularities at the 'heart' of black holes.
At one time the galaxy (that is, the milky way, our galaxy) was seen as synonymous with the Universe. The discovery that there was other galaxies at vast distances form our own led to seeing them as other universes: each galaxy an 'island' in the immensity of intergalactic space. Now it is commonly suggested there may be other universes (many with their own vast numbers of distinct galaxies) beside our own.
9 In teaching it is usually better to use simile so that the figurative nature of terms is marked (a 'well tuned' universe), unlike in a metaphor (a well tuned universe). One common textual feature is for a term to be introduced as a simile, perhaps by putting it in square quotes, or making it clear it is only 'like' the thing being discussed; but then moving to use the term metaphorically.
In one example I read of a part of a plant being described as like a boat, but then a few paragraphs later this was referred to as the boat without being marked as a simile. A reader has to recognise the term boat is still being used figuratively. This kind of metaphorical creep (or metaphorical encroachment perhaps?) could be problematic if a reader forgets a simile was being used, or only starts reading after if has been introduced and marked as being a comparison.
I came across this blog while looking for something quite different. Flattered by your essentially fair analysis of my Science in Action interviews. I'll respond to one part, which will throw further light on my approach generally: the kitchen blender. I try where possible to go beyond the visual to give a more visceral feeling of the subject matter. The point of the kitchen blender is twofold: 1) the violence and energy of the inflow; 2) that the motion of the inflow is a spiral or vortex. "Kitchen blender" achieves those with two words (economy is also important on radio). That the accreted material is unstructured, like food waste, is a bonus, but not a judgement.
I hope you'll see that approach colours the rest of the interviews too.
Roland
That is really interesting. I know when I have used analogies in writing material for teachers I have tried to think through the ideas clearly (much easier in writing which can be drawn out and revised over time, than in the immediacy of speech). I have been collating thousands of examples of similes, metaphors and analogies I come across in science communication (books, article, talks, interviews etc.) and some seem very apt and some quite ingenious, but I am less convinced of the value of some examples. But the reader/listener may miss the author's intentions (or import their own unintended associations) and does not know how much thought has been put into them. It is really god to get some direct insight! Keep up the good work on Science in Action (which seems perpetual, whereas BBC Inside Science has a rota of presenters to share the load!)
This is such a thoughtful and nuanced reflection on language in science communication. I love how you highlight the subtle layers of meaning that metaphors and analogies bring — and how easily readers absorb them without consciously noticing. Your discussion of context feels especially insightful; it’s a powerful reminder that meaning in scientific texts isn’t fixed but co-created through prior knowledge, framing, and reader interpretation. It’s fascinating to see how deeply linguistic choices shape understanding in popular science writing.