The View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos

When I was in my early teens, I had sleepless nights because of a TV documentary about the millions of "invisible" organisms which live in our hair, on our skin, and within our bodies, quite unbeknown to us. I lay awake not because I was frightened, but excited. Magnified tremendously, this broadcast showed them crawling around like dinosaurs, complete with scaly flanks and barbed tentacles. Like most boys of my generation, I was fascinated by the prospect of discovering alien life, yet here was something equally intriguing - and it was real! And right under my nose. Well, under my fingernails when I scratched myself. What if those organisms, in turn, had similar parasites? And what if they, in turn, did? Scaled in the other direction, what if we humans were blind to the fact that we existed on some giant creature's epidermis? Which, in turn . . . well, you get the picture. These ideas lurked and never really congealed into something solid until, yesterday, I read Primack and Abram's masterful book. "The View from the Center of the Universe" attempts nothing less than a plain English explanation of our place in the cosmos, fusing Primack's `hard science' astronomy with Abram's metaphorising to create a compelling Turquoise cosmology: something that builds upon purple's creation myths, red's desire for centrality, blue's insistence on truth, orange's quantification & testability and green's yearning for wholeness. What impressed me most about this book were the way the authors addressed `simple' questions like, "What is a human?" Their answer? "I can trace my lineage back 14 billion years through generations of stars. My atoms were created in stars, blown out in stellar winds or massive explosions, and soared for millions of years through space to become part of a newly forming solar system - my solar system. And back before those creator stars, there was a time when the particles that at this very moment make up my body and brain were mixing in an amorphous cloud of dark matter and quarks. Intimately woven into me are billions of bits of information that had to be encoded and tested and preserved to create me. Billions of years of cosmic evolution have produced me" (p. 281 italics in original) It's hard to know to summarise a book I found unputdownable; almost every second page is dog-eared and underlined. Primack and Abrams speak through vivid images, stories and metaphors. Just one of these is the Cosmic Uborubos - picture a circular snake eating its own tail. From tail to fangs are the the 60 orders of magnitude between the smallest subatomic particles and the largest superclusters of galaxies. As humans, we are roughly halfway around and our sensory apparatus is tuned to pick up just a narrow sliver (from a millimetre or so, up to the size of large mountains). This range of 6 or so orders of magnitude are the realm which we consider `reality', where `common sense' works and physical intuition is reliable. The remaining 54 orders of mag

This is a wonderful book. I am not going to reveiw it here. I think every human now on Earth should read this book. I would like to send copies to Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad. It is not a diatribe against religion but rather a scientific romance with ourselves and the story of our incredible journey through the vastness of time and space. When we hear someone say that God created the universe what are they actually saying? Saying that God created the universe tells me nothing. How we got here through aeons of time and the immensity of space is quite a story. A story that we should all know. From the book: "Cosmology is a branch of Astronomy and astrophysics that studies the origin and nature of the universe, and it is in the midst of a scientific revolution that is establishing its lasting foundations. What is emerging is humanity's first picture of the universe as a whole that might actually be true. There have been countless myths of the origin of the universe, but this is the first one that no storyteller made up--we are all witnesses on the edges of our seats." The authors do argue that we are part of a kind of cosmic lottery with life emerging by chance. They remind us that we have hit the jackpot really and are in some sense fundamental to the meaning of the universe. It is up to us to give it meaning. I do not fully agree with the random jackpot explanation. Paul Davies the rather emininent cosmologist from Arizona State university also posits the idea of a cosmic jackpot but he adds a thought that I think is important to make. Human life, as such, may not have been 'planned' but the life principle itself was etched within the physical laws of the universe. Perhaps this explains why the universe is so vast and the time scales for human evolution are so great. The appearance of life is so unlikely that it needs vast time scales and vast spaces through which to roll the dice. Life is achingly rare and precious. One thing is clear...we are all children of the Big Bang. Time to end all the religous angst and hatred. Science tells the true story of who we are and where we came from. It is time to enfold our ancient mythologies into the emerging story of mankind. Ultimately science cannot answer the question of why the universe was created. It can answer the question of how it was created for that is the purview of science. Not that scientists have not taken a stab at the why. Paul Davies has recently posited the notion that the universe is a kind of random jackpot with the life principle etched into the laws of physics. So science takes its best shot and tells us that we are here by random chance. That is not to say that Random chance is the only and overarching explanation but that it is simply an aspect of a much greater mystery. Random chance may just be part of the answer.

I found The View from the Center of the Universe to be ambitious, exciting and hugely creative. No doubt it will encounter much belittlement from folks like the person who reviewed for Kirkus, because it presents a cosmic view that is deeply challenging. Its lack of cynicism makes it an easy target, but don't be fooled ... these authors are making a very serious-minded contribution. Read it with an open mind, and it just might influence the way you look at life. It has opened my eyes to a whole new take on the nature of reality. Thank you Primack and Abrams!

I am writing this as a first impression and to counter the poor review. I have just purchased the book and have had time for a quick overview. I think the poor review is unfair to this book. The authors central insight is how we as humans need to use metaphor to understand concepts and events that are not on our scale. He has a very good overview of what we know of cosmic and quantum theory and how they are related. It is very up-to-date on our current understanding of such things as inflationary universe and string theory. It's comparable to most other current books out there on the topic. It IS very philosophical but not religious. It uses religious metaphor so it is easy to think its some mush book trying to meld current religion with science. It makes quite clear that the religious metaphor is metaphor that we are applying to something we don't understand. It gives insight into why we use metaphor in the way we do and how to properly understand it. (we misattribute things that happen on our scale to a larger scale. Such as attributing thought, which happens on the scale of our neural connections with something larger such as weather patterns.) But also goes on to provide deeper insight as to how our metaphors are true. It shows how our wonderful and unimaginably huge the creative process is in the inflationary universe but also how we are wrong to attribute "father in the sky" attributes to it. This is not a mushy spiritual book but I think quite the opposite. Its not trying to scientifically prove god and such but just the opposite trying to showing how we are wrong to apply our scale concepts to the universe and that what is true is much bigger than we imagine. I will update this as soon as i finish the book. PS. I have finished the book and stand by what i stated above.

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