And the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality - Dark Energy

An average written history of the advancements in cosmology and the science behind it. To make it more accessible, there is little math so those who want a good narrative of what is going on are encouraged to read this. The author goes in depth with the personalities behind the science and the experiments and work being done.

My main gripe about this book is if you didn't understand much about dark matter and dark energy before you read this book, you won't understand much about it after you are done reading the book. Also, though it has much information, I just didn't find the book all that captivating. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if the author included illustrations or charts. Discussing the personalities at such length seemed to obfuscate the science a little.

I really enjoyed this account of the development of the fields of Astronomy and Physics studying dark energy, dark matter, and cosmology. To be fair, I am trained in astronomy and physics, and worked on a telescope for a while, so I have more background and hooks into the topic than the average reader. I found the history interesting and the science very approachable, on the level of a good Scientific American article.

Perhaps the element that caught my attention the most was the narrative of each key figure, and how he or she came into astronomy. I loved the account of Vera Rubin, born in 1928, presenting her Master's thesis at an AAS meeting with her nursing one-month old son to keep one of her advisors from taking credit for her work, and her difficulties in charting her own path as a professional astronomer. Panek's book does a good job of collecting the contributions of disparate members of the team (though I'm sure there are many others ignored) and showing how the work of dozens of people come together for each bit of science.

The science is covered as well, with the idea (and difficulty) of using supernovae as standard candles for determining the distance of extremely distant galaxies, and the background radiation as measured by COBE and other sources. But, there are no equations: this is a narrative.

For me, it was a page-turner, and I think other people who are interested in astronomy and science would find it so as well.

Richard Panek's examination of the evolution of modern Cosmology, THE 4 PERCENT UNIVERSE, shouldn't be missed by anyone who loves to read about the last 13.7 billion years of history. I took a long time to read the book, because its densely packed with information about the WHOs and the HOWs of the discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I remember reading a book written in this style a few years back, that dealt with String Theory. In that book, most of what was explained, was HOW string theory evolved, WHO made all the various discoveries, and the bizarre infighting of physicists over which of the 5 string theories were correct, and how they combined to form M-THEORY. THE FOUR PERCENT UNIVERSE is much like that book. Everything in modern Cosmology started with the surrepitious discovery of the Comic Microwave backround radiation by the BELL LABORTORY radio telescope in 1962, since this discovery confirmed the Inflationary Universe. (Altho the expansion of the Universe from the BIG BANG discovered by Hubble in the 1920s is another starting point, and discovery of the telescope another starting point, etc.) Panek shows how each scientist assembled their teams of grad students, and how much back biting, and why heated races exist to be the FIRST to discover WHAT CONSTITUTES DARK MATTER. Step by step, from the earliest maps of the Microwave backround radiation, thru all the different schools of thought attempting to prove the architecture of the universe (OMEGA's value) as open, closed or flat, right up to the unexpected discovery that DARK ENERGY filled up the missing amounts of mass/energy, that were needed to prove the universe is flat. So obviously, LOTS OF NAMES, and LOTS OF RESEARCH CENTERS get thrown around. (not to mention a ton of anagrams). IT was not uncommon to find as many as 7 different scientists' names dropped on a page. Not only were their names bounced around, but their biographies are explored, and who stabbed whom in the back attempting to be THE FIRST to get papers published, and most of all, claim that Nobel Prize for the proof of what particle constitutes Dark Matter, or Dark Energy.

Personally, if you need a book that ONLY EXPLAINS the basics of cosmology, the history of Einstein's gravitational constant, how the MASS of the UNIVERSE was determined, and the history of how we discovered the age of the universe thru type 1a supernovas, and the composistion of our universe being 72.8% dark energy, 22.7% dark matter, and 4.56% baryonic matter, this is NOT THE BOOK FOR YOU! This book has as much to tell you about the personalities of the big game players during cosmology's last 50 years, the interpersonal fights in the astrophysics community for the biggest atom smasher, the best space telescope, or the brightest minds. Modern astrophysics is an expensive game ultimately about who's credited with what discoveries. At first i was put off by that, but i realized that unless the various discoveries were lined up, and how the research of each scientist rests upon the research of the people who came before them, the amazing discovery that we only know what composes 4 percent of the universe would not make sense. After all, this is science by deduction, since no one's discovered the PARTICLE that constitutes Dark Matter. (It migth be AXIONS, it might be MACHOS, it might be neutralinos, or something still unconceptualized.) And, the discovery of Dark energy, and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was discovered only after the science behind measuring the red shift of galaxies going back to near the beginning of time was reasonably perfected, concurrent with the advent of supercomputers analyzing massive amounts of observational data. The discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of cosmic expansion back in 1997 was a major game changer. So, had Panek just wrote about what we PRESENTLY KNOW about dark matter/dark energy, this would be a thin book indeed. The story of the men and women behind these incredible discoveries points to an important fact easily overlooked. COSMOLOGY isnt a game of A SINGLE MAN discovering E=MC2, but rather of TEAMS, of UNIVERSITIES, of NASA and other international science confederations, of the HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE and CERN COLLIDER, of underground Neutrino detectors and outerspace gamma ray blasts. Like a modern computer, no ONE person, or even ONE TEAM, is finding these discoveries. Rather, failures redirect the scientists to other areas, and discoveries in one discipline feed the theories of another discipline. So even tho you cant read this book to discover what DARK MATTER IS, or what DARK ENERGY IS, you might find out WHO DISCOVERED WHAT DARK ENERGY IS NOT. OR, you might discover why we might not find out the answer to this question for generations to come. OR, we might have an anoucement tomorrow from CERN that the right particle has been discovered, that fits the bill for dark matter.

All in all, here's a book that could easly be on the reading list for a college level class on Cosmology. Cosmology moved from a metaphysical, philosophical discipline, to a discipline of hard science, with billions of dollars of research money poured into the laps of a handful of research groups hoping to discover that tantilizing piece of the puzzle, which will explain exactly WHAT IS 96 percent of the Universe made out of? Reading THE FOUR PERCENT UNIVERSE will give you the vicarious thrill of discovering some piece of the puzzle that explains how dark matter structures the universe, or the disappointment in knowing the path of research you've dedicated your life to pursuing, has been dead wrong. So here's a book popularizing recent scientific breakthrus, filled with betrayals, heartbreak, wasted years, overcoming personal struggles, the politics of big science, and accidental discoveries by people who didnt even know that cosmology existed. The breadth of research in writing this book, will make it interesting to those who watched THE UNIVERSE on History Channel, right up to University students taking Cosmology 101. It's humanizing to view the BIG PICTURE of our universe, without disconnecting it from the SMALL PICTURE of the men and women who dedicated their lives to discover some tiny puzzle piece of the big picture. One last observation: If you read a popular science book by Penrose, Brian Greene, Hawking, Michio Kaku, you will only get THEIR viewpoints, and THEIR discoveries focused upon. With a book like this, you get the entire spectrum of scientists, and their perspectives of how cosmology evolved over the last 80-90 years. Both types of books have their uses, but I found you cant really disconnect the scientist from the science, if you want to realize the human factor that gives humanity the impulse to dedicate so much time, money and energy for discoveries, that are so removed from the machinations of our modern world.

Before reading this book, I was curious what kind of science text it was. Was it the kind that takes your imagination, stretches it to extremes even beyond comprehension, only to leave you amazed and mesmerized at how little we know about the Universe and how much is left to find out? Was it the type that caters to the very detailed science reader (details and cosmology, who knew?), leaving possibilities and speculation for formulas and empirical data? With "The 4% Universe" 85% of the book is a diluted form of the latter, and 15% of the former--all with a very linear, timeline-like approach to the overall story arch.

Now. Is it this a good book, bad book...mediocre? It is a good book--for the audience it is meant for. This book was written out, and expanded, from an article written in the New York Times--and it reads like one big one. This is a very factual book, with more journalism than Carl Sagan. As with journalism and newspaper articles, most of the chapters main points are stated or assumed within the first couple pages. Everything in between is the "how,when, and where" of the conclusion (which seems to be stated near the beginning of the chapter, and reiterated near the end). It is not your typical science book, for it does little to delve within the imagination of the science fiction fan or to satiate the analytical mind of an astronomy student.

This is a history book of one of the 20th centuries most startling realizations: Most of the mass in the universe (96% by this book) is unseen, and unknown to us. This mass (dark matter and dark energy) envelopes, and manipulates all stellar bodies, stars, and astronomical objects in the universe. Yet we cannot measure it. A third of this book documents how scientists have arrived at that point. The chapters usually begin with a young scientist(s) whose natural ambition, and fondness for their profession, lead them to discover, or greatly aid in finding, necessary data that confirms or denies previous hypotheses regarding expanding universes, amount of red-shift in racing galaxies, or supernovae as standard candles. If none of the previous sounds interesting to you, then I would not recommend picking "The 4% Universe" up. However, for a light and quick read that may patch up some minor historical gaps leading up to the modern day problem of "absent mass", this book does just that quite well. Just do not expect to fall in a reverie with the abyss.

I found this book to be quite fascinating and enjoyable. I'm biased in that I love the subject matter; i.e. physics and space science. Beyond that, this book is well written and documented lending a great deal of credibility to the theories and conclusions.

The author, Richard Panek, started visiting this subject via articles published in the New York Times, Discover, Esquire, and others. He recieved the prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship award. He also authored "The Invisible Century" and "Seeing Is Believing". He isn't just an author, he is a scientist himself and has personally contributed to the amazing ongoing search to understand the universe in which we find ourselves.

He builds his case for the thinking behind why we can't detect 96% of what we believe is out there most expertly. He goes through the findings and discussions that led them to believe that we can only percieve a mere 4% of what they think is really out there. To do this, he takes concepts from various related disciplines: quantum mechanics, particle physics, Einstein's theory of relativity, and cosmology; and proceeds to attempt to tie them together.

All in all, this book is quite fascinated and I recommend it for anyone that has any interest in learning more about this subject. It should be noted, however, that most of what is in this book is just the most modern theories and that it is all subject to change as time marches on. After all, at one time modern theory held that the earth was at the center of the universe and all that was seen in the heavens circled around us.

Although 'The 4 Percent Universe' offers fine recherché annotation; however, it would've been more interesting to view findings from others outside ordinary disciplines.

As a case in point, Einstein was not an astronomer, yet his theories led to integrative insights; and such views from scientists in other fields may have provided a broader perspective and more answers about hidden reality.

Topics that may have been included would probe how other physicists view the four percent world in relation to information. Is there a correlation between Newton's Gravitational Law and Einstein's Relativity Theory in contrast to modern science of Black Hole interpretations, String Theory,M Theory, or G Theory's take on gravity with "The Secret" Law of Attraction?

There are few answers thus far; however, others outside of astronomy would be worth exploring and integrating within this substantial text.

Although the title refers to 4%, the book is actually about the 96%! It tells how the unseen universe of dark matter and dark energy was deduced.
Here is a rather unusual approach for a science book. It is a story that Richard Panek tells through the aspirations, actions and achievements of a host of individuals. There is a cast list of hundreds and while key characters are a constant presence, many others - as in any drama - are bit players.
Sometimes for one who wants to follow the scientific thread, it is disconcerting to have to remember who did which with whom to produce what. Nevertheless the book rattles along at brisk pace dwelling in some detail on one of the big set pieces: the rivalry between the High-z team at Berkeley and the SCP team at Harvard to determine whether the expansion of the universe was slowing or accelerating. So many names were mentioned that even on re-reading I am not entirely sure who headed these teams. The rivalry was about personal kudos but also concerned the practical matter of getting finance.
If you want to understand the insights that yield theories and then the tedious business of observation to demonstrate the validity of the idea, this book gives a good idea of what goes on. Richard Panek interviewed over ninety scientists in researching the book as well as publications: the bibliography runs to a 150 references. I'm sure it is an entirely accurate picture but for the general reader the personal details intrude and make everything rather more complex than it need be.

After reading this book I wondered why it was written,since it does not live up to its title at all. There is very little science, mostly discussion about the petty egos and personal interactions of scientists involved in research. What little science there is in this book I have already read about elsewhere in far greater detail. A very disappointing read, very little to recommend it unless you enjoy a whodunit of personalities and the history of research and discoveries.

Richard Panek is a translator and elucidator. Those who pursue academic and scientific knowledge have become increasingly specialized, and speak in an esoteric jargon incomprehensible to the rest of humankind, so that, for example, there are only the proverbial 10 individuals who are "qualified" to address Faulkner's views on southern agrarian reform. A more germane example provided by Panek is the process whereby one no longer studies "the heavens," nor even just "supernovae," nor even just one type of them, but rather the type of metals the explosion creates or how photometry is used to measure them. So Panek's feat is a remarkable one: he is knowledgeable in the specialized jargon, and few areas of human endeavor are more esoteric and difficult to comprehend that astrophysics, and has the ability to translate this knowledge into simple, straightforward declarative sentences. Nary an equation is in this book, yet the specialists believe that only equations can convey the truth of a proposition or idea.

Panek commences his story, rather ironically for me, where I left off. In high school, in the `60's, I read George Gamow's The Creation of the Universe (Dover Science Books) and Fred Hoyle's Frontiers of Astronomy. Was the universe in a "steady state", as Hoyle proposed, or was it created by a "Big Bang," as Gamow advocated? It was an open question then, now decided in favor of Gamow. Sadly, I can remember mocking my father, saying: "When you studied chemistry, they had not even discovered the neutron"! Now my son could do the same to me, so out-of-date my own knowledge of "the heavens." Panek's book has helped close that gap.

There is a judicious balance in this book, between the science itself, and the personalities of the individuals who pursue that science. Vera Rubin is one of the "heroes." As a graduate student she examined data that inferred that the universe itself might be rotating. And one thing lead to another, as scientists attempt to reconcile theoretical structures with their observations. The pursuit of supernovas is a dominant theme in the book. They are important due to their relatively short lifetime, and thus, once "standardized," serve as essential signposts for what is occurring in the rest of the universe. The detection techniques have improved so drastically that within a decade it was possible to move from two detections per year to 10-20 per night.

As for the human drama, for better or worse, so much of the knowledge gained is the result of competition for awards and recognition. Panek quotes one of the "big-guns" in the field, Kirshner: "Hey, what's the strongest force in the universe?" "It's not gravity, it's jealousy." Panek drolly notes in a footnote: "Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four forces. But `It's not the strong nuclear, it's jealousy' doesn't really land, as they say in standup." And that is another strength of this book; Panek has a knack for the clever analogy with our generalized knowledge, for example, calling a series of meeting where no progress in made: "a movable famine," and even working in, as an entire chapter, "the curse of the bambino."

And the title? A strange selection that will almost certainly not withstand the test of time, with a revised number probable in 10-years time. Presently, only 4% of the universe is composed of material we thought of as the entire universe back in the `60's, that which is composed of baryons (that is, protons, neutrons, electrons, "the stuff of us," as Panek says). The other 96% is dark matter, and the even far more inexplicable, dark energy, stuff as poorly defined as the neutron was in my father's day. Pursuit of that knowledge goes on, in some rather remarkable places, including a "shed" in the desert and the South Pole.

Having received my copy via the Vine program, it is still early in the "review game." No 1-stars yet, which will be posted by those who feel that Panek stepped too heavily on some toes in the human drama part. In the meantime, I'll post a solid 5-stars for helping bring my own knowledge up to date, and perhaps even avoiding a jab from my own son. Thanks Mr. Panek, and well done.

I'll bet the publisher insisted on this title, while the author's submitted title was then demoted to the subtitle: "The race to discover...," etc. More concerned with the details of the effort leading to discovery than to the actual discovery - and a soap-opera style accounting of the personalities involved - this work should please those interested in those aspects. If the science is what intrigues you, look elsewhere. This is not a science-for-the-public book like those written on Evolution by Richard Dawkins or on language by Steven Pinker.

The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality

In reading this book I was reminded of a thing my granddad taught me, that one does not hug a theory and make the evidence conform to that theory, or delete that evidence. One instead must follow the evidence religiously and let it lead wherever it may.

Panek's book confirms the above, "follow the evidence," but also shows us that, that is NOT exactly what some scientists were doing. If they had a pet theory, some of them tweaked the "evidence"-the math, to fit their theory-, which seemed to them only natural. However, it wasn't the way you or I learned science, architecture or art. Tweaking erroneous math tended to slow progress and wasted time and money.

The material in Mr. Panek packed into this book is staggering, especially to a casual reader of cosmology, which I am. However, what we have learned, despite the mistakes, is/was even startling to scientists whose entire lives were/are dedicated to research and testing. What is laid bare here is something of which some of scientists vaguely suspected, while others remained essentially clueless. But never did the truth, the reality, occur to the vast majority of scientists; although a good many suspected the reality, they had no proof, or at least not solid truth. That reality was/is that their knowledge of the content of the entire universe was 96% in error.

The author shows that the prevailing view of the cosmos was incredibly wrong. The truth is that they/we, were missing 96% of the energy and matter of the Universe! Ninety-six percent! In other words in a physics test on the content of the universe the world's top physicists, astronomers, cosmologists on content would find majority of them with a failing grade of only 4%, by way of having never heard of let alone never seen 96% of the matter/Energy of the entire universe. Herein we hear and see as close as possible how the great minds made tremendous discoveries but though suspicious of something missing, were still missing the bulk of this universe.

Off in the distance was a chalice, the holy grail of physics, cosmology and astronomy. For those who were able to find a new and viable explanation of the how, what, and where, as well as why, in the offing were/are, Noble Prizes, awards for equipment, technology and status, as well as personal esteem and justification for those who were close to the truth, or for those whom everyone else thought were close to the truth.
Simplifying physics, astronomy, cosmology is a very difficult thing. This author, however, did exactly what was needed; he made the complex seem rather understandable. Wisely, the author knew well the adage that for each formula an author displays, he will lose several thousand readers. Panek is no fool, so you will need a magnifying glass to find formulae herein.

About 4.5 billion years after the birth of our planet, and about 15 billion years after the birth of the universe, the population of Homo sapiens sapiens has at least some knowledge of the universe in which they dwell. It may still be speculative, primitive, even fanciful, but it is, never the less, a start.

In this epic trip across time and space to our present proposed state of the universe, at least as we currently understand it, is extremely well told. Herein, Panek rapidly, but thoroughly, cruises, pushes and wends his way from the beginnings of curiosity to the present time, with speed, dexterity and intelligence. He covers, mostly the last few dozen decades within which we traverse back and forth, some 15 billion years.

This is one book on physics, cosmology and astronomy, which is a joy to behold, fun to read and for many people, parts of it will be a startling revelation. Cosmology, is a bit like theology, in that errors seem to most people to mean one thing, to some truth, to others a conspiracy theory. Often they are neither of the above, they are just a path which may lead to the truth, or at least lead to taking a different path.

I, perhaps much like you, grew up many years ago in an era in which those who studied the sciences and theology, regardless of their zeal, knew a secret of which many others seemed not to be even remotely aware. To this day, nothing in that regard has changed. Subjects like astronomy, cosmology, and anthropology (and theology), are not an exact science...not yet anyway.

We also know from author Panek, that most people believe there is but one version of the "Big Bang" theory. Not so, there are many and most of them today are in deep dispute. That like all theories is based upon educated guesses, which are often incredibly inaccurate and are just as, or more often, incorrect. The Hubble Constant, for instance, is shown herein to be anything but constant. Often physicists, as Panek points out, like many modern lawmen, do not always follow the evidence, and in fact, often fudge, squeeze the math to match the current or pet theory, as this book so readily informs us. Getting it wrong may cost a great deal of time and money, but if they feel the need to know a thing for certain, that is the only path open to them. Why we think we need to know is another matter entirely.

However, the book points out the failures of equipment, technology, ideas, and theories. That is all expected and in fact, one cannot succeed without ideas, even if/when many of them fail, without following them through to determine their efficacy, we cannot know their efficacy or lack thereof. Only in experimentation, probing, thinking and yes, sometimes throwing the dice a bit, can they have even a slight chance of discovery of either their errant or correct path.

One Critic says, "A superior account of how astronomers discovered that they knew almost nothing about 96 percent of the universe." I quote the above from a review provided by the store, because it is true, as the title indicates.

Panek is a dedicated science writer, trusted by scientists to comprehend and deliver a discernable text on scientific matters that need to be narrated. Among his many science books are, The Invisible Century: Einstein, Freud, and the Search for Hidden Universes, 2005, and much more)

He shows us how over the decades, some astronomers thought that they knew and understood the cosmos including its growth from nothingness into a universe. Thought they had in hand, every important thing from the Big Bang followed by galaxy configuration to its end as expansion drew it out too far for gravity and the quantum to hold everything together.

However, one problem, at least on the surface, Panek says, was that Hubble was a bit off the path because the Galaxies were moving much too fast to meet his calculations. More than that, if gravity did maintain movement, the galaxies had to be heavier than the physicists anticipated. The math, though it was off, was headed in the right direction, but still too conservative. Given that often the math was often jiggled to meet the theory, either a correction was needed, or the formula needed to be reconsidered. The mass was obviously somewhere within those galaxies because they were, by then able to figure out the weight of the matter close enough to know that mass was obviously missing, but where was it?

It was soon to become a rather large problem because it was increasingly clear that the galaxies, including ours, were spinning so fast that missing mass actually far outweighed the visible bodies such as stars. Even after examining gas and dust, this invisible or very "Dark Matter" appeared to be more than a little strange. There were in the galaxies bodies, or particles which were at this point and maybe forever, unknown to science. One thing they did know, however, was that gravity, the thing that holds everything together was a drag on the universe... it appeared to be slowing the expansion of the universe. If true; one of the many theories would be that galaxies would reverse themselves, continue to recede ever more slowly or stop entirely, a forecast that meant the end of the universe.

One of the fascinating ideas which the author discusses is that the universe may collapse upon itself and then re-expand into another Big Bang, but maybe without the Bang. Maybe this has happened before? If that is so what of the quantum? The Oscillating Universe ala Friedmann/Einstein; was Einstein's choice after rejecting his own 1917 model. In the 1920s Einstein favored the Expanding and contracting in cycles where time is endless and without a Big Bang and thus avoids the beginning-of-time paradox. That borders on the old Steady State theory, which most Christian scientists thought was more likely and fitting to their belief system. However, science is as much a religion as is theology, so the two theoretical paths often intersect and just as often cross and/or bounce off each other.

A side note is that theory is a close match with some ideas of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. They share a belief that the Universe passes through endless cycles of Oscillation, each cycle lasting for trillions of years (331 trillion years + one billion, or the life-span of Brahma, according to Hinduism, and each cycle with sub-cycles of local creation and destruction (about. 4.32 billion years, or a day of Brahma, according to Hinduism). Others interpret this cycle of Oscillation at every eight (8) to sixteen (16) billion years, still others, to 80 billion years.

Panek keeps the error ridden attempts at figuring out the mechanism of the universe, which are followed by various important successes, in fast motion, moving quickly over eons of mistakes and failure, followed by flashes of truth, only arrived at by learning from the mistakes, or even at times, by luck. Panek shows us the seemingly endless failures of instruments, especially cameras drove inventers toward newer technologies like digital photography. Digital Photography was a very necessary development as it made visible Supernovae, which could never have been seen before. Panek also discusses various lenses, most of which were later to prove inadequate to catch the necessary data or images especially of Supernovae, which drove them to create new and better lenses. Therein stand the keys to the theories of expansion and red shift method of measuring distance. What once was a journey of three steps forward and two and seven eighth's steps backwards, became perhaps three steps forward and two and three quarters steps backward. A slow gain, still unsure, but never-the-less. necessary.

There were among the men and women whose lives played out in the pursuit of the unknown to make the unknown knowable, the usual human tics, of jealousies, bitter competitions, envy, impatience and at times great and heroic collaboration, cooperation.
Almost as frustrating as the universe seeming to hide its origins, were/are the daily struggles of many sorts. We see examples of insufficiently reliable high-tech detectors, confusing computer algorithms and ever growing and gargantuan telescopes to search distant galaxies for the key, camera's which prove not up to the task of reading, and allowing enough light to be detected, making catching the light of Supernovae difficult to detect, as I mentioned earlier.

Some readers will learn that theories are initially just this, outside the box, innovative, ideas supported by feeble to growing evidence, hopefully enforced eventually by formulae. These then, as we now know because of this book and other like it, are not a great deal more than guesses, educated guesses, indeed, but guesses none-the-less, and guesses of which for many, die hard, but many die never the less. Among such near extinct are the much misunderstood, Big Bang, which is now the label for maybe a dozen theories all of which differ in one way or another, most of which day by day, discovery by discovery, are annihilated to make room for more theories, which according to all involved in the book and outside of it, may never in the tenure of homo sapiens sapiens existence, be fully understood.

Panek says that by the late `90s expansion of our universe was shown to not be slowing down but instead it was speeding up. Dumbfounded astronomers knew that accelerating billions of galaxies is dependent upon near incalculable energy. Once Einstein proved that energy and mass are equivalent, (E=MC-2- (squared) the so-called, "dark energy" makes up about 73% of the universe. With "dark matter" adding another 23%, reduces the visible, (at least to Earthlings) to 4 percent of the total mass, and with no clue, yet how it all came to be.

Altogether Mr. Panek brings the reader clear cut explanations and smooth sketches of a science which upon seeing the interior of the search for the seeming unknowable reveals smart men and women trying feverishly to make some sense of a seeming impossible problem in math, observation, interpretation, theory, aided by slow, tedious research, unending research all of which has brought us in several thousand years to this point: More of us now know, (but not nearly enough) that for all the hard work and study by some great minds, we may never know how things really came about in the construction of this universe, but there was seldom a more interesting ride than following the evidence, searching and making some tiny headway now and then.

The work place of these scientists, like those of most other professions is often a jealous rivalry which quickens the pace, driving them to a hustle they would never have encountered, never had to endure in eons past, all of which led to a now more forthright assessment of where we are in cosmology and a scientific revolution and cooperation of sorts that has speeded up a process once ego driven, once protective of pet theories which could stand for decades but now are lucky to make it through a summer.

The author shows us that we are in a new age of astronomy, cosmology and physics; an age in which, at least in some places, cooperation, honesty and honor supercedes the egocentric-know-it -all. Now, lay people who read this fascinating book can know the truth about this science, which for all the new technology, all the brilliant mind, math, observations, and formulae, there is still a strong segment of hunches-guess work, but guess work that now and then, here and there, breaks through and gives us a closer look, a look which frightens those who thought the Big Bang of 70 years ago was concrete, dogma/fact, but which gives hope to many others because we know one thing, 96% of the universe is not visible, at least not to us, and 4% is all that we do see. What is the rest? "Dark Energy" is about 73% of the universe and "dark matter" about 23%, which reduces the visible, to (4%) four-percent of the total mass/energy spectrum, and with no clue yet how it all came to be.

If you are open minded about science, here is the gospel from an insider, writer Richard Panek. Scientists do not like to be interviewed by amateurs. If a writer lacks a solid reputation at success, at strong enough understanding of turning complex science into easily comprehendible print, scientists will not allow an interview, and without them your book is a harder sell. A science writer has to have the intellectual ability to properly interpret what he is seeing and hearing from those he interviews and/or from documents and be able to properly interpret what they are learning.

Panek did a great job and if you like science, you will like this book.

The 4% Universe is written with such clear poetic urgency that I couldn't help but be drawn in, and I would have enjoyed it more if I better understood the science behind it. This one is not for the average astronomer.

Journey into this bubble world of cosmological specialists as they race to make their mark on history. They are pioneers for sure, but their frequent sophomoric rivalries only serve to taint their professionalism.

I have had a lifelong interest in Astronomy. One of the things I love about it is the constant appearance of new discoveries. Dark energy and dark matter are two of the most amazing and basic discoveries in centuries. This is a facinating book for anyone with any interest in the subject.

There is absolutely no information in this book that describes or explains what dark matter or dark energy may be. The book is mostly about the squabbles between various groups of cosmologist who are trying to figure things out. Each group sits on their information refusing to share with anyone. All the science described in this book could have been covered in a magazine article. The rest was just a soap opera of bickering and feuding. This review is about the book on CD which is full length.

So many people are waiting for a breakthrough on what might be Dark Energy and Dark Matter. When this book came out I'm sure we all thought "something new" was finally out. You will not find something new in this book. What you will find is a history lesson about how the 4% was discovered. It is a good history lesson, but I feel played by the author. Knowing the subject is popular, let's see if we can get one more run at the audience. This is an author's retirement book.

This book is written by a skilled, experienced journalist. It adds a dramatic flair to the developments in cosmology and astrophysics that have led to consensus views about the universe and the nature of reality. The reader gets an insight into the personas of influential scientists and the political nature of scientific institutions. The main drawback to this book is that it focuses on the shifting consensus in this field while failing to explore other ideas that challenge the dominant notions. It ignores scientists who have exposed flaws in beliefs about red shift and the big bang and doesn't examine the ramifications of quantum theory and metaphysical ideas, which could offer better explanations for things that some attempt to address with dark matter and dark energy. In science it's common for inaccurate assumptions to form the foundation of theorizing and research. This book offers an engaging look at developments in these areas of investigation but it looks at only a small slice of ideas and evidence pertaining to the subject matter. It doesn't question assumptions that truly do need to be questioned. Thus, it may intrigue and stimulate the mind of the reader while leaving the reader still rather ignorant about what is being discovered about "reality" via multiple disciplines. Thus, for style this book is a solid effort and a pleasant read, but I can't recommend it for those seeking a really advanced, more accurate understanding of the universe.

Have the Audible edition of this book narrated by Ray Porter.

Man, could he narrate !

The book is excellent in its own way, but narration is brilliant.
Learnt a lot of cosmology, Supernova factories, etc.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Dark Anything are ways to say " I DO NOT KNOW".
Giving something a fancy name does not mean that you know more about it.
It is just a trick to sell books and to get money for "research".
Why not Frankenstein Matter or Dracula Energy?

This book was recommended by an artist friend who was all bubbles and enthusiasm about it. But it was distressing to find the core issues and controversies associated with studies of the "dark matter" are fully avoided and not even mentioned. It takes the usual view of overly-enthusiastic and insufficiently critical "science journalists", who act as cheerleaders for mainstream views, and pretend critics of those views simply do not exist. For example, "dark matter" is only a necessity if one accepts the big-bang theory of creation. If the red-shifting of starlight is due to other causes -- and there are many proposed causes other than doppler shifting and galactic recession -- then suddenly one is faced with a constant and infinite universe as per Fred Hoyle, filled with something more along the lines of the cosmic ether of space, as per Dayton Miller. Young scientists today are rarely even taught these controversies, however, and so remain ignorant. This book appears designed to keep them ignorant.

For example there is plenty of experimental evidence to support the existence of a background interstellar medium which offends most mainstream astrophysical theories (see for example the papers on ether-drift experiments in Heretic's Notebook: Emotions, Protocells, Ether-Drift, and Cosmic Life Energy), but in modern scientism, as opposed to old fashioned science, popular theories must never be challenged, and so take precedence over challenging experimental findings, which are simply ignored. If you religiously embrace the idea of fully empty space, then suddenly all the gravitational dynamics of the background of space itself, filled with energy -- call it "neutrino sea" or "intergalactic plasma" if you don't like "cosmic ether" -- must be due to something with slight mass, but which cannot be seen. But this was known for a long time, in the context of a transparent ether or plasma space. Today it is ridiculed and dismissed by the big-bangers, so whatever this phenomenon is, out in open space, they say it must be raw particle-matter, not fluidic space-energy of any sort. But since you cannot see it, then it is also, for some strange reason, not absorbing or reflecting of background starlight, and is therefore "dark". Forgetting the contradictory elements, by pure logic only, "dark matter" was declared into existence. It is a fully necessary thing from the viewpoint of big-bangism, which like Einstein's relativity theory also demand that space be a complete empty void, save for a few molecules zipping around, and of course lots of photons and neutrinos. But even neutrinos are rarely mentioned in this 4% book, as their abundance is so fantastically large as to approximate a cosmic ether. The term "neutrino sea" is widely used. However, all that is shoved off the table into the garbage can by the advocates of big-bangism and a particulate (but not energetic) "dark matter". And of course, "dark energy" had to be proposed to overcome internal contradictions within the original theory -- but there is an additional fly in the ointment.

Dr. Rita Bernabei has for years led the DAMA (dark matter) project in northern Italy. Her team uses an array of special NaI(Tl) scintillation detectors placed deep under Gran Sasso, a huge mountain, to detect the dark matter residuals that can penetrate deeply into the Earth's crust. Her team has discovered and documented over many years, a seasonal variation as follows: Periods of highest dark matter detection are when the Earth is moving most rapidly through the cosmic background of space, notably in June. The minimal dark matter detection periods are in December, at the time of slowest Earth-speed through the cosmos. It has to do with the spiral-form motion of Earth through space, which one can readily see when considering the Sun -- around which Earth moves -- is also moving along, thereby showing the Earth's true trajectory through space is not a mere circle or elipse, but actually a spiral. But that rather straightforward consideration has created quite a fuss in astrophysics. When the experiment was firstly proposed, everyone agreed it would be revealing and of fundamental importance. However, as the results came in, so too did objections materialize (out of thin "dark matter" as it were)... the experiment not only detects weakly interacting particles (WIMPs) suggestive of the first real and direct detection of "dark matter" or something like it, but it is direct experimental evidence for some kind of "cosmic wind". A "dark matter wind" perhaps, though by its very variation, it creates big headaches for the big-bang theory, which originally necessitated the idea of "dark matter" in the first place. So if the DAMA results are authentic -- and they are -- then big-bang is further at risk of falling, and it isn't really a "dark matter wind" at all, but very likely a direct detection of another form of background cosmic medium in open space. Einstein's relativity theory would also be put at risk. By having a "wind" component, "dark matter" shows itself to be quite a bit more substantive than it should be, and begins to look more like a cosmic background medium (ether, neutrinos, plasma, call it what you will).

Now, why would the author of 4% not mention this major controversy in the sciences? It is well known, even getting significant discussion in a few mainstream publications. A simple google search of "rita bernabei DAMA" brings up around 22,000 links, so you can check it out yourself. Why is this work and subject ignored? There is not one mention of Bernabei or DAMA in this book, nor of the concept of dark-matter wind, or any other kind of interstellar medium in the background vacuum of space, which can hardly be due to ignorance. The book appears written to preserve the big-bang theory, at all costs, so no threatening data or concepts are allowed into it.

So... where to get more authentic information, to learn about the controversy? Aside from internet searching out of Dr. Bernabei, I suggest for starters, The Electric Universe or Thunderbolts of the Gods + DVD, to introduce you to how the discoveries of plasma physics are affecting astronomical theory. There also are excellent books going to the foundations of big-bangism -- or "big bang creationism" -- such as The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe,Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality,The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer, Second Edition, Revised and Updated, or any of the works by Halton Arp "Dean of Heretics" of astrophysics: Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies,Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. Or even the cosmological works of Wilhem Reich, who seems to have "got it right" more so than any other: Ether, God & Devil & Cosmic Superimposition. Yeesh, the mainstreamers burned that book (literally) and had Reich put into prison over it. Which only goes to show, socially at least, the more things change, the more they stay the same.