What do you think?
Rate this book
A Tear at the Edge of Creation
Marcelo Gleiser, an award-winning physicist, author, and often called the “Carl Sagan of Brazil,” uses physics to make us think about who we are and what it means to be human. Now in paperback.
Following in the noble footsteps of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, Marcelo Gleiser grew up believing that nature could be summed up in one elegant equation—that we simply hadn’t found. But after years of working in physics, he began to see the natural world afresh and realized that it is primarily characterized by imperfections—in short, nature is beautiful and it is lopsided, and no grand intellectual edifice underlies it. He realized that human beings have a special role to play in this imperfect cosmos—not because we are created by God, but because we are rare and precious, guardians of life on earth—possibly the most advanced life in the universe.
In a resounding riposte to Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, A Tear at the Edge of Creation sets out to change the way we see ourselves in relation to our universe. Gleiser celebrates the uniqueness of our particular planet and enjoins us to recognize that as the universe’s only chance for consciousness, we must be earth’s stewards.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
33 people are currently reading
634 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
November 2, 2010
Gleiser has made an incredible point in this book- one that I hadn’t heard before. The relationship between humans and creation has always been one of rift, devastating uncertainty, and the passionate search for the meaning of it all. Generally speaking, the arguments are fairly dichotomous; supernatural or all natural. God reigns over the former half and science over the latter. The two seem worlds apart (no pun intended) however, Gleiser argues that the search for the Ultimate Truth, in either realm, is unnecessary and absurd.
He points out that the scientific pursuit of the Unifying Theory is propelled by the same human instincts that create the religious pursuit of the One God. Genius! We are beings that seek perfection, symmetry, and beauty. Is this really the way of life, though? The universe has proven many times over that perfection is not reality. In fact, the opposite is true. We exist because of imperfection and imbalance. In God and in scientific Ultimate Theories, we seek a truth that we will never know.
Finding the grace and the beauty in imperfection is the key to discovering all there is to know about this world- all that is knowable. Science is in no way diminished by the dismissal of an Ultimate Theory- the secrets of Nature are impressive and never-ending. Find beauty in imperfection and comfort in the insignificance of it all.
This is fantastic philosophical brain-food! Watch out for the heavy chapters- some of the scientific lingo can be a bit overwhelming. The overall message from this book is incredibly valuable and absolutely worth the pages of mind bending.
He points out that the scientific pursuit of the Unifying Theory is propelled by the same human instincts that create the religious pursuit of the One God. Genius! We are beings that seek perfection, symmetry, and beauty. Is this really the way of life, though? The universe has proven many times over that perfection is not reality. In fact, the opposite is true. We exist because of imperfection and imbalance. In God and in scientific Ultimate Theories, we seek a truth that we will never know.
Finding the grace and the beauty in imperfection is the key to discovering all there is to know about this world- all that is knowable. Science is in no way diminished by the dismissal of an Ultimate Theory- the secrets of Nature are impressive and never-ending. Find beauty in imperfection and comfort in the insignificance of it all.
This is fantastic philosophical brain-food! Watch out for the heavy chapters- some of the scientific lingo can be a bit overwhelming. The overall message from this book is incredibly valuable and absolutely worth the pages of mind bending.
July 14, 2011
The first chapter is riddled with theistic bull twankey.
The (silly) argument from the first cause, for example.
Also, the (false) assertion that to be without being a part of a divine plan, mankind has no purpose.
The second chapter is about, I'm not kidding, Vampires....
Chapter 5: Gleiser talks shit about Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, calling them "extremists".
Chapter 7: Gleiser compares Ionian "oneness" with the modern goal of unification between the forces. As if the stumbling nonsense of Greek philosophy can give us ANY clue in the modern search for a more concise mathematical description of nature!
Chapter 14: Gleiser credits the "christian god" as the "foundation for the modern search for unification". This assertion disrespects the motivations of all atheist physicists ever! Unification is a principle of science, and owes nothing whatsoever to any god or gods.
Chapter 15: Gleiser's argument goes like this:
Unification between electricity and magnetism implies magnetic monopoles.
We don't see magnetic monopoles.
Therefore, nature is telling us this unification is "imperfect".
The problem is, he defines "perfect unification" as "unbroken symmetry".
Obviously, no force of nature obeys the same symmetries as any other, otherwise the two would be one in the same force!
The power of unification is describing nature more concisely, and with more precision.
Electromagnetism is a PERFECT unification, if you ask me, because all of it's consequences have been tested. No contradictions or problems in making predictions arise. Some possibilities, like the magnetic monopole, happen not to be a part of nature. That's OK!
Chapter 16: (Talking about the CMBR) "The ether turned out to be light its self" -- wrong! The ether turned out not to exist at all. This kind of poetry is nothing more than misleading. The supposed ether was to be a substance, the wave disturbance of which we call light. The CMBR could very well not exist and light would still behave just the same.
Chapter 19: Gleiser goes so far as to call string theory "pointless" due to it's landscape of possible incarnations. While non-uniqueness is a very vulnerable aspect of many stringy models, if we actually found a point on the string landscape that fit our universe, it would be a great revolution in physics; far from pointless! This is a daunting (ten to the 500...) task, but neither hopeless nor pointless.
Chapter 24: Gleiser posits that the Higgs may be a composite particle, like the Hydrogen atom. His analogy is that the Hydrogen atom looks to have neutral charge from a distance. This is true, but anyone with a spectroscope can tell you the Hydrogen atom has internal structure; how else would it produce such elaborate spectral lines? Fundamental particles are called FUNDAMENTAL for a reason! The Higgs shows no signs of having internal structure, and can be classified as CERTAINLY NOT composite.
Chapter 26: Gleiser puts forth the discovery of dark energy as an example of how our understanding of the universe is dynamic. This is actually a great counter-example to his argument. He wants to drive home the idea that there's no end to physics. Maybe he's right. But the curvature of space was an open question for a very long time. It was a KNOWN UNKNOWN. He's talking like it was an UNKNOWN UNKNOWN, which isn't true at all. Since space is nearly flat, it took several Supernovas to get an accurate measure. Since the invention of the telescope, our understanding of the universe has been quite variable indeed. This just isn't a good example.
Also in Chapter 26: Gleiser is intentionally misinterpreting the term "Theory of Everything". The TOE isn't an end to doubt. It is a tying up of lose ends that we expect to come together: QM and GR. No physicist alive (besides Gleiser, apparently) would equate TOE to the belief in absolute certainty; a theory "proved correct" by it's comprehensiveness. This willful departure from an actual discussion of physics shows how empty his thesis is. He has no point. He just wants to sell a book. Regrettable.
Chapter 27: Gleiser asserts with undue conviction that "our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation that burst out of the vacuum". This is a highly speculative theory of the origin of the universe which is not, and never was, generally accepted. To put it simply, and as a thermodynamics joke, this is HIGHLY unlikely! You see, entropy and all that, yadda, yadda.
Chapter 29: Here we go again with historical inaccuracies:
Gleiser says the Greeks got it wrong calling the atom indivisible.
Actually, 19th century physicists named it the atom because they didn't know any better.
The Greeks were right that matter has a smallest quantity, though it was a 50/50 guess. They had no microscopes, so should have kept their mouths shut.
Chapter 32: Gleiser calls unification an Ionian delusion. He criticizes modern theories for moving the particles to higher energies when they fail to be found where predicted. I don't see the connection. Slippery predictions are a weakness in a theory, but this has nothing to do with "unification". The reason QM and GR need unification is because they CONTRADICT EACH OTHER in black holes and the big bang. This is a REAL physics problem, NOT an Ionian delusion!!!
Finally, Gleiser throws down a good lecture on electroweak phase transition baryogenesis. That part was cool.
The rest of the book is a child's collection of examples of asymmetry in life, such as chirality, etc. As though if he says "asymmetrical" enough, somehow his thesis, that GR/QM unification in physics is a dead-end, will become poignant.
The (silly) argument from the first cause, for example.
Also, the (false) assertion that to be without being a part of a divine plan, mankind has no purpose.
The second chapter is about, I'm not kidding, Vampires....
Chapter 5: Gleiser talks shit about Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, calling them "extremists".
Chapter 7: Gleiser compares Ionian "oneness" with the modern goal of unification between the forces. As if the stumbling nonsense of Greek philosophy can give us ANY clue in the modern search for a more concise mathematical description of nature!
Chapter 14: Gleiser credits the "christian god" as the "foundation for the modern search for unification". This assertion disrespects the motivations of all atheist physicists ever! Unification is a principle of science, and owes nothing whatsoever to any god or gods.
Chapter 15: Gleiser's argument goes like this:
Unification between electricity and magnetism implies magnetic monopoles.
We don't see magnetic monopoles.
Therefore, nature is telling us this unification is "imperfect".
The problem is, he defines "perfect unification" as "unbroken symmetry".
Obviously, no force of nature obeys the same symmetries as any other, otherwise the two would be one in the same force!
The power of unification is describing nature more concisely, and with more precision.
Electromagnetism is a PERFECT unification, if you ask me, because all of it's consequences have been tested. No contradictions or problems in making predictions arise. Some possibilities, like the magnetic monopole, happen not to be a part of nature. That's OK!
Chapter 16: (Talking about the CMBR) "The ether turned out to be light its self" -- wrong! The ether turned out not to exist at all. This kind of poetry is nothing more than misleading. The supposed ether was to be a substance, the wave disturbance of which we call light. The CMBR could very well not exist and light would still behave just the same.
Chapter 19: Gleiser goes so far as to call string theory "pointless" due to it's landscape of possible incarnations. While non-uniqueness is a very vulnerable aspect of many stringy models, if we actually found a point on the string landscape that fit our universe, it would be a great revolution in physics; far from pointless! This is a daunting (ten to the 500...) task, but neither hopeless nor pointless.
Chapter 24: Gleiser posits that the Higgs may be a composite particle, like the Hydrogen atom. His analogy is that the Hydrogen atom looks to have neutral charge from a distance. This is true, but anyone with a spectroscope can tell you the Hydrogen atom has internal structure; how else would it produce such elaborate spectral lines? Fundamental particles are called FUNDAMENTAL for a reason! The Higgs shows no signs of having internal structure, and can be classified as CERTAINLY NOT composite.
Chapter 26: Gleiser puts forth the discovery of dark energy as an example of how our understanding of the universe is dynamic. This is actually a great counter-example to his argument. He wants to drive home the idea that there's no end to physics. Maybe he's right. But the curvature of space was an open question for a very long time. It was a KNOWN UNKNOWN. He's talking like it was an UNKNOWN UNKNOWN, which isn't true at all. Since space is nearly flat, it took several Supernovas to get an accurate measure. Since the invention of the telescope, our understanding of the universe has been quite variable indeed. This just isn't a good example.
Also in Chapter 26: Gleiser is intentionally misinterpreting the term "Theory of Everything". The TOE isn't an end to doubt. It is a tying up of lose ends that we expect to come together: QM and GR. No physicist alive (besides Gleiser, apparently) would equate TOE to the belief in absolute certainty; a theory "proved correct" by it's comprehensiveness. This willful departure from an actual discussion of physics shows how empty his thesis is. He has no point. He just wants to sell a book. Regrettable.
Chapter 27: Gleiser asserts with undue conviction that "our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation that burst out of the vacuum". This is a highly speculative theory of the origin of the universe which is not, and never was, generally accepted. To put it simply, and as a thermodynamics joke, this is HIGHLY unlikely! You see, entropy and all that, yadda, yadda.
Chapter 29: Here we go again with historical inaccuracies:
Gleiser says the Greeks got it wrong calling the atom indivisible.
Actually, 19th century physicists named it the atom because they didn't know any better.
The Greeks were right that matter has a smallest quantity, though it was a 50/50 guess. They had no microscopes, so should have kept their mouths shut.
Chapter 32: Gleiser calls unification an Ionian delusion. He criticizes modern theories for moving the particles to higher energies when they fail to be found where predicted. I don't see the connection. Slippery predictions are a weakness in a theory, but this has nothing to do with "unification". The reason QM and GR need unification is because they CONTRADICT EACH OTHER in black holes and the big bang. This is a REAL physics problem, NOT an Ionian delusion!!!
Finally, Gleiser throws down a good lecture on electroweak phase transition baryogenesis. That part was cool.
The rest of the book is a child's collection of examples of asymmetry in life, such as chirality, etc. As though if he says "asymmetrical" enough, somehow his thesis, that GR/QM unification in physics is a dead-end, will become poignant.
January 22, 2016
I cannot hope to do this book justice. I am deeply humbled by the author’s talent, knowledge, and communicative skills. However, I can say that listening to it as an Audio book lifted me to a higher plane of consciousness for several hours, during which time, I was released from my usual petty concerns and self-centeredness, as I contemplated the majesty of the Universe, the history of science--mainly Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and even Science Fiction, with Mathematics explained as a tool for making sense of it. I have never considered myself a scientific person, but rather a poet and writer/reader of fiction. But I was blown away by Marcelo Gleiser’s talent as a teacher, an orator, and yes, a poet, as he skillfully interweaves anecdotes and episodes from his own life and spins a web in which these personal snippets are embedded into the much larger picture of the beauty of nature, natural science, scientific history, and the ongoing search for meaning, or negation of it, in a masterpiece which deals with, amongst other things, particle physics as well as astrophysics, and a description of scientists through the ages in their quest for a universal theory or a quest for oneness, as it were. The author, as a child and young adult, dabbled in magic, the supernatural, a love of vampires and werewolves, and was enamored of Mary Shelly’s novel, Frankenstein, but he always maintained a deep respect for measurement and experimentation. And his linguistic skills are equally amazing. The feeling I was left with at the end of this book was “You are not alone.” But also, that it is a waste of time for one to dwell on relegating responsibility for the world’s problems to a supernatural being, which detracts from applying ones own energies to concentrate on trying to save our planet from destruction, as well as the destruction of innumerable species on earth, before it is too late. The author’s poetic refrain throughout the book is that we humans may not be images of the divine, but we are rare, we are fragile, we are precious, and we must, above all, decide on pursuing life to save our planet from destruction, while it is still possible, and leave a legacy for our children, grandchildren, and future generations. It was a totally transformative process listening to this beautiful book which combines the facts of science and our ever-limited picture of the Universe with the sheer beauty and poetry of the author’s writing, as well as the narrator’s exquisite voice.
November 18, 2018
I think it would be fair to say that most laypersons will find this book a pleasure to read. The writing is elegant, friendly, informative and easy to understand. That’s saying a lot, considering the subject is the Cosmos, Life, and Nature’s Hidden Code!
A particular pleasure is Gleiser’s rather gentle criticism of the hubris of some physicists and scientists in their conviction that they are well on the way to establishing once and for all a “final answer” to all the problems of Nature by coming up with a Theory of Everything (ToE). Gleiser is gentle in this regard because he includes himself among these persons, all of whom he believes unquestioningly accepted an ideology of “perfection” for the world, and that it would be Science which would establish and settle this ideal perfection when it arrives at its ToE.
The point of this book is to highlight the opposite: that despite whatever overall ideological beliefs might have dominated in the past, ultimately all scientific research and findings continually come up with “not quite perfect” answers. This is not to say that those answers have not been helpful of useful (quite the contrary!) but that we should all start to begin to accept that any past concepts of the Cosmos, Life and Nature as deriving from a Perfect Ideological Type have never been corroborated by science, and probably never will be. Everything is imperfect! Indeed Gleiser proposes that it is precisely because of these “imperfections” that everything (including us) exists in the first place. Paradoxically, this makes all we have discovered about the Cosmos, Life and Nature becomes all the more amazing and exciting, and full of potential for further discoveries in the future. It also implies that our journey along this path will continue to result in “improvements” in our understanding being made, and that the journey will never be “complete”. That’s what’s exciting about it!
All that being said, there is a quibble I have with the basic premise that all scientific endeavour has been under the thrall of what Gleiser calls the Ionian Enchantment of striving for “perfection”. I am not convinced that this perception is necessarily true. It seems to me that this “understanding” comes more from varying concepts of what “perfection” is. The belief in a pristine, absolute reality seems more like a religious aspiration which even religion seems to admit does not exist in the “real” world, but rather in some transcendental realm. This idea, however, is not relatable to the physical world, and is, strictly speaking, outside the domain of science (even if in some disciplines some scientists might speculate as to possible metaphysical aspects deriving from their observations). It is thus also outside the scope of this book, and rightly so. Yet the ghost of the religion/science debate does linger throughout this work and this, in my opinion, makes statements and ideas about the One, the Ideal, the Perfect, the Symmetrical, etc. as a type of scientific enchantment problematical to say the least.
What is special about this book, however, is the essential paradox it proposes: the identifications by science of the very imperfections of the world, the universe, and life itself, are themselves a perfect realisation of who and what we are — and this makes on the one hand for the humble realisation of our individual insignificance in all of this, while on the other hand provides us precisely with the perfect justification for just how rightly proud and significant we all really are!
A particular pleasure is Gleiser’s rather gentle criticism of the hubris of some physicists and scientists in their conviction that they are well on the way to establishing once and for all a “final answer” to all the problems of Nature by coming up with a Theory of Everything (ToE). Gleiser is gentle in this regard because he includes himself among these persons, all of whom he believes unquestioningly accepted an ideology of “perfection” for the world, and that it would be Science which would establish and settle this ideal perfection when it arrives at its ToE.
The point of this book is to highlight the opposite: that despite whatever overall ideological beliefs might have dominated in the past, ultimately all scientific research and findings continually come up with “not quite perfect” answers. This is not to say that those answers have not been helpful of useful (quite the contrary!) but that we should all start to begin to accept that any past concepts of the Cosmos, Life and Nature as deriving from a Perfect Ideological Type have never been corroborated by science, and probably never will be. Everything is imperfect! Indeed Gleiser proposes that it is precisely because of these “imperfections” that everything (including us) exists in the first place. Paradoxically, this makes all we have discovered about the Cosmos, Life and Nature becomes all the more amazing and exciting, and full of potential for further discoveries in the future. It also implies that our journey along this path will continue to result in “improvements” in our understanding being made, and that the journey will never be “complete”. That’s what’s exciting about it!
All that being said, there is a quibble I have with the basic premise that all scientific endeavour has been under the thrall of what Gleiser calls the Ionian Enchantment of striving for “perfection”. I am not convinced that this perception is necessarily true. It seems to me that this “understanding” comes more from varying concepts of what “perfection” is. The belief in a pristine, absolute reality seems more like a religious aspiration which even religion seems to admit does not exist in the “real” world, but rather in some transcendental realm. This idea, however, is not relatable to the physical world, and is, strictly speaking, outside the domain of science (even if in some disciplines some scientists might speculate as to possible metaphysical aspects deriving from their observations). It is thus also outside the scope of this book, and rightly so. Yet the ghost of the religion/science debate does linger throughout this work and this, in my opinion, makes statements and ideas about the One, the Ideal, the Perfect, the Symmetrical, etc. as a type of scientific enchantment problematical to say the least.
What is special about this book, however, is the essential paradox it proposes: the identifications by science of the very imperfections of the world, the universe, and life itself, are themselves a perfect realisation of who and what we are — and this makes on the one hand for the humble realisation of our individual insignificance in all of this, while on the other hand provides us precisely with the perfect justification for just how rightly proud and significant we all really are!
July 22, 2014
The books I've been reading lately have been to help me learn about the universe and our place in it. This book has helped in that goal better than any other single book I've read in the past year or so.
He starts with a theory that beauty comes from imperfection and the theories of everything need a perfect universe to make sense and our real understanding comes about realizing the imperfections in nature and that the universe is imperfect. He goes on to explain how it takes imperfections and biases to make a universe and intelligent life to occupy the universe.
Everything he discusses he explains clearly and with marvelous analogies. He talks about how the imbalance of matter with anti-matter led to our universe and that all life on earth is left handed at the molecular level. He talks about the big bang to dark energy and dark matter, life on other planets, evolution of man and what makes us humans so special.
Inflation Theory was based on a Grand Unified Theory that turned out to not be true, but it led to an understanding of Inflation Theory which is widely accepted. Having a perfect science is not as important as continually to learn about our place in the universe.
This book is one of the best survey science books about what is needed to know about our place in the universe. I highly recommend it. The book is so good, I'm hoping the Discovery Channel does a ten part series on it!
He starts with a theory that beauty comes from imperfection and the theories of everything need a perfect universe to make sense and our real understanding comes about realizing the imperfections in nature and that the universe is imperfect. He goes on to explain how it takes imperfections and biases to make a universe and intelligent life to occupy the universe.
Everything he discusses he explains clearly and with marvelous analogies. He talks about how the imbalance of matter with anti-matter led to our universe and that all life on earth is left handed at the molecular level. He talks about the big bang to dark energy and dark matter, life on other planets, evolution of man and what makes us humans so special.
Inflation Theory was based on a Grand Unified Theory that turned out to not be true, but it led to an understanding of Inflation Theory which is widely accepted. Having a perfect science is not as important as continually to learn about our place in the universe.
This book is one of the best survey science books about what is needed to know about our place in the universe. I highly recommend it. The book is so good, I'm hoping the Discovery Channel does a ten part series on it!
Read
May 7, 2016I had high hopes, but most of it I already knew. I think it was written for a different audience than me. I'm not offended by the notion that everything might not hang together/make sense; I'm not philosophically tied to the idea of a theory of everything for my sense of meaningfulness in life. So much of his comforting talk that was designed to get more skeptical/frightened readers through was just annoying to me. That our existence is probably an accident based on the extremely rare/unlikely fact that we live in a bubble of creation that happened to last long enough to produce stars; that rather than elegance our lives are made possible by broken symmetries - these things don't bother me, and weren't even new. So I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped.
January 23, 2011
I believe this is a slightly updated edition of Tear at the Edge of Creation. It has a different ISBN, more pages and a different cover, so I've added it to the library.
This is a great book. As with Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You, I will probably end up reading it again. In fact between these two books, a reader who is curious about how the world fits together (from quantum mechanics to evolution) will be well armed after reading them. I'm not big on big reviews, I will simply say that if you're interested in Big Bang theory, evolution and the personal (and/or religious) questions these fields raise, then this book is essential.
This is a great book. As with Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You, I will probably end up reading it again. In fact between these two books, a reader who is curious about how the world fits together (from quantum mechanics to evolution) will be well armed after reading them. I'm not big on big reviews, I will simply say that if you're interested in Big Bang theory, evolution and the personal (and/or religious) questions these fields raise, then this book is essential.
to-keep-reference
September 20, 2018...sospecha que el Universo finalmente no está unificado, sino desordenado. Por lo tanto, no comparte la idea de que el Universo es hermoso: sostiene que sólo la vida humana, y no el Universo inanimado, puede tener valor intrínseco. Piensa que hay belleza en nuestras vidas y en lo que nosotros mismos hacemos, pero no en las galaxias inconscientes y en los átomos. Somos maravillosos, declara, pero si no existe una teoría unificadora, no hay maravilla alguna en el espacio en cuanto tal.
Religión sin dios Pág.45
Religión sin dios Pág.45
August 7, 2016
This book had a rough start. I am tired of debates about science vs religion. I am even more tired of scientists trying to pander to overly sensitive, non critical religious types. It really anchors the discussion and doesn't allow the discussion to soar. However, once the business of kissing up to religious types was done, this book was extremely good. I loved to read all the opposing views in physics (Lisa Randall's dimensions of space, Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe, etc). I don't necessarily have to agree with the point of view to appreciate the argument. I don't have a favorite theory of our universe. I love any theory that makes an honest attempt to figure it out.
Marcelo Gleiser argues that attempting to construct a theory of everything actually gets in the way of understanding the universe. While making his argument, he explains various concepts (Big Bang, quantum physics, inflation) as only he can. Beautiful writing.
Marcelo Gleiser argues that attempting to construct a theory of everything actually gets in the way of understanding the universe. While making his argument, he explains various concepts (Big Bang, quantum physics, inflation) as only he can. Beautiful writing.
January 7, 2012
This seems to be the Australian edition of a book published in the US as "A Tear at the Edge of Creation: Searching for the Meaning of Life in an Imperfect Cosmos".
I have only 53 pages to go so hardly think that I will change my mind about this book.
Though I am incompetent to judge the author's arguments, given that the book is a philosophical discussion of cosmology and the origin of life, I think it is much to the author's credit that I just about understood most of what I read and was persuaded that we do indeed owe our existence to occasional asymmetries in nature.
The book is well-organised, has plenty of momentum and is lucidly, even stylishly, written. I found Marcelo Gleiser himself to be good company.
I have only 53 pages to go so hardly think that I will change my mind about this book.
Though I am incompetent to judge the author's arguments, given that the book is a philosophical discussion of cosmology and the origin of life, I think it is much to the author's credit that I just about understood most of what I read and was persuaded that we do indeed owe our existence to occasional asymmetries in nature.
The book is well-organised, has plenty of momentum and is lucidly, even stylishly, written. I found Marcelo Gleiser himself to be good company.
August 10, 2016
Primeiro livro do Gleiser que li, e acho que deve ser lido como forma de introdução, para aqueles que pretendem ler livros do Stephen Hawking. A abordagem mais leve, didática, e sem as extensas e complicadas formulas de química/ matemática/física, ajuda a leitura a ser fluida, e os exemplos da própria vida do Marcelo ajudam a gerar uma intimidade com o conteúdo.
Mas acredito que a parte mais importante do livro de Gleiser, é a forma com que ele utiliza todas essas explicações sobre o cosmo, surgimento da vida, evolução, e etc, para poder mostrar a importância do mundo em que vivemos, e como estamos deixando tudo ser destruido, extinto, em prol de mudanças que nao vao levar a lugar algum, se este mundo for destruído.
Vale a leitura. Umas duas vezes.
Mas acredito que a parte mais importante do livro de Gleiser, é a forma com que ele utiliza todas essas explicações sobre o cosmo, surgimento da vida, evolução, e etc, para poder mostrar a importância do mundo em que vivemos, e como estamos deixando tudo ser destruido, extinto, em prol de mudanças que nao vao levar a lugar algum, se este mundo for destruído.
Vale a leitura. Umas duas vezes.
Currently reading
December 7, 2010This book as an amazingly approachable read for its topic matter. the thesis is intriguing, but most of all for me, it is a great synopsis of the the leading theories related to how our cosmos was formed and how life emerged on our planet. the book is dense enough to do the theories justice yet can be understood by a reader with only basic high school knowledge of chemistry biology and physics
March 18, 2013
Amazing book! Nicely summarizes the achievements of cosmology up till today, pointing out our knowledge gaps and prospects to the future. Creation is not perfect, and truth is not beauty and harmony...Easy to read, powerful analysis of scientific quest and its relevance to everyone's life...
July 12, 2010
Interesting, but a bit scattered. Going from physics to evolution and biology to make his point was a bit distracting and just left me feeling bored rather than enlightened.
February 9, 2012
A rehashing of the history of physics with a self serving slant. No new information for someone familiar with the subject.
November 8, 2015
I actually couldn't finish this. The author's new-agey voice is grating. It may be that I just disagree with the author, but I found it really difficult to continue reading.
March 26, 2019
Muito esclarecedor. Uma nova visão de mundo.
August 6, 2015
The main notion of this book is that science in general (and physics/cosmology in specific) is fixated on trying to find unified theories that are beautifully elegant and simple. There's a belief that there must be a simplest, unified form from which all natural laws spring, if only we could understand it.
Gleiser's argument is that perhaps it's time to give up on this idea; To get past the notion that the universe must inherently make sense and that all forces must be tied together by some uniting background symmetry that unites everything into a great “Oneness”. He suggests this idea is rooted in monotheistic religion and is baseless as the faiths themselves. Instead, he suggests, we should look at the universe from the point of view of asymmetries.
This is best summarized in his chapter entitled “Science of the Gaps”. He states:
Obviously, he is making reference to the God of the Gaps fallacy, implying that now, scientists are relying on faith to suppose that our remaining gaps will be filled by a single theory. However, there's some obvious differences Gleiser ignores; Namely, God has never successfully filled a gap. When we've looked into the gap, it's not been God, it's always been something else. Meanwhile, the expectation that forces will unify has filled many gaps.
As he points out, time and time again, nature has proven us wrong. At one time we held that atoms were the smallest, indivisible units that tied all matter together. But those fundamental units weren't the quintessential building blocks. Nor were the protons, neutrons and electrons that made those up. Nor were even the hadrons. The rabbit hole is much deeper than we've ever suspected and aside from our desires that it will, there is no actual evidence to suggest that there is an end.
To illustrate the point, Marcelo discusses several of the problems facing particle physicists today in which symmetry is apparently being violated. Charge and Parity have both seen to be violated with exotic subatomic particles. New particles have been proposed to rectify this, but have not (yet) been discovered. Will they be? Given that one of the examples he used was the Higgs Boson (which was predicted thanks to the principles Gleiser decries), and it was discovered only a few years after publication of this book, I think we have at least part of the answer.
Still, I agree with overall point but feel the author's claims are somewhat overstated. Although I'm sure there is a large contingent that holds a belief in a final theory that will unify all branches of knowledge, I've never really felt that anyone has ever expected this to truly be the end. Sure, we can tie everything we know about together, but what of the things we don't know about? Are we really so arrogant to assume we've discovered enough about the universe to truly say when we've reached the end? I find science to be much the opposite: It's a humbling experience that is constantly reminding us how much there is to discover and we exalt in the joy of doing so. Regardless of whether there is an end or not, we'll keep exploring. Meanwhile, names like the “Theory of Everything” are overstated, but I look at it in much the same way as naming new telescopes: We have to call them something. And given we keep making them bigger, it's no surprise that our descriptions of their size are often somewhat hyperbolic. It would be more appropriately named a "Theory of Everything (we know about right now)".
But what of the claims that we should abandon the notion that things must be “beautiful” and “symmetric”? The symmetry argument has worked well in the past. It's led to the discovery of new sub-atomic particles when charge symmetry has been violated. But Marcelo points out it hasn't panned out so well in the search for things like magnetic monopoles or anti-mater. The latter we know exists, but for some reason, there's far more matter in the universe than anti-matter (thank goodness). Meanwhile, magnetic monopoles haven't been discovered at all. So “theories are hastily revised” to constantly explain why. We're constraining where they could be, but only on one end. Are we to forever chase it to infinity?
The “beauty” concept is one that I can't get on board with. To me, the idea that a solution for a problem must be “beautiful” is a ridiculous concept due to a loose definition of the concept itself. As is said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Obviously not an objective standard. It's much the same problem as trying to define the second law of thermodynamics as dealing with “order” and “disorder”. Many times you can call a system either, depending on how you look at it.
One of my favorite parts of this book came later in as the author discussed the realization that there is an inherent asymmetry in life: our proteins all share the same chirality. This was initially discovered by Pasteur and Gleiser walks the reader through the feat of the discovery (which also fundamentally linked biological life to molecular roots). He finishes it with a quote from one of Pasteur's contemporaries that is a good summary of the excitement that such discoveries can cause:
Gleiser discusses why life may have selected this chirality posing several possible scenarios. Although it was unlikely, the one that most interested me was the potential that it was due to an interaction with neutrinos which only appear in a "left-handed" form. If this was the case, then any life would have a preference for similar chirality. This would put a wrench in the works of looking for the "shadow biosphere" Davies wrote about in Eerie Silence. However, Gleiser dismisses this possibility because the interactions are not strong enough to create a statistically significant initial preference. Oh well. Fun to think about.
So what was the grand conclusion of this book? It seemed to be that we need to give up the idea that there is a single underlying cause to everything that we should try to figure out. In the last few chapters, Gleiser discusses the potential for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe concluding that there is no imperative for intelligence to evolve (although simplistic life is probable). With no divine guardian and no guarantee that if we fail, other intelligent life will surely rise, that makes us, as a species, even more unique and special. If we realize this specialness, we should to more to protect it.
Overall, I think it's a nice sentiment, but it's not especially well supported. While I agree that there's no fundamental reason to assume that there will be a complete unification of everything, it's a methodology that has worked well in the past. Gleiser even acknowledges this. What I don't think he gives enough credit to, is that, even with this assumption, scientists can do perfectly well because we're very good at compartmentalizing. Essentially, although we'd like to eventually get to some sort of unification, we'll work on this little corner over here for now. Unification will come later. The way Gleiser paints it, everyone's so busy trying to fit everything into the big picture, science is about to fall apart because they're not focusing in enough on things that may well not be connectible. Perhaps the people in his crowd do, but I absolutely disagree that it's a prevailing condition of science.
Furthermore, I just can't get onboard with the idea of "beauty". I did have an encounter with a professor that was very into this concept, but he couldn't really define it. As such, it seemed pretty useless. Gleiser doesn't define it either. Thus, the substantial portion of the book devoted to it is pretty useless as well. I've seen people describe the Friedmann-Walker metric described as beautiful. I don't get it. I think it's pretty nasty. I think the universe would be much more beautiful if everything could boil down to very simple quadratics. I like those. So again, what one person deems "beautiful", another may not.
What I do find beauty in, is that we can write equations that accurately describe the workings of the universe. But in my book, the beauty comes from them working. Them being beautiful doesn't tell me that they'll work as Gleiser seems to imply they will. It seems he's stuck in a circular logic loop in which they work which makes them beautiful which makes them work which makes them beautiful..... And somehow you can start at either point. If he ever believed this (or other scientists do) then I'd say they have a serious problem, but again, it's not something I've ever viewed as pervasive in science.
The last thing that ate at me was Gleiser's frequent attacks on Dawkins and other "New" Atheists early on in the book. For no real reason, Gleiser chastised Dawkins for daring to call theists "deluded" (ie, The God Delusion) even though he Gleiser makes it perfectly clear that there is no reason to believe in that God. He goes on to ask if scientists are "deluded" for believing in unification. I'll have to go back to what I stated earlier: Unification has a track record of success. Thus, "believing" in it is not "deluded". So really what it boiled down to was Gleiser whining about the tone. That was not necessary in the book, especially since he goes on to use the exact same language as well.
Overall, the grand conclusions of this book weren't worth much. There was quite a bit of good science that may make it worthwhile.
Gleiser's argument is that perhaps it's time to give up on this idea; To get past the notion that the universe must inherently make sense and that all forces must be tied together by some uniting background symmetry that unites everything into a great “Oneness”. He suggests this idea is rooted in monotheistic religion and is baseless as the faiths themselves. Instead, he suggests, we should look at the universe from the point of view of asymmetries.
This is best summarized in his chapter entitled “Science of the Gaps”. He states:
unification begins where our current theories stop. What we don't know, unification will explain. As science advances and we learn more about Nature and its violation of symmetries, unification, to its humiliation, gets squeezed into an ever-shrinking gap. Theories are hastily revised, parameters are shifted, the whole mission of unification gets redefined.
Obviously, he is making reference to the God of the Gaps fallacy, implying that now, scientists are relying on faith to suppose that our remaining gaps will be filled by a single theory. However, there's some obvious differences Gleiser ignores; Namely, God has never successfully filled a gap. When we've looked into the gap, it's not been God, it's always been something else. Meanwhile, the expectation that forces will unify has filled many gaps.
As he points out, time and time again, nature has proven us wrong. At one time we held that atoms were the smallest, indivisible units that tied all matter together. But those fundamental units weren't the quintessential building blocks. Nor were the protons, neutrons and electrons that made those up. Nor were even the hadrons. The rabbit hole is much deeper than we've ever suspected and aside from our desires that it will, there is no actual evidence to suggest that there is an end.
To illustrate the point, Marcelo discusses several of the problems facing particle physicists today in which symmetry is apparently being violated. Charge and Parity have both seen to be violated with exotic subatomic particles. New particles have been proposed to rectify this, but have not (yet) been discovered. Will they be? Given that one of the examples he used was the Higgs Boson (which was predicted thanks to the principles Gleiser decries), and it was discovered only a few years after publication of this book, I think we have at least part of the answer.
Still, I agree with overall point but feel the author's claims are somewhat overstated. Although I'm sure there is a large contingent that holds a belief in a final theory that will unify all branches of knowledge, I've never really felt that anyone has ever expected this to truly be the end. Sure, we can tie everything we know about together, but what of the things we don't know about? Are we really so arrogant to assume we've discovered enough about the universe to truly say when we've reached the end? I find science to be much the opposite: It's a humbling experience that is constantly reminding us how much there is to discover and we exalt in the joy of doing so. Regardless of whether there is an end or not, we'll keep exploring. Meanwhile, names like the “Theory of Everything” are overstated, but I look at it in much the same way as naming new telescopes: We have to call them something. And given we keep making them bigger, it's no surprise that our descriptions of their size are often somewhat hyperbolic. It would be more appropriately named a "Theory of Everything (we know about right now)".
But what of the claims that we should abandon the notion that things must be “beautiful” and “symmetric”? The symmetry argument has worked well in the past. It's led to the discovery of new sub-atomic particles when charge symmetry has been violated. But Marcelo points out it hasn't panned out so well in the search for things like magnetic monopoles or anti-mater. The latter we know exists, but for some reason, there's far more matter in the universe than anti-matter (thank goodness). Meanwhile, magnetic monopoles haven't been discovered at all. So “theories are hastily revised” to constantly explain why. We're constraining where they could be, but only on one end. Are we to forever chase it to infinity?
The “beauty” concept is one that I can't get on board with. To me, the idea that a solution for a problem must be “beautiful” is a ridiculous concept due to a loose definition of the concept itself. As is said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Obviously not an objective standard. It's much the same problem as trying to define the second law of thermodynamics as dealing with “order” and “disorder”. Many times you can call a system either, depending on how you look at it.
One of my favorite parts of this book came later in as the author discussed the realization that there is an inherent asymmetry in life: our proteins all share the same chirality. This was initially discovered by Pasteur and Gleiser walks the reader through the feat of the discovery (which also fundamentally linked biological life to molecular roots). He finishes it with a quote from one of Pasteur's contemporaries that is a good summary of the excitement that such discoveries can cause:
My dear child, I have loved science so much throughout my life that his makes my heart throb.
Gleiser discusses why life may have selected this chirality posing several possible scenarios. Although it was unlikely, the one that most interested me was the potential that it was due to an interaction with neutrinos which only appear in a "left-handed" form. If this was the case, then any life would have a preference for similar chirality. This would put a wrench in the works of looking for the "shadow biosphere" Davies wrote about in Eerie Silence. However, Gleiser dismisses this possibility because the interactions are not strong enough to create a statistically significant initial preference. Oh well. Fun to think about.
So what was the grand conclusion of this book? It seemed to be that we need to give up the idea that there is a single underlying cause to everything that we should try to figure out. In the last few chapters, Gleiser discusses the potential for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe concluding that there is no imperative for intelligence to evolve (although simplistic life is probable). With no divine guardian and no guarantee that if we fail, other intelligent life will surely rise, that makes us, as a species, even more unique and special. If we realize this specialness, we should to more to protect it.
Overall, I think it's a nice sentiment, but it's not especially well supported. While I agree that there's no fundamental reason to assume that there will be a complete unification of everything, it's a methodology that has worked well in the past. Gleiser even acknowledges this. What I don't think he gives enough credit to, is that, even with this assumption, scientists can do perfectly well because we're very good at compartmentalizing. Essentially, although we'd like to eventually get to some sort of unification, we'll work on this little corner over here for now. Unification will come later. The way Gleiser paints it, everyone's so busy trying to fit everything into the big picture, science is about to fall apart because they're not focusing in enough on things that may well not be connectible. Perhaps the people in his crowd do, but I absolutely disagree that it's a prevailing condition of science.
Furthermore, I just can't get onboard with the idea of "beauty". I did have an encounter with a professor that was very into this concept, but he couldn't really define it. As such, it seemed pretty useless. Gleiser doesn't define it either. Thus, the substantial portion of the book devoted to it is pretty useless as well. I've seen people describe the Friedmann-Walker metric described as beautiful. I don't get it. I think it's pretty nasty. I think the universe would be much more beautiful if everything could boil down to very simple quadratics. I like those. So again, what one person deems "beautiful", another may not.
What I do find beauty in, is that we can write equations that accurately describe the workings of the universe. But in my book, the beauty comes from them working. Them being beautiful doesn't tell me that they'll work as Gleiser seems to imply they will. It seems he's stuck in a circular logic loop in which they work which makes them beautiful which makes them work which makes them beautiful..... And somehow you can start at either point. If he ever believed this (or other scientists do) then I'd say they have a serious problem, but again, it's not something I've ever viewed as pervasive in science.
The last thing that ate at me was Gleiser's frequent attacks on Dawkins and other "New" Atheists early on in the book. For no real reason, Gleiser chastised Dawkins for daring to call theists "deluded" (ie, The God Delusion) even though he Gleiser makes it perfectly clear that there is no reason to believe in that God. He goes on to ask if scientists are "deluded" for believing in unification. I'll have to go back to what I stated earlier: Unification has a track record of success. Thus, "believing" in it is not "deluded". So really what it boiled down to was Gleiser whining about the tone. That was not necessary in the book, especially since he goes on to use the exact same language as well.
Overall, the grand conclusions of this book weren't worth much. There was quite a bit of good science that may make it worthwhile.
April 8, 2023
(Really 3.5 stars). This book was interesting but not for the reasons that I picked it up. I think Professor Gleiser makes a compelling argument for the rarity of complex life and the naivete of hoping for a unified theory of physics. The science seems to back up his opinion that a unified field theory is a chimera that probably won't be found, and he gives a useful (if dense for me personally) crash course in particle physics. I can't pretend that I understand everything that he was talking about, but he made it as simple as he could without cutting scientific corners.
I was hoping, though, that Gleiser might pay more attention to the philosophical implications of conscious experience at the end of the book. He pays a lot of attention to how life itself can emerge from organic materials, but he doesn't pay a lot of attention to the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. For example, it's perfectly possible to be alive but not be conscious of external phenomena. We can talk all we want about evolution and the drive to survive, but why is life inherently concerned with self-preservation and self-duplication in the first place if it's just a complex interaction of electricity, magnetism, and chemical reactions? Why wasn't there just one flicker of life that didn't continue beyond the last universal common ancestor? How does a sentient experiencer arise from a chain of amino acids? What is the difference between sentient matter and insentient matter? If life really is just a series of chemical reactions, magnetism, and electricity, then why haven't we figured out how to produce living cells out of a soup of amino acids?
I realize these questions are not the concern of Gleiser's thesis, but these were the types of questions I had after receiving the particle physics crash course in this book. Oh well, maybe I should just stick to philosophy books instead.
I was hoping, though, that Gleiser might pay more attention to the philosophical implications of conscious experience at the end of the book. He pays a lot of attention to how life itself can emerge from organic materials, but he doesn't pay a lot of attention to the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. For example, it's perfectly possible to be alive but not be conscious of external phenomena. We can talk all we want about evolution and the drive to survive, but why is life inherently concerned with self-preservation and self-duplication in the first place if it's just a complex interaction of electricity, magnetism, and chemical reactions? Why wasn't there just one flicker of life that didn't continue beyond the last universal common ancestor? How does a sentient experiencer arise from a chain of amino acids? What is the difference between sentient matter and insentient matter? If life really is just a series of chemical reactions, magnetism, and electricity, then why haven't we figured out how to produce living cells out of a soup of amino acids?
I realize these questions are not the concern of Gleiser's thesis, but these were the types of questions I had after receiving the particle physics crash course in this book. Oh well, maybe I should just stick to philosophy books instead.
January 5, 2020
A very well written book. The author delivers what could be a dry topic in an engaging fashion sprinkled with personal details. His mastery of disciplines beyond his own is remarkable.
His approach is to rely solely on science. Part I presents the old cosmology theories and how each was debunked by new findings.
Parts II through V are interesting reads. Yet the inconclusiveness and weakness of the newer theories is proven. To this extent the book is unsatisfying to me. He has zealously concentrated on utilizing the available tools of science. One open question is what existed prior to Creation 14 billion years ago and how it will all end or continue. Is his disdain of “knowing” through other than scientific tools and our 5 currently known senses as fanatical as religious fundamentalism? He has pointed out how our ability to detect light and sound is limited. So to what degree are our “scientific” observations absolute? Is it hubris for broken mankind to aspire to understand a Creation project so enormously vast and complex that purportedly started 14 billion years ago when our species has been around for a scant couple of million years and our “intelligence” for much less than that?
Nevertheless, I found the book to be an absorbing read and learned a lot about the different cosmological theories and findings.
I have already mentioned it to others and would recommend it to those interested in cosmology.
His approach is to rely solely on science. Part I presents the old cosmology theories and how each was debunked by new findings.
Parts II through V are interesting reads. Yet the inconclusiveness and weakness of the newer theories is proven. To this extent the book is unsatisfying to me. He has zealously concentrated on utilizing the available tools of science. One open question is what existed prior to Creation 14 billion years ago and how it will all end or continue. Is his disdain of “knowing” through other than scientific tools and our 5 currently known senses as fanatical as religious fundamentalism? He has pointed out how our ability to detect light and sound is limited. So to what degree are our “scientific” observations absolute? Is it hubris for broken mankind to aspire to understand a Creation project so enormously vast and complex that purportedly started 14 billion years ago when our species has been around for a scant couple of million years and our “intelligence” for much less than that?
Nevertheless, I found the book to be an absorbing read and learned a lot about the different cosmological theories and findings.
I have already mentioned it to others and would recommend it to those interested in cosmology.
December 6, 2017
I agree with the central premise of theories of unification being stultifying and likely monotheist/platonic culture baggage, and find the exploration of the chaos of actual interactions of matter and chemicals as pointing towards something other than an assumed universal order refreshing. This being said, this book is best appreciated in combination with several other texts, such as Lee Smolin's more recent works as well as the burgeoning philosophical school of speculative realism. One also would have expected to see chaos theory itself more frequently referenced given its direct import on the issues of the book.
Despite an overall strong final section, the final attempt to shoe-horn in a kind of constructed anthropocentrism is decidedly unwelcome and compromising to the overall thesis in my opinion, however.
Despite an overall strong final section, the final attempt to shoe-horn in a kind of constructed anthropocentrism is decidedly unwelcome and compromising to the overall thesis in my opinion, however.
September 6, 2024
Good book about everything. While the case for asymmetries as creators of life and existence is factually supported, I wasn’t convinced of the lack of existence of a secret code of nature. I agree, that based on our limitations we will never discover the final Theory of Everything, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one, or that monism (not monotheism as the author frequently refers to, confusing the terms) is unviable. Different to other readers, I enjoyed the personal stories, but not the preaching tone.
Want to read
December 27, 2023Gleiser atinge segundo ele próprio uma maturidade como intelectual público neste livro, no qual ele rejeita “o cientismo arrogante de achar que a Ciência é o caminho para todas as verdades”. Ele explicita as inconsistências e limitações do pensamento científico quanto às assimetrias e imperfeições da existência. Gleizer rejeita o triunfalismo da Ciência, a perfeição do ideal platônico, asseverando que a própria Criação é imperfeita, tentando humanizar a Ciência
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 18, 2021
Though this book has complex physics, chemistry and biology it is still worth the read. We want to believe that there is rhythm and reason but we are the result of asymmetry on a grand scale and should embrace the imperfections that lead to this place.
June 3, 2021
Muito bom para quem é entusiasta de cosmologia e não sabe direito por onde começar a se aprofundar.
O livro passa por vários assuntos desde as teorias da criação até a dinâmica atual por um prisma de que tudo isso não se originou de algo perfeito.
O livro passa por vários assuntos desde as teorias da criação até a dinâmica atual por um prisma de que tudo isso não se originou de algo perfeito.
August 31, 2019
High intelligence
abandoned
December 11, 2019I read 40% until it got too much for me to understand the particle physics.
July 29, 2024
gosto muito das discussões do tema proposto (aprecio esses debates sobre ciência), não sei se gostei tanto dos capítulos mais técnicos
July 10, 2022
This is one of the best physics and scientific cosmology books I've read - it takes readers on a journey from a search for uniformity and perfection through some of the fundamental asymmetries of the universe to the chaotic, creative, and ultimately un-fully-knowable nature of reality. By demonstrating how close we can approach a particle or the Big Bang before uncertainty takes over, the book demonstrates the self-questioning approach science needs but often forgets.
April 11, 2020
As one who finds the Cosmos, Universe an avocation and as one who has been to dozen seminars, lectures and read couple dozen books on deep space, I found "A Tear at the Edge..." a bunch of hot air that Mr. Gleiser pulled out of his ass. I stopped slumming through less than midway and gave up. He came across as a cosmologist "wanna-be". Spewing theories that fly in the face of settled science. I stopped reading when he used terms and words that I was not familiar with: Scalar Field; "prokaryotic" cells. Never read nor heard these terms used in seminars.
Does he have an agenda: To disprove the proven? His narrative often discusses proven and settled cosmology. But in turn, he wants to upend those long-established theories: Big-Bang;
Does he have an agenda: To disprove the proven? His narrative often discusses proven and settled cosmology. But in turn, he wants to upend those long-established theories: Big-Bang;
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews