A Short History of Nearly Everything

A Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson ****

A while ago John Gribbin wrote Science: A History, which attempted to cover all of the development of science in a single volume. The trouble is, it fell between two stools – itwasn’t readable as a narrative, nor was it a comprehensive encylopedia. Travel writer Bill Bryson has now done the same thing, but with significantly more success as he has very clearly abandoned any attempt to be comprehensive – the result is a much easier read.

If (like me) you are a Bryson fan you may find the book a slight disappointment. His genius is as a humorous raconteur of everyday events that have happened to him, and although he includes many enjoyable anecdotes, his style doesn’t work anywhere near as well when talking about a historical event.

Despite this and a decided lurch towards the biological and earth sciences that leaves the rest a little under-covered, this is the best attempt yet to cover pretty well everything in a readable way. Bryson is perhaps at his best when coming up with amazing back-of-the-matchbox facts (if you took all the salt out of the sea and spread it evenly on the land it would form a layer 500 feet thick), and describing encounters with real live scientists, but it’s all good stuff.

Paperback:

Kindle:

Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Search This Blog