Skip to main content

Kepler and the Universe - David Love ****

I got my remaindered copy of this book from one of those quirky shops in Glastonbury that specialises in all things mystical. Don’t let that put you off, though – there’s actually a lot more science than mysticism in it. On top of that, it’s the best biography I’ve read for a long time – well-researched and insightful, but fast-moving and highly readable at the same time.

The world Kepler lived in was very different from ours (his dates were 1571 – 1630). In those days, it wasn’t a case of scientific rationalism on one side versus religion and woolly-minded mysticism on the other. Science barely entered the picture – it hadn’t even crystallised into its modern form yet. Europe was torn apart by arguments, not between religion and science, but between different flavours of religion. A bafflingly incomprehensible struggle between Lutherans and Calvinists sizzles away in the background throughout the book.

There were mystics in those days, too. We’re told, for example, that Kepler’s patron, the Emperor Rudolf II, ‘was only interested in wizards, alchemists, cabbalists and the like’. Unlike today, however, the mystics weren’t anti-science (because, as already mentioned, science hadn’t been invented yet). If anything, in their fumblings towards ‘the truth’, the mystics were actually pushing the world closer and closer to a genuine scientific method. And Johannes Kepler was one of them.

His official title was Imperial Mathematician. To modern eyes that might look highly scientific, but in those days the idea that mathematics could provide a meaningful description of the real world was essentially a mystical one. Mathematics had always been used in astronomy, but only as a calculating tool. It was Kepler’s big idea that a mathematical model of the Solar System could actually tell you something about how it worked. Like all his contemporaries, Kepler believed that God had created the universe – but he capped that with the ‘mystical’ idea that it had been created along strictly mathematical lines.

This is where Kepler’s greatest scientific contribution came from – the notion that the planets move on elliptical orbits around the Sun, at speeds determined by precise mathematical laws. I already knew that – but the book gives a fascinating and lucid account of how Kepler got to that stage which was completely new to me. I was also surprised to discover that he anticipated Newton in ascribing planetary motion to a force emanating from the Sun – although he was thinking more in terms of an ethereal whirlpool than gravity.

As David Love says at one point, ‘Kepler could sometimes be utterly wrong, just as he was often brilliantly right’. As well as correctly explaining the speed of planetary orbits, he erroneously explained their spacing using a geometrical theory of ‘perfect solids’ borrowed from ancient Greek philosophy. Throughout his life he was a firm believer in astrological prediction, albeit in a semi-rationalised form: ‘he saw astrology in much the same way as we now see our genes – not as a complete determinant of all our actions but as a strong and inescapable influence on us’. He was also devoutly religious, and believed that God created the universe solely for the benefit of humans on Earth: ‘He strongly disapproved of [the] idea of an infinite universe in which the stars were suns like our own.’

That last point is particularly ironic, because many people today will only know the name ‘Kepler’ in the context of NASA’s exoplanet-hunting space telescope. If you’re in that category and want to know more about the person it was named after – or if you know about Kepler’s laws but not about the man behind them – then this is the book to read.


Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Andrew May


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…