Skip to main content

From Eternity to Here – Sean Carroll *****

I have a big claim for this book – almost scarily big. This is the book Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time should have been. Let me explain. Despite being the absolute classic of the genre, Hawking’s book has two huge flaws. Firstly it doesn’t do what it says on the tin. It has lots of great stuff to tell us about relativity and black holes and much more. But it doesn’t really tell us anything much about time.
Secondly, BHoT isn’t the most readable of popular science books. It is infamously a book that many have started but few have finished. When you look at the concepts it covers there’s nothing too scary (at least, by modern popular science standards), but it isn’t put across in a way that’s easy to pick up.
So we come to Sean Carroll’s book. And it is a joy. It really does tell us about time, better than anything I’ve ever read. To be fair, most of the content is about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (which ought to be better understood, and is strongly time-related) with a good dose of relativity and quantum theory thrown in. But it really does explore the nature of time.
As for the second issue with BHoT, there is good news and bad when we put From Eternity to Here (I title I hate, by the way) alongside it. This book explains significantly more complex matters than Hawking’s does. But it does so much more clearly. I’m not saying it is all an easy read. You have to read it slowly and carefully – so some readers will definitely be put off – but it hugely repays the effort. I particularly like the way that Carroll not only presents with the orthodox picture, but his own personal views, making it clear where these vary from many other physicists and cosmologists, but nonetheless making powerful points.
Of course it’s not perfect. It is occasionally a trifle obscure. There are occasions the mask of accessibility slips and he forgets who he is talking to. The section on coarse graining, microstates and macrostates, for example, would be better suited to an undergraduate lecture than the intended readership. And I particularly disliked Carroll’s cat and dog analogy for quantum theory, which I found more confusing than just talking about the particles that feature in the theory. The analogy was both cringe-making and confusing.
I also think Carroll (to be fair, like quite a few scientists) needs to take a look at his dictionary when it comes to his approach to paradoxes. ‘Paradoxes are impossible,’ he bluntly states. No they are not – you are thinking of fallacies. Although paradox is sometimes applied in this sense, the better meaning is something that appears impossible but is actually true, something that runs counter to common sense. (Which is why the author is also wrong moaning about EPR being called a paradox.)
A final mini-moan – I wish he had told us how the ekpyrotic universe (see Endless Universe) fitted with his entropy-based analysis of different models of the universe, as he totally ignored it. But these are minor concerns in what is a tour-de-force of popular science writing in the ‘you really need to read this carefully and think about it’ school (as opposed to ‘sit back and enjoy it.’) Highly recommended.

Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Patricia Fara - Four Way Interview

Patricia Fara lectures in the history of science at Cambridge University, where she is a Fellow of Clare College. She was the President of the British Society for the History of Science (2016-18) and her prize-winning book, Science: A Four Thousand Year History (OUP, 2009), has been translated into nine languages. An experienced public lecturer, Patricia Fara appears regularly in TV documentaries and radio programmes. She also contributes articles and reviews to many popular magazines and journals, including History Today, BBC History, New Scientist, Nature and the Times Literary SupplementHer new book is Erasmus Darwin.

Why history of science?
I read physics at university, but half-way through the course I realised that had been a big mistake. Although I relished the intellectual challenge, I was bored by the long hours spent lining up recalcitrant instruments in dusty laboratories. Why was nobody encouraging us to think about the big questions – What is gravity? Does quantum mechani…

The Idea of the Brain: Matthew Cobb *****

Matthew Cobb is one of those people that you can’t help but admire but also secretly hate just a little bit for being so awesome. He is professor for zoology at the University of Manchester with a sizable teaching load that he apparently masters with consummate skill. He’s a scientific researcher, who researches the sense of smell of fruit fly maggots; I kid you not!  He’s also an attentive and loving family father but he still finds time and energy to write brilliant history of science books, three to date. His first, The Egg and Sperm Race, describes the search for the secret of human reproduction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is one of my favourite history of science books, on the period. His second, Life’s Greatest Secret is a monster, both in scope and detail, description of the hunt to decipher the structure and function of DNA that along the way demolishes a whole boatload of modern history of science myths. The most recent, and the subject of this review, is

The Big Ideas in Science - Jon Evans ***

The starting point of a review like this has to be to congratulate the author on his achievement, Jon Evans, because getting all of science into one relatively short book is a massive (and thankless) task. Although inevitably the result is a fairly hectic dash through the material, with limited space for subtleness, Evans manages to make the experience readable and has a light touch that is effective without becoming too simplistic.

There is only one reason this book doesn't get four stars - it's not the quality of the writing but rather the selection of the contents. Of course, there is bound to be plenty of stuff missed out - how else could you get all of science into 269 pages? But the balance is strangely skewed. Chemistry is pretty much omitted, though aspects of chemistry occur under other headings. But for me, the real problem is that physics is really under-represented. It's interesting to use Jim Al-Khalili's recent excellent physics summary title The World Acc…