The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew

by Alan Lightman

From the acclaimed author of Einstein's Dreams and Mr g, a meditation on the unexpected ways in which recent scientific findings have shaped our understanding of ourselves and our place in the cosmos.

With all the passion, curiosity, and precise yet lyrical prose that have marked his previous books, Alan Lightman here explores the emotional and philosophical questions raised by discoveries in science, focusing most intently on the human condition and the needs of humankind. He looks at the difficult dialogue between science and religion; the conflict between our human desire for permanence and the impermanence of nature; the possibility that our universe is simply an accident; the manner in which modern technology has separated us from direct experience of the world; and our resistance to the view that our bodies and minds can be explained by scientific logic and laws. And behind all of these considerations is the suggestion—at once haunting and exhilarating—that what we see and understand of the world is only a tiny piece of the extraordinary, perhaps unfathomable whole.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Physics, Essays, Religion, Audiobook

157 pages, Hardcover

First published November 7, 2013

About the author

Alan Lightman is an American writer, physicist, and social entrepreneur. Born in 1948, he was educated at Princeton and at the California Institute of Technology, where he received a PhD in theoretical physics. He has received five honorary doctoral degrees. Lightman has served on the faculties of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and was the first person at MIT to receive dual faculty appointments in science and in the humanities. He is currently professor of the practice of the humanities at MIT. His scientific research in astrophysics has concerned
black holes, relativity theory, radiative processes, and the dynamics of systems of stars. His essays and articles have appeared in the Atlantic, Granta, Harper’s, the New Yorker, the New York Review of Books, Salon, and many other publications. His essays are often chosen by the New York Times as among the best essays of the year. He is the author of 6 novels, several collections of essays, a memoir, and a book-length narrative poem, as well as several books on science. His novel Einstein’s Dreams was an international bestseller and has been the basis for dozens of independent theatrical and musical adaptations around the world. His novel The Diagnosis was a finalist for the National Book Award. His most recent books are The Accidental Universe, which was chosen by Brain Pickings as one of the 10 best books of 2014, his memoir Screening Room, which was chosen by the Washington Post as one of the best books of the year for 2016,
and Searching for Stars on an Island in Maine (2018), an extended meditation on science and religion – which was the basis for an essay
on PBS Newshour. Lightman is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is also the founder of the Harpswell Foundation, a nonprofit organization whose mission is “to advance a new generation of women leaders in Southeast Asia.” He has received the gold medal for humanitarian service from the government of Cambodia.

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Amusing Universe

In this series of seven easy-going essays Lightman uses musings on the many curious aspects of modern Physics and the way they change our perspectives - not to discuss Science, but to philosophize on Life. Surprisingly, the most unintuitive parts of Physics are pretty normal when it comes to Life. Perhaps because we expected more order from Science than was there in the first place, more than the Universe was ever willing to give us. We can come away from these musings with the pleasant yet unsettling feeling that most likely all of Science is going to turn out to be as messy as our everyday life of dealing with stuff like ethics and responsibilities. That should be fun.

The musings take unexpected turns, almost Montaigne-like in their capacity for starting in one place and veering sharply off the track:

1. The Accidental Universe: Uses the fact that most of the physical conditions that allowed this universe to sustain life or even exist could be purely accidental (the multiverse conjecture) and thus goes onto to wonder about the beauty and randomness of our lives on this small speck of dust.
2. The Temporary Universe: Looks at the eternal human quest for immortality and permanence in everything in the midst of decay by looking at the radical impermanence of everything in the physical universe.
3. The Spiritual Universe: Understands the human quest to go beyond the natural laws by peeking behind the actual laws of the universe. Perhaps the universe too is beyond mere laws? (Plenty of sharp digs at Dawkins here. Don't miss the fun!)
4. The Symmetrical Universe: Equates the human and the cosmos in their shared appreciation and fascination of symmetry. Maybe the mind is the cosmos…
5. The Gargantuan Universe: The immensity of the universe and the impossibility of grasping it is compared with our inborn tendency to shoot big. But most likely the universe is too big for our comprehension, but then, what is not?

6. The Lawful Universe: The human mind is evolved to seek out laws. Any organism in a lawful corner of the universe has to be born with this tendency to be able to manipulate surroundings or survive, propagate, etc in any meaningful way. But should we really be projecting this tendency onto the entire breadth of the universe? To the Multiverse? To the beginnings and endings?

We spontaneously see people as purposeful, and this is the central act of the practical imagination required for social interaction of any sort. We extended this to the physical world. This was the origin and basis of religion - and that is now considered superstition.

Similarly we accord laws spontaneously to the perceivable physical world, which in fact does behave predictably - at least as far as the physical world of our senses is concerned. This is the origin and basis of science. But to extend that to the rest of the universe, macro and micro, is that also not a form of superstition then?

7. The Disembodied Universe: The universe requires us to think conceptually.Nt a single important fact about the physical universe is immediate anymore. A disembodied universe can only be understood by an imaginative species. ALien intelligent life might be more common than we are brought up to believe, but how common would imaginative intelligence be out there?

In the end though, the essays are too wise to be as much fun as Einstein’s Dreams. And that is the benchmark for Lightman.

[Manny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alan Lightman is incapable of writing a bad book, but I'm afraid fans of the magical Einstein's Dreams will be disappointed all the same: this slim collection of essays about Life, the Universe and Everything is not in the same class. People who have been following the faith/science debate will have seen most of it before. Worse, and I hardly know how to say this, the book contains mistakes. The rotation of the Earth means that someone on the equator is travelling at 24,000 miles a day, not 24,000 miles an hour; even more distressingly, snowflakes are not, as stated here, always hexagonally symmetric. If I didn't know better I'd suspect he was just a mortal human being.

Oh well... my fault for buying the wrong one. I'd actually meant to get his autobiography, Mr g, but changed my mind at the last minute. That'll teach me to second-guess myself.

[David Rubenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alan Lightman is the first professor at MIT to have a dual appointment in the science and humanities faculties. He has compiled a sampling of essays into a short book. The essays focus on the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries. The essays are written in a light, easy-to-read, engaging style.

In his first essay, titled The Accidental Universe, Lightman tackles the anthropic paradox. Why do the fundamental laws of nature and physical properties seem to be fine-tuned just perfectly for life to be able to arise? Lightman has a definite predilection for a solution to this paradox; I won't spoil your suspense by revealing it here!

In the second essay, titled The Temporary Universe, Lightman discusses the impermanence of life, of the Earth, and the universe. Then in the essay The Spiritual Universe, he tackles the relationship between science and religion. He writes that the address separate sets of questions; science addresses the questions that can be answered objectively, while religion addresses questions that can only be answered subjectively.

I enjoyed reading this book, but I must admit that I didn't learn very much. Even though Lightman is a theoretical physicist, one should not read this book to learn about physics. Read it to learn about how a philosophy is shaped by physics.

[Laurie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible! After reading Einstein's Dreams, I was really looking forward to this, especially as it's been a while since I've read a book on quantum physics and wanted an update or new insight into any new theories, especially since the discovery of the Higgs field. I am confused about all the rave reviews. There is no science in this book. Just a consistent rant from a pedantic author telling us all how we should live our lives and put down our cell phones to appreciate the green grass and blue skies. Really? This was more an article than a book. He even insults his own daughter in his depressing take on the eventual decay of all things, describing how he could see wrinkles on her face on her wedding day as she is all of 30 years old. Thanks dad! Wonder how that went over in the Lightman house. Do not recommend!

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a short, well-written, easy-to-read collection of seven essays—five of which were previously published. The connecting theme between them is Lightman's attempt to reconcile science with religion, spirituality, mysticism, art, music, literature...essentially, all the subjective human feelings and thoughts we have every day which are as yet unexplained by science. But he disappointingly offers little more than a politically-correct presentation of Stephen Jay Gould's "separate magisteria" argument, where science is cordoned off in a separate domain outside of which it is assumed to have no explanatory power and even doesn't have a "right" to try. Even though Lightman declares himself an atheist in the essay "The Spiritual Universe," he nevertheless states that science should not be used to question religious faith or other "transcendent" experiences. Indeed, he seems to say (again these claims have been made for centuries) that any "personal experience" not shared, not witnessed, and thus not subject to experiment, cannot be rationally criticized and must be accepted on faith.

It's curious that a professor of theoretical physics and humanities at MIT (my alma mater, too) would be so retrograde. A freer attitude, one where science is not restrained, one that I share, is that everything is explainable—unless, and until, proven otherwise. It is obvious we don't understand everything now, but that which we don't understand should not automatically be assumed to belong to another "magisterium" and off-limits. To think otherwise is to impose—in certain institutions—censorship. Furthermore, investigation in no way denigrates any unexplainable experience. To put it subjectively—and this is at the core of most scientists' being—as beautiful as a transcendent experience might be, it is even more beautiful once it's understood without recourse to the supernatural.

My problems with this book are not, in fact, the philosophical arguments, but rather the author's pessimism. It is not clear exactly what readers Lightman is targeting, but I prefer a more optimistic view. And the scientific ideas presented are current, to be sure, but are told at such an elementary level that is has little educational value. Still, you will find a pleasing literary voice.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have not read such an eye-opening book by a scientist since I used to read Loren Eiseley's work years ago. This short book of essays by MIT scientist Alan Lightman looks at the universe from several points of view, first from the point of view of its origin, its evanescence, the spiritual dimension, symmetry, size, the laws of nature, and ending up with our strange disembodied universe in which we use electronic tools that somehow mirror the discombobulation associated with quantum mechanics. At one point, he writes:

Evidently, our impression that solid matter can be localized, that it occupies only one position at a time, is erroneous. The reason that we have not noticed the "wavy" behavior of matter is because such behavior is pronounced only at the small size of atoms. At the relatively large sizes of our bodies and other objects that we can see and touch, the wavy behavior of particles is only a tiny effect. But if we were subatomic in size, we would realize that we and all other objects do not exist at one place at a time but instead are spread out in a haze of simultanous existences at many places at once.

This reminds me of Einstein's own problems with quantum entanglement, which he called "spooky action at a distance."

The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew is full of insights like these. What is more, it puts them together is a neat package that does not require mathematical formulas and complicated graphs and charts. Lightman deals with his subject matter using easily understood concepts and plain, simple language.

This is a book to be read and re-read.

[Daniel Afloarei · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Inima.

Restul recenziei aici:

https://youtu.be/L0c3cXcuzXY

[jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

in our constant search for meaning in this baffling and temporary existence, trapped as we are within our three pounds of neurons, it is sometimes hard to tell what is real. we often invent what isn't there. or ignore what is. we try to impose order, both in our minds and in our conceptions of external reality. we try to connect. we try to find truth. we dream and we hope. and underneath all of these strivings, we are haunted by the suspicion that what we see and understand of the world is only a tiny piece of the whole.

alan lightman's the accidental universe is a slim collection of seven scientific essays. as the first mit professor to receive dual appointments in science and the humanities, lightman is not only knowledgeable about physics, but also has the literary wherewithal to convey his insights with clarity and graceful prose. these seven essays focus mainly on cosmology and our ever-shifting understanding of the universe - serving as a philosophically-minded primer on a number of related concepts including dark energy, multiverse, inflation, entropy, impermanence, religion, wave-particle duality, symmetry, beauty, and technology.

after all, our minds are made of the same atoms and molecules as everything else in nature. the neurons in our brains obey the same physical laws as planets and snowflakes. most important, our brains developed out of nature, out of hundreds of millions of years of sensory response to sunlight and sound and tactile connection to the world around our bodies. and the architecture of our brains was born from the same trial and error, the same energy principles, the same pure mathematics that happen in flowers and jellyfish and higgs particles. viewed in this way, our human aesthetic is necessarily the aesthetic of nature. viewed in this way, it is nonsensical to ask why we find nature beautiful. beauty and symmetry and minimum principles are not qualities we ascribe to the cosmos and then marvel at in their perfection. they are simply what is, just like the particular arrangement of atoms that make up our minds. we are not observers on the outside looking in. we are on the inside too.

while anyone with a cursory understanding of astrophysics and the recent science thereof may not find any new material in the accidental universe, the essays are nonetheless thought-provoking and beautifully composed. lightman is adept at sharing his sense of wonder, be it in contemplation of the scientific or the spiritual (as an atheist himself). the book's final entry, "the disembodied universe," takes aim at the disconnection that results from the ubiquity of technology - especially smartphones. lightman is certainly no luddite, but he does have reservations about the pervasiveness of technological distraction and what it means for our relationship(s) with the natural world around us and the cosmos above. the accidental universe, like so much of lightman's writing, is a stimulating foray into scientific inquiry; imbued with humility, curiosity, and awe.

today, with various "back to nature" movements attempting to resist dislocations brought about by modern technology, and with a worldwide awareness of global warming and other environmental problems, many people feel a new sympathy with the natural world on this planet. but the gargantuan cosmos beyond remain remote. we might understand at some intellectual level that those tiny points of light in the night sky are similar to our sun, made of the same atoms as our bodies, and that the cavern of outer space extends from our galaxy of stars to other galaxies of stars, to distances that would take light rays millions and billions of years to traverse. we might understand these discoveries in intellectual terms, but they are baffling abstractions, even disturbing, like the notion that each of us once was the size of a dot, without mind or thought. science has vastly expanded the scale of our cosmos, but our emotional reality is still limited by what we can touch with our bodies in the time span of our lives.

[Vaiva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Žaidimas kauliukais, verčiantis permąstyti kai kuriuos egzistencijos faktus. Ir žinoma, pasikartoti kai kurias mokyklines fizikos žinias.

[Gendou · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't care about the Dali Llama, Democritus, the warrior king Gilgamesh, or spirituality. I wish Alan Lightman would just get on with the science, already! What is this stuff doing in a science book? It's really out of place.

He makes a lot of claims about theoretical physics that aren't true. He says, "theoretical physics is... the outpost of science closest to philosophy and religion." This is what a philosopher or theologian might fantasize about. But it couldn't be further from the truth. He also says, "theoretical physicists... are not satisfied with observing the universe, they want to know why." Richard Feynman explained in his famous interview that physics doesn't tell you why. It tells you how. Another swing and a miss. He claims, bizarrely, that "theoretical physicists are Platonists." This is laughable because few educated people aren't Platonists. Platonism is antiquated. Indeed, Plato laid some blocks in the foundation of science. But calling modern scientists Platonists due to the existence of those blocks is like calling Peter Raubal a fascist due of his ancestry. So that's an F on the philosophy of science.

But he also gets the science wrong, too. He talks about "all the possible amounts of dark energy that our universe might have" without demonstrating that it's possible for dark energy to have a different value than it does. This is the great lie of fine tuning: that the constants of nature could have been different than they are. This is unproven conjecture. Speculative ideas like Eternal Inflation lay claim to solving an hypothetical problem of fine tuning. Not an actual one.

It goes on like this for chapter after chapter. Save yourself the headache and skip this one.

[Justė Knygu_gurmane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tai esių rinkinys apie mūsų visatą, t.y. kalbama apie ją iš įvairių perspektyvų:
Pirmoji - Atsitiktinė visata. Nagrinėjama fizikos teorijų pagrindu. Tai kaip vis gi ta mūsų visata atsirado?
Antroji - Laikinoji visata. Kalbama apie laikinumą tiek plačiąja prasme, tiek ir individualia. Keliama prisirišimo problema ir pabrėžiamas žmonijos nemirtingumo siekis.
Trečioji - Dvasinė visata. Aiškinamas Dievo ir mokslo santykis. Tai ar Dievas iš tiesų yra?
Išskyrus Dievą, kuris visatai prasidėjus ramiai poilsiauja, visi kiti Dievai nesutaria su mokslo prielaidomis.
...religijai ir mokslui bendras stebuklo jausmas.
Ketvirtoji - Simetrinė visata. Sužinosite kodėl mums taip patinka simetrija ir kodėl bitės korius lipdo būtent simetriškais šešiakampiais.
Penktoji - Milžiniška visata. Tai ar mes visi tik materija, bei kokio dydžio yra ta visata?
Mūsų kūnus sudaro tokie patys atomai, kokie sudaro akmenis, vandenį ir orą.
Šeštoji - Dėsningoji visata.
Veikėjas, kuris visada elgiasi racionaliai, yra apgaulė. Personažas, kurį kiaurai permatai, vertas, tiek, kiek lavonas.
Na ir dar yra keli požiūriai apie visatą, bet nenoriu visų atpasakoti. :) Ir jei galvojate, kad aš čia daug Jums visko atskleidžiau... tai oj klystate! :) Čia tik mažas grūdelis! Ten visko tiek DAUG ir taip ĮDOMIAI pateikta, kad man buvo be galo įdomu.
Bet jei nemėgstate fizikos ir astronomijos, tai geriau neimkite šios knygos į rankas :) O man, kaip dievinančiai šias sritis, tai buvo be galo smalsu pasigilinti į tai daugiau. Lengvai skaitėsi, o ir pateikta viskas tikrai ne sausais faktais, tad nuobodu nebus, o praplėsti savo suvokimo ribas visada pravartu. Tikrai skaitysiu ir kitus šio autoriaus kūrinius.

[Belhor Crowley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Few interesting parts. Other than that nothing worth noticing. Lame aesthetic observations and mistakes at times.
Very disappointing.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have been biased towards Alan Lightman ever since the brilliantly incandescent Einstein's Dreams, so I snatched this off of the library shelf as soon as I saw it, despite the size of my stack already and the state of my to-read shelf. Of course, this is no Einstein's Dreams, but a collection of essays about the nature of the universe. Most of the theories and interpretations discussed were not new to me, so I found little about this book to be groundbreaking. But in general I enjoy Lightman's writing style, and enjoy thinking about these sorts of things, so it was a pleasant enough read.

I most enjoyed the essay "The Symmetrical Universe," which closes thusly: "Viewed in this way, it is nonsensical to ask why we find nature beautiful. Beauty and symmetry and minimum principles are not qualities we ascribe to the cosmos and then marvel at in their perfection. They are simply what is, just like the particular arrangement of atoms that make up our minds. We are not observers on the outside looking in. We are on the inside too." And also "The Disembodied Universe," which contained a lovely contextualized explanation of Foucault's pendulum, which I know I have read/learned about before, but somehow not grasped how radical and beautiful it was in its day. This last essay is also an interesting meditation on progress and technology and the ever-changing human condition.

Some small complaints, but overall a good read.

[Jim]

Started listening to this. It's well read & seems well done, but the subject matter is too far out there for me. Sure, a slight change in atomic cohesive force would make for a different universe where we couldn't live. Dark energy & dark matter might be part of a multiverse. (Personally, I think they just point out holes in our knowledge.) The accelerating expansion of the universe is definitely weird.

I just can't find any reason to really care & fill my head with this trivia, especially when the philosophical maunderings are used to take too little data & spin it into intricate, impractical, & ultimately meaningless (to me) webs. I have enough problems with what is to worry too much about what might be on these scales.

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this, rather short and light, book Lightman explores the different perspectives when it comes to our universe. There is science as there is philosophy and religion. The most important discoveries and the author's personal musings.
I immensely enjoyed this one, especially the fact that Lightman refrained from favouring one of the 'universes'. Most of them overlap anyway. But again, the fact that he stated that it all comes down to the matter of personal belief, was probably one of the aspects I enjoyed most.
A highly informative read that I'd recommend to everyone regardless of your field of interest and/or study.
It's worth it.

[Debbie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

This book was lent and recommended to me by a coworker/friend, because we share a similar taste in non-fiction books. While I didn’t agree with all of the arguments Lightman presented, I can’t deny that he has a way with words and presented a compelling read whether you agree with his principals or not.

This book would have been improved with a bit of trimming off the excess semi-unrelated ramblings in some areas, while bolstering his viewpoint in others with a deeper explanation and exploration of the scientific principles he referenced, rather than a surface-level discussion of said principles.

——

“The mind is certainly it’s own cosmos.” (ix-x)

“In our constant search for meaning in this baffling and temporary existence, trap as we are within our three pounds of neurons, it is sometimes hard to tell what is real. We often invent what isn’t there. Or ignore what is. We try to impose order, both in our minds in our conceptions of external reality. We try to connect. We try to find truth. We dream and we hope. And underneath all of the strivings, we are haunted by the suspicion that what we see and understand of the world is only a tiny piece of the whole. Modern science has certainly revealed a hidden cosmos not visible to our senses.” (x)

We now know so much more about the universe than we used to because there are aspects that we can’t see or sense: the colors of light, the structure of DNA, dark matter, the incongruity of time.

“Science does not reveal the meaning of our existence, but it does draw back some of the veils.” (xi)

“According to the current thinking of many physicists, we are living in one of a vast number of universes. We are living in an accidental universe. We are living in a universe uncalculable by science.” (7)

Dark energy makes up 75% of the total energy in the universe. It is the energy that is accelerating the expansion of our universe when we would anticipate that expansion to be slowing down. “If the amount of dark energy in our universe were only a little bit different than what it actually is, then life could never have emerged. A little larger, and the universe would have accelerated so rapidly that matter in the young universe could never have pulled itself together to form stars and hence complex atoms made in stars. And, going into negative values of dark energy, a little smaller and the universe would have decelerated so rapidly that it would have recollapsed before there was time to form even the simplest atoms.” (17-18)

We live in an “accidental universe,” wherein everything just so happens to be just right to support life. There are two explanations for this: Intelligent Design, and the multiverse (because the multiverse theory explains that there’s so many different universes out there where all the elements that make up a universe are tuned slightly differently, and thus we just happen to live in one where the tuning supports life). My own comment: But why do they need to be mutually exclusive? Can’t we have a multiverse created by an Intelligent Designer?

“Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we have seen in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.” (21-22)

Eventually, cosmic gas will be used up, new stars will stop being born, and old stars will slowly all go out, leaving us with a dark day and night sky.

“To my mind, it is one of the profound contradictions of human existence that we long for immortality, indeed fervently believe that something must be unchanging and permanent, when all of the evidence in nature argues against us... Either I am delusional...or there is some realm of immortality that exists outside nature. If the first alternative is right, then I need to have a talk with myself and get over it...the human mind has a famous ability to create its own reality. If the second alternative is right, then it is nature that has been found wanting...Perhaps this immortal thing we wish for exists beyond time and space. Perhaps it is God. Perhaps it is what made the universe.” (35)

“ Science can never know what created our universe. Even if tomorrow we observed another universe spawned from our universe, as could hypothetically happen in certain theories of cosmology, we would not know what created our universe. And as long as God does not intervene in the contemporary universe in such a way as to violate physical laws, science has no way of knowing whether God exists or not. The believe or disbelieve in such a Being is therefore a matter of faith.” (49-50)

“Faith is the willingness to give ourselves over, at times, to things we do not fully understand. Faith is the belief in things larger than ourselves. Faith is the ability to honor stillness at some moments and at others to ride the passion and exuberance that is the artistic impulse, the flight of the imagination, the full engagement with this strange and shimmering world.” (51-52)

“One physical principle that governs nature over and over is the ‘energy principle’: nature evolves to minimize energy. If you place some marbles on a flat table, after some time has passed you will find most of the marbles on the floor. That’s because a marble on the floor is closer to the center of the Earth and has lower gravitational energy than on the table. Snowflakes have six-sided symmetry because or the angles that the two hydrogen atoms make with the oxygen atom in each water molecule. Those angles minimize the total electrical energy of the water molecule. Any other angles would produce greater energy. Large bodies, like the planet Saturn, are round because a spherical shape minimizes the total gravitational energy.” (75-76)

Honeycombs are symmetrical hexagons because they’re one of only 3 shapes with equal sides (triangles, hexagons, squares) that can fit together on a flat surface without wasting space. They need to be symmetrical so multiple bees can work on the hive at the same time; they’re hexagons because that shape has the smallest perimeter for the area and therefore uses the least amount of wax.

“...Symmetry represents order, and we crave order in this strange universe we find ourselves in. The search for symmetry, and the emotional pleasure we derive when we find it, must help us make sense of the world around us, just as we find satisfaction in the repetition of the seasons and the reliability of friendships. Symmetry is also economy. Symmetry is simplicity. Symmetry is elegance. And however we define the mysterious quality that we call beauty, we associate symmetry with beauty.” (78-79)

“...our minds te made of the same atoms and molecules as everything else in nature. The neurons in our brains obey the same physical laws as planets and snowflakes. Most important, our brains developed out of nature, out of hundreds of millions of years of sensory response to sunlight and sound and tactile connection to the world around our bodies. And the architecture of our brains was born from the same trial and error, the same energy principles, the same pure mathematics that happens in flowers and jellyfish and Higgs particles. Viewed in this way, our human aesthetic is necessarily the aesthetic of nature. Viewed in this way, it is nonsensical to ask why we find nature beautiful.” (83)

“The totality of living matter on Earth—not only humans but all animals, plants, bacteria, and pond scum—makes up about 0.00000001% of the mass of the planet. Combining this figure with the results from the Kepler spacecraft [3% of stars have a planet in the habitable zone], and assuming that all life-sustaining planets do indeed have life, we can conclude that the fraction of stuff in the visible universe that exists in living form is something like 0.000000000000001%, or one-millionth of one-billionth of 1%.” (100-101)

“We will have freedom at any cost. We delight in discovering a rational universe as long as we ourselves are exempt from the rules. We worship order and rationality, but we also have a fondness for disorder and irrationality “ (122)

“I believe that we are inspired and goaded on by what we don’t understand. And I hope that there will always be an edge between the known and the unknown, beyond which lies strangeness and unpredictability and life.” (124)

“What we see with our eyes, what we hear with our ears, what we feel with our fingertips, is only a tiny sliver of reality. Little by little, using artificial devices; we have uncovered a hidden reality. It is often a reality that violates our common sense. It is often a reality strange to our bodies. It is a reality that forces us to re-examine our most basic concepts of how the world works. And it is a reality that discounts the present moment and our immediate experience of the world.” (128)

“A second on your clock is only 0.014 seconds to a particle tracking past you at 99.99 percent of the speed of light. If we were able to move about at such high speeds, time would have a completely different meaning to us. We would constantly need to reset our watches after journeys. When we made a high-speed trip, our children might be older than we were when we returned. When it comes to our bodily experience of time, we are Flatlanders, unable to fathom Einstein’s world of relativity.” (133)

Ok so many of these physics books I’m reading are referencing Flatland. Maybe it’s time I read it...

“Perhaps the most startling discovery of a reality beyond sensory perception is that al Matter behaves both like particles and like waves. A particle, such as a grain of sand, occupies only one location at each moment of time. By contrast, a wave, such as a water wave, is spread out; it occupies many locations at once. All of our sensory experience with the world tells us that a material thing must be either a particle or a wave, but not both. However, experiments in the first half of the twentieth century conclusively showed that al Matter has a ‘wave-particle duality,’ sometimes acting like a particle and sometimes acting as a wave.

Evidently, our impression that solid matter can be localized, that it occupies only one position at a time, is erroneous. The reason that we have not noticed the ‘wavy’ behavior of matter is because such behavior is pronounced only at the small size of atoms... If we were subatomic in size, we would realize that we and all other objects do not exist at one place at a time but instead are spread out in a haze of simultaneous existences at many places at once.” (134-135)

[Shaun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Alan Lightman is one of the brightest and, frankly, most interesting cosmologists and science writers living today. His work is simply phenomenal! "Einstein's Dreams" and "Mr. g" are among my all time favorites. Thought provoking, candid and well-written prose on exceptionally difficult concepts. I truly wish I could be a student in any one of his classes. He is that good. Sadly, however, this one did not trip my trigger. Kindly note that I have NOT yet read "The Varieties of Religious Experiences" which, I believe, to some extent may have influenced Professor Lightman's work here.

The premise here is that we really do not and cannot understand our Universe . . . yet. Why? Probably because it is so freaking huge and our ability to perceive the Universe is within an exceptionally narrow range that precludes the possibility of better, more complete perception. Over time, our ability and understanding has increased, all the while raising more questions than answers. But eventually he predicts that we may be able to understand a bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more. The curtain is being lifted ever so slowly. At the same time, humans are uniquely qualified to begin to comprehend the great duality, disparity and incongruity that exists within and throughout the Universe. Edward O. Wilson wrote about this kind of duality, disparity and incongruity in "The Meaning of Human Existence" which was nominated for a National Book Award last fall. Professor Lightman and Edward O. Wilson are assuredly on my short list for a "dream dinner" as are Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lincoln, Churchill, Victor Hugo, Herman Melville, Marcus Aurelius, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Einstein and my dearly departed Dad, Jerry F. Kenney, May God rest his soul. But I digress.

Each chapter is a self-contained essay about some aspect of the Universe. The chapter/essays even seem, at times, to be antithetical to each other, for example, the chapter/essay on "The Accidental Universe" seems directly antithetical to "The Spiritual Universe" as does "The Disembodied Universe" which seems directly antithetical to "The Symmetrical Universe." I walk away thinking, "You're right, Professor Lightman. We really do not and cannot understand our Universe because it is simply too complex." What he may be aiming at here is that our Universe is not really a "Uni-"verse at all; more like a "Multi-"verse. Capable of being many things at the same time.

He put his cards on the table as an atheist and I will put mine down as well. I am of the opinion that it's complexity confirms for me: (A) our Universe was created by an intelligent being -- the evidence is just too great not favoring that presumption (i.e., the energy that attracts sub-atomic particles are just right -- not too strong and not too loose); and (B) the fact that our huge Universe is so freaking big and complex confirms it was designed by an intelligent, extremely omnipotent being capable of something far greater than we can and will ever hope to comprehend. In law, we call that reasoning a priori and sometimes "res ipsa loquitur" or "the thing speaks for itself."

Granted, that seems to be a circular argument and you would be right. I don't want to get into that whole Immanuel Kant bit about epistemology or "how do we know we know" something. That makes my 54 year old brain hurt. But I cannot help but feel in its vastness and complete and utter lack of the proof of the existence of life on other planets to date confirms for me that we hold a unique and special place in the Universe/Multiverse; some would call that "grace" but I look at is a burden for which we are ill-equipped to handle unless we grow up, like one another (note: like, not necessarily "love") and put on our "big boy" and "big girl" pants and start acting responsibly toward our special planet and stop acting so reprehensibly toward each other or we are assuredly going to blow the only game in town. Again, I digress.

Nevertheless, read this one in conjunction with Edward O. Wilson's newly minted book but don't expect the level of absolute brilliance you may have come to expect from Professor Lightman. Having met Professor Lightman in person and having attended a lecture he gave here in Tucson at the 2015 Book Festival at University of Arizona campus, I can assure you, he is darned interesting, has a heck of North Carolina slang and sleepy "Mayberry RFD" style and argot, and is a true blue gentleman. I could sit there and listen to him read the Physician's Desk Reference all day long and walk away feeling "smarter". But this book, like all things in this "Uni-"/"Multi-"verse (hedging my bets there), is either pretty much all illusion or pretty much obvious depending upon your particular angle of perception. Me thinks that may be his point.

[Rizwan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A series of insightful essays by Alan Lightman, who just happens to be a MIT professor of both physics and the humanities.

He briefly discusses the ideas of the multiverse and our place in it - without getting too much into the science of it; inflation and dark energy; the latest discovery from CERN (the Higgs Boson); quantum physics and the wave-particle duality; entropy and the nature of time.

Additionally he offers a more nuanced discussion on religion and the sciences and though he considers himself an atheist, he criticizes Dawkins for the his extreme views and rhetoric, and acknowledges that some of his most intelligent colleagues are profoundly religious.

The essays are also social commentary, and he ends it with a half-diatribe against cell phones, and current technology that have taken away from good ol' social interaction. But he also admits that this dislike of technology has existed for the better part of three centuries and that he may be in the minority complaining about a romanticized vision of the past.

In the end it is a quick read. And a thought provoking one.

[Roger K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

The language of this book is often quite beautiful, and there are many wonderful passages. Alan Lightman is an MIT professor and is comfortable with both the sciences and humanities. It is a good primer for those fascinated by cosmology, yet not up on its latest developments.

However, the book suffers from the author's inability to imagine a non-dualist world. He admits as much in the book, and spends the rest of the book dealing with the bind he has put himself into. The struggle is interesting to observe, yet it feels like watching a mime in an imaginary box that doesn't realize he can step out of the box whenever he wants.

I feel it is apparent that quantum physics show the idea that science is about discovering a fixed set of underlying principles does not stand up to scrutiny. Instead, science is a construction of human thinking that is informed by the world, yet cannot underpin it for the simple reason that the universe was here long before thinking ever existed.

Regardless, the book is a quick read and worthwhile for those interested in cosmology and the big questions of existence, even if I disagree with the conclusions.

[Peter Tillman · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm stalled about halfway in, and abandoning the book. So far, a lot of philosophical hand-waving. More or less science-free. Not for me!

Mixed reviews here, although most readers liked it more than I did. If you scan the 2-star reviews, you will get an idea of why the book gets mixed reviews. He seems to be an unusually pessimistic guy.

[Raimonda | knygoms · Rating 4 out of 5]

Užuot bandžius Alan Lightman kūrybą priskirti žanrui, pakaks paminėti vieną autoriaus karjeros etapą. Prieš kurį laiką A. Lightman diena prasidėdavo dėstant fiziką, o baigdavosi mokant literatūrinio rašymo.

Tas faktų ir kūrybos derinys kuo puikiausiai atsispindi ir autoriaus tekstuose.

Kaip ir daugelis, Alan Lightman atradau prieš kelerius metus perskaičiusi „Einšteino sapnus” — grožinių esė rinkinį apie laiką.
„Atsitiktinėje visatoje” autorius išsaugo esė formatą, tačiau šįkart pasakojimui renkasi labiau publicistinį stilių, papildytą asmeninėmis patirtimis.

Faktai šiame rinkinyje stiprus atspirties taškas, padedantis įsibėgėti ir kelti klausimus apie visatą. Kaip mums pasisekė apsigyventi vienintelėje žinomoje planetoje, kurioje yra visos gyvenimui reikiamos sąlygos? Kodėl gamtoje mus žavi simetrija, o mene ieškome tos vienos netobulos detalės?

„Atsitiktinė visata” – viena tų knygų, kurias vienodai įdomu skaityti ir nuo pradžios iki pabaigos, ir nuo vidurio, vienu prisėdimu arba po vieną tekstą.

Ir pabaigai, ne esminis, bet labai gražus akcentas — viršelis (jį reikia pamatyti gyvai!). Papuoš ir savas knygų lentynas, ir puikiai tiks dovanai.

[Monika Baranauskaitė · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kaip supratau "Atsitiktinė visata" smarkiai nublanko po pirmosios A.Lightmano "Einšteino sapnai". Ir nemažai kam buvo nusivylimas. Aš pirmosios neskaičiau, man ir šita buvo jėga.
Kai perskaitai tokią knygą gali vaidint prieš draugus ir pasakot, kodėl bičių korio raštai yra būtent šešiakampio formos, kodėl žmonėms patinka simetrija, arba jeigu "kai kurių mūsų visatos fundamentaliųjų konstantų vertės būtų šiek tiek didesnės arba šiek tiek mažesnės - gyvybė nebūtų galėjusi atsirasti.".
Iš girdėtų atsiliepimų susidarė įspūdis, kad daug kam nepatiko, nes knyga nepasako kažko labai naujo. Man mokykloj fizika buvo kančia. Ir kai po tiek metų kažkas pagaliau paprastai ir žmoniškai paaiškino daugelį fizikinių ir matematinių sąvokų plojau katučių.
Kai kurie matematiniai duomenys netikslūs - iš esmės man visiškai vienodai. Vis tiek nė vieno neatsimenu.
Knyga per mažai mokslinė, daugiau popsas. Nežinau, jei norėčiau mokslo, tikriausiai skaityčiau mokslinius straipsnius ar disertacijas. Knyga skirta plačiai auditorijai, tai man viskas kaip ir liuks. Visai rekomenduotinas veikalas.

[James Madsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a delightful collection of related essays on science, art, and the various ways of seeing the universe. I personally did not learn any new science, and the science explained is of a general nature, as befits an overall philosophical treatment. However, that's not to say that other readers won't learn some science from the science-related portions. The best parts for me were the discussions of the relationship between science and the arts. That Lightman's being a writer of fiction as well as a scientist qualifies him to speak to the interface between the two can hardly be questioned, but I thought that his observations, as pithy as they sometimes are, nevertheless sometimes were a bit superficial or obvious, or both. That didn't detract much from my enjoyment of the book, however, and I still heartily recommend it.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I am not convinced by the title of the book that the universe's existence is accidental, the author, Alan Lightman, does write extremely well, and knows how to engage his audience. Even though the author admits to being an atheist, he does acknowledge the legitimate desire to believe in/rely upon an eternal being such as God, and in so doing shows his respect for those who espouse belief systems. A well-balanced book, overall, and one which I recommend, even though I do not share the atheistic worldview--this author incorporates the right amount of science, math, humanities, and theology to keep one's interest for the 145 pages that comprise this book!

[Max D'onofrio · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe this was a collection of essays, and it appealed right away to me. Questions about our place in the universe and how we reckon science with God is what I love to learn about. Very thoughtful and respectful, while honest in the author's opinion. Lots of great quotes I will write down and use.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another take on Astrophysics, Philosophy and Theology. Similar to Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, although Rovelli's book didn't get into Theology nearly as much as this did.

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like a well-written book about the sciences that can inform laypeople. Thoughtful and informative, Lightman pulls together information about the universe together in an all encompassing, philosophical way that makes you care. I will have to read more of his stuff.

[Beige Alert · Rating 3 out of 5]

The anecdote to the belligerent atheist opines about life, the universe, and everything. A couple of odd factual errors, but still a good read.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Theoretical Physicist (what a great job title) Alan Lightman has put together a fun book here, full of scientific information and philosophical ponderings about our mysterious universe (or multiple universes). He has broken the book into chapters discussing various ideas, such as the 'accidental universe', the 'temporary universe', the 'spiritual universe’, etc. And in general I found each one to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed the grand scope of "the gargantuan universe" and the non-scientific ponderings of “the spiritual universe”. The latter is where Lightman makes the case for science and religion peacefully coexisting...since “spiritual types” are generally just harmless 'seekers' themselves (which I agree with...but I do NOT feel that way about most organized religions, which I believe are still dangerous, dishonest, obstructionist, and intentionally misleading regarding science). Overall, each of these chapters gave me quite a bit to ponder regarding the various debates about the universe that we are a tiny part of. Is it chaos? Is it accidental? Is it ordered and structured? Is it "spiritual"? Lightman makes a plausible case for each of these concepts to be “theoretically possible”. Of course, what else would you really expect from a “Theoretical Physicist”? This was a fairly quick read, mainly because it was a fun page turner that I didn't want to put down. I highly reccomend this book for anyone who has more than a passing interest in our vast and mysterious universe.

[Bruce · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Accidental Universe is a collection of seven contemplative essays on different aspects of the universe: the Accidental Universe, the Temporary Universe, the Spiritual Universe, the Symmetrical Universe, the Gargantuan Universe, the Lawful Universe, and the Disembodied Universe. If you are well versed in astrophysics and religion, there's really no new information. Instead, Lightman poses questions and provokes thought, blurring the lines between religion, science, philosophy, and humanities.

This is a breezy and quick read, but don't let that fool you. While you can read this book in just a couple of hours, it will take a lifetime and perhaps more to understand. Written in beautiful prose that is almost poetry, Lightman takes a nuanced approach to life, science, religion, and philosophy, providing many questions and very few answers. He admits to being an atheist, yet argues the spiritual aspects of life against the strictures of physics, and that no one can be sure of theism or atheism.

I like to come away with something more when I read a book such as this one. Although it was certainly graceful and balanced, I felt it also missed something important. It felt too safe. When I read a book like this, I want my beliefs to be challenged. I want to come away changed. But I wasn't.