Skip to main content

Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction - James Binney ****

For many readers, the very word ‘astrophysics’ is a daunting one. That’s ironic, because astronomy is one of the most popular of popular-science subjects, and it’s almost 100% applied physics. You can’t understand planetary orbits without invoking the theory of gravity; you can’t understand how stars shine without invoking nuclear fusion; you can’t understand a galaxy’s spiral arms without invoking the physics of waves. Yet apart from a few exotic topics like black holes and dark matter, the crucial role played by physics is all too often glossed over in popular astronomy books.

So this ‘Very Short Introduction’ is a welcome antidote to all that. It would be ideal for a reader who is already keen on astronomy, and has some basic school-level physics, who wants to see how the two fit together. Most amateur astronomers will have heard of ‘main sequence stars’ and the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, but this book shows you how the mysteries of stellar evolution all have their roots in solid physical principles like gravitation, nuclear fusion, heat convection and black-body radiation. 

Another thing that comes across is that, although the universe is very big, there really aren’t that many laws of physics. So the same physics gets used over and over at different scales – with, for example, the same principle of ‘conservation of angular momentum’ shaping the structure of the solar system, black hole accretion discs and entire galaxies. Other areas of physics, which may not be very prominent here on Earth, really come into their own in an astronomical context. This applies most obviously to relativity – both the special and general theories – which can explain a whole range of phenomena from the stability of the solar system to cosmic rays and gravitational lenses.

A short, wide-ranging book like this is always going to lack depth, but that’s not a bad thing with a potentially heavy subject like this one – especially when, as in this case, the author is a professor of astrophysics. Fortunately James Binney doesn’t try to blind readers with science, but he doesn’t talk down to them either. That’s probably a good thing, too, since I suspect the very title of the book is going to have a self-selection effect on its readership. The sort of people who buy this book won’t want to be talked down to.

A few months ago it was mentioned to me that these OUP ‘Very Short Introduction’ books tend to be dry summaries rather than narrative-driven. That’s pretty much the case here. Essentially the author presents a long list of facts, rather than posing a series of rhetorical questions (of the sort the reader might have) and then answering them, or showing how they were tackled in a historical context. I think I might have liked that better, but I can’t mark the book down on that account because it’s obvious that it is simply sticking to the house style for the series. Even so, it’s an enjoyably easy read, and a long way from being a stodgy textbook – I mean, what textbook would tell you the Galaxy contains ‘zillions of dark-matter particles’?


Paperback:  

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on