Product Description

In this strikingly original book, a world-renowned cosmologist and an innovative writer of the history and philosophy of science uncover an astonishing truth: Humans actually are central to the universe. What does this mean for our culture and our personal lives? The answer is revolutionary: a science-based cosmology that allows us to understand the universe as a whole and our extraordinary place in it.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #358293 in Books
• Published on: 2007-08-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 400 pages

From Publishers Weekly
If greeting card poet Susan Polis Schultz wrote about physics and the universe, this is the book she would produce. Filled with simplistic observations ("In their hearts most people are still living in an imagined universe where... we humans have no special place and often feel insignificant") as well as romantic cheerleading ("We need to overflow with gratitude that our universe... is filled with light and possibilities"), it offers cosmology disguised as a self-help guide to the universe. The authors—Primack is a physicist at UC–Santa Cruz, and Abrams is a philosopher of science—contend that Newton's picture of the universe as shapeless and endless left humans feeling cosmically homeless, but in response they articulate a Peter Pan physics in which humans are intimately related to the universe because we are made of stardust, i.e., we're an integral part of the cosmos. Our place in the universe is extraordinary, they claim, because the universe will never be in this moment of time again, and we have a responsibility to take care of the Earth since there is still time to solve some of our cosmic problems. Attempting to weave science and spirituality into one cosmic fabric, the authors satisfy the reader in neither realm. B&w illus. (Apr.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Scientific American
In this thoughtful and original book, a husband-and-wife team presents a science-based cosmology aimed at allowing us to understand the universe as a whole and our place in it. "Most of us have grown up thinking that there is no basis for our feeling central or even important to the cosmos," they write. "But with the new evidence it turns out that this perspective is nothing but a prejudice. There is no geographic center to an expand-ing universe, but we are cent-ral in several unexpected ways that derive directly from physics and cosmology." Primack is professor of cosmology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an originator of the theory of cold dark matter; Abrams is a lawyer and a writer.

Editors of Scientific American

Review
A beautiful balance of fact and theory . . . This terrific book will Appeal to people . . . interested in what's 'out there.' -- Library Journal, starred review

There are illuminating views to be found here of how the universe behaves and what it consists of. -- Kirkus Reviews

[The authors] offer marvelous ways to visualize Earth . . . This is one of those truly creative books that crosses disciplines... -- Los Angeles Times Book Review

discuss[es] how our understanding of the Universe affects how we perceive our role in it . . . admirable. -- Nature

Customer Reviews

An excellent, much needed book, but with a proviso
When I first came to these reviews, the only one was entitled "Physics Fluff", gave the book one star, and panned it based on "I flipped through this book at a bookstore and then read the Publisher's Weekly review." Having just heard Primack and Abrams speak on the book at a Stanford Physics Department Colloquium and been very impressed, I worried that people might miss the important messages they convey because of such negative comments based on a cursory review of the materials. While I am only a few chapters into the book and would normally wait to write a review (though I did hear the authors' 90 minute talk which summarizes their work), I feel it necessary to immediately counter an impression based on an even less thorough reading.

Primack has dared to explore territory where few scientists venture. (Abrams is an attorney, writer and poet, so we scientists expect her to be a bit strange - and probably wrong.) Primack and Abrams have written a book that weaves a tale of science, myth, and ethics. Mixing soft subjects with the hard sciences goes against religious doctrine - scientific religious doctrine, that is. And, as with most religions, this dogmatic approach is usually invisible to its adherents. Even though the authors are careful to distinguish the hard science from the softer areas, this is a dangerous mixture to introduce into a scientific culture.

For example, at the Physics Department Colloquium I attended, this problem was manifested during the Q&A period following the talk. People asked only about neutrinos, cosmic expansion, how we can see objects 40 billion light years away when the Universe is only 15 billion years old, etc. Primack the physicist answered all these questions expertly, while Abrams the poet stood largely mute and ignored although she had had equal time during the talk and had hit on a number of critical points - but all on the "soft" side. I racked my brain trying to come up with a question that would draw attention to the truths she had voiced and that would be appropriate in this temple of science, but could not. Instead, when I was recognized, I stated that conundrum and lamented the fact that we limit ourselves in this manner. That at least brought some recognition to Abrams' contribution and the problem we face.

In this book, there is something much deeper underlying all the wonderful cosmological physics that is beautifully explained. We live at a critical time and the fate of the earth hangs in the balance as our technological progress far outstrips our social and moral development. While to my mind, this is a scientifically established fact (e.g., see http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/breakthrough.html), other scientists will disagree.

This is not the place to argue whether or not the larger worldview espoused by Primack and Abrams, and to which I subscribe, is correct. Rather, I encourage you to read their excellent book, with one proviso. If it makes you mad to see science discussed outside of a narrow box of numbers and equations, as I suspect was the case for the reviewer mentioned above, do not read this book. There is enough anger in the world already.

But if you truly believe there is one Universe as opposed to art and science each inhabiting separate worlds (even though it is extremely difficult for our intellects to see their connection), then I heartily recommend this book. If you are scientifically trained, you may still, as I did, occasionally get a queasy feeling and want to cry out "Hey wait! How can they say that?" But, if you keep an open mind, more often than not, the second part of that interjection will be answered in a way that opens new vistas. Even in the few chapters I have read thus far, I have been well rewarded with new ideas and viewpoints.

P.S. While the audience at the Colloquium asked only hard science questions and largely ignored Abrams during the Q&A, the large stack of books that the Stanford Bookstore had on sale afterward sold very well. Also, many people came up and asked her questions after the formal Q&A was completed. So there is more hope than that story might first indicate.

P.P.S. I have since finished the book and stand by my earlier review, above. No changes were needed. The only thing I would add is that I learned some very interesting physics from the book. For example, it presents a very simple and understandable explanation for why physicists now believe that the majority of matter in the universe is "dark matter."

Good in parts, but reaches beyond authors' expertise
This book is really several books, two of which are quite good, and the third of which has major limitations. Part One of the book summarizes some traditional myths about the nature of the universe from different Western cultures. Part Two of the book is an informed, well-written summary of current scientific theories of the makeup, shape, size, and origin of the universe. Part Three tries to argue that these theories can give greater meaning to human life.

Parts One and Two are quite good. I believe most readers will gain a great deal of knowledge both about various cultures' myths about the universe, and modern scientific theories of the universe. I particularly liked the discussion in Part Two about how what is scientifically true depends upon the scale one is considering, and how this helps explain why many modern theories of physics are quite counter-intuitive: human intuition is made to deal with the human scale, and not the scales of quarks or galactic super-clusters.

Part Three is strained. Primack and Abrams want to somehow argue that modern theories of cosmology somehow give greater meaning and direction to human lives. I don't think they make a good case for this argument. They argue that modern cosmology shows that we are "central" to the universe, which is supposed to give us more of a sense of meaning. However, they use "central" in such a vague way that this isn't very convincing. We are told that we are "central" because we are made of rare elements and because we live in a rare bubble of space-time. So, being unusual is here defined as being "central". We also are told that we are central because we are at the middle of all sizes, in that the ratio of human sized to the minimum Planck length is of similar order of magnitude to the ratio of the size of our universe to human size. So here we are central because we are at a geometric midpoint. We are also told we are central because we are at the midpoint in the life of our planet, and the midpoint of the portion of the life of the universe in which many galaxies are visible. So here, centrality is an arithmetic midpoint in time, in which the endpoints are somewhat arbitrarily chosen. (Why wouldn't we consider the life of the universe after dark energy has moved most galaxies beyond what we can see?) We are also central because we are at the center of the universe visible to us, which also would be true at all other points in our universe. So, centrality is used in so many different senses that I think the term loses any meaning. Finally, why should we care if we are central in any of these senses of that term? I don't see why being rare, or at a geometric midpoint in size, or arithmetic midpoint in time, gives some great inherent meaning to human life.

Also in Part Three, Primack and Abrams seems to want to make an argument that the nature of the universe somehow gives a guide to what we should be trying to do with human society. So, because the universe initially inflated, and then slowed down to a more moderate expansion, this somehow is supposed to provide support for the notion that economic growth needs to slow down to avoid overusing resources. Whatever the case to be made for humans to do a better job of conserving scarce resources that are inadequately protected by the private market, such as ecosystems or the global climate - and I certainly agree we need to do a better job - I don't think that this policy issue has anything to do with cosmological theories. They also seem to imply that once we recognize the extremely long past and future life of the universe, that this will somehow point to the need for human society to take a longer-term perspective. Again, I agree that our society could benefit from a longer term perspective, but I doubt whether the case for our society taking a longer-term perspective depends upon the universe being 14 billion years old, with at least that long to go.

So, in the end, this book overreaches. When it sticks to what the authors know something about, which is different theories of the universe, it is quite good. When it tries to use this knowledge to help guide current human actions, the book is disappointing.

unusual approach to cosmology
This book attempts to place current advances in cosmology into a modern mythology that would restore the central importance to human beings in the scientific view of the world. Many readers will find this a little flakey, particularly where the argument is thin (Kabbala). But I found it thought provoking and very well written. Even if you are a hard core science buff you might find this worth your time because the author studied with Marcea Eliade at Chicago. Very original and very thoughtful in my opinion.There is nothing like it on the market that I know of worth reading. I think it may find a solid readership in time.

In addition, this book benefits from having been written for a humanities course given at Santa Cruz. This may be the best introduction to modern cosmology in that it takes the time to clarify fundamental points about dark energy and matter and aspects of inflation that are often bungled in better known and more sophisticated texts. It is clear that the authors have spent a lot of time answering questions from confused students. The care is appreciated; I wish more of these texts were so well edited. An excellent place to start. It comes with a strong recommendation from Paul Davies whose recent Cosmic Jackpot is also excellent.