Skip to main content

Enjoy Our Universe - Alvaro de Rújula ***

I’m going to start this review with a longish quote from the author’s preface, for several reasons. It explains De Rújula’s purpose in writing the book, as well as the audience he’s trying to reach, while giving a taste of his idiosyncratic writing style (which he keeps up throughout the book). It’s also a good starting point for discussing the book’s strengths and weaknesses. Here’s the quote:

'This book is not intended for (very) young kids nor for physicists. It is intended for anyone – independently of the education (s)he suffered – who is interested in our basic current scientific understanding of the universe. By "universe" I mean everything observable from the largest object, the universe itself, to the smallest ones, the elementary particles that "function" as if they had no smaller parts. This is one more of many books on the subject. Why write yet another one? Because the attempts to understand our universe are indeed fun and I cannot resist the temptation of putting in writing – and attempting to partake of my own share of this fun.'

So it’s meant to be a lighthearted book about cosmology and particle physics – two notoriously heavy subjects – aimed at the general reader, with an emphasis on the fun of doing science. That sounds like a great book concept, and De Rújula certainly makes an effort to live up to it. His jaunty writing style is entertaining and sometimes genuinely funny, spanning all the usual suspects from quarks and Higgs bosons to gravitational waves and dark matter. The book is profusely illustrated with quirky full-colour cartoons, mostly drawn by the author himself. In style, they appear to be aimed at 11 or 12 year olds, which is presumably why he only excluded ‘very’ young kids in the above quotation. Unfortunately, most 11 or 12 year olds (or even 40 year olds with no grounding in mathematical science) are going to find the book hard going.

The fact is that De Rújula – a theoretical physicist at CERN for the last 40 years – is simply too close to the subject. In common with many professional scientists who try their hand at writing, he confuses ‘general reader’ with ‘first-year undergraduate’. He understands that many readers won’t like equations (chapters that contain them are marked with asterisks so they can be skipped over), but he doesn’t realise that the problem goes further than that. Even his non-asterisked chapters are filled with logarithmically scaled graphs, powers-of-ten notation and variables with Greek names – and all those things are going to scream ‘mathematics’ to most people.

Every now and then he falls into the trap of trying to educate – rather than simply intrigue – the reader, and then the ‘physics is fun’ illusion collapses completely. I’m not really a ‘general reader’ myself, since I’ve got a degree in physics, but some of the asterisked chapters (such as the one on Renormalisable Relativistic Quantum Field Theories) still managed to go over my head. At some points I wondered if De Rújula actually started out to write a different book altogether – an amusing take on physics to be enjoyed by physicists themselves – but was persuaded by the publishers that it would sell more copies if ‘physicists’ was crossed out and replaced with ‘general audience’.

Certainly some of the book’s anecdotes and in-jokes will make a lot more sense to people who already know something about the subject – as will some of De Rújula’s more offbeat opinions (such as his argument than Einstein misunderstood E = mc2). Here’s another example. One of the book’s cartoons depicts the ‘Margaret Thatcher at a cocktail party’ analogy for the Higgs boson. This may be familiar to a few of the book’s readers – but probably not the younger ones,  or those living outside the United Kingdom, who may not even know who Mrs Thatcher was. Yet the analogy isn’t spelled out in the text, and the caption tantalisingly says ‘It would be difficult to misrepresent better the underlying physics. There is no sense in which inhabitants of the vacuum gather around a massive particle’ – with no further explanation than that. What a missed ‘physics is fun’ opportunity! It needs at least a page of text to explain the political background to the competition that produced the analogy, the logic of the analogy itself, and why De Rújula thinks it’s a bad one.

The book’s back cover boasts glowing endorsements from not one but two past winners of the Nobel Prize for Physics. That’s cheating, really, because he said earlier that it wasn’t a book for physicists! Personally I’m not sure who it’s for – and that’s my main criticism of it. If you’re thinking of buying it, I’d recommend reading a few sample pages first. If you enjoy them, you’ll probably enjoy the whole book. If you find them too quirky or confusing, then it’s best to give it a miss.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  


Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond Weird - Philip Ball *****

It would be easy to think 'Surely we don't need another book on quantum physics.' There are loads of them. Anyone should be happy with The Quantum Age on applications and the basics, Cracking Quantum Physics for an illustrated introduction or In Search of Schrödinger's Cat for classic history of science coverage. Don't be fooled, though - because in Beyond Weird, Philip Ball has done something rare in my experience until Quantum Sense and Nonsense came along. It makes an attempt not to describe quantum physics, but to explain why it is the way it is.

Historically this has rarely happened. It's true that physicists have come up with various interpretations of quantum physics, but these are designed as technical mechanisms to bridge the gap between theory and the world as we see it, rather than explanations that would make sense to the ordinary reader.

Ball does not ignore the interpretations, though he clearly isn't happy with any of them. He seems to come clo…

Mercury - William Sheehan ****

Driving to work one morning several years ago, I spotted a tiny white dot close to the rising sun. ‘That’s Venus,’ I said to myself. Almost immediately I saw another, much brighter dot a few degrees away. ‘No, that’s Venus – the first one must be, um ... Mercury.’ Even with a lifelong interest in astronomy, I always manage to forget Mercury.

With eight planets in the Solar System, one of them has to be the least interesting – and Mercury got the short straw. That’s a relative statement, though, and a diligent author could still dig up enough fascinating facts about that tiny dot by the Sun to fill a short book. William Sheehan has done a brilliant job of doing just that.

One of the reasons Mercury is so easy to forget is that it’s almost impossible to get a good view of it from Earth. Even after the invention of the telescope, which turned planets like Mars and Jupiter into explorable worlds, Mercury remained a mystery – and the subject of some pretty wild speculations. In 1686, for exa…

Everything You Know About Planet Earth is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

This is the latest of a series of 'Everything You Know About... is Wrong' books from Matt Brown. Although I always feel slightly hard done by as a result of the assertion in the title, as there are certainly things here I know that aren't wrong (I mean, come on, the first corrected piece of 'knowledge' is that 'The Earth is only 6,000 years old' and I can't imagine many readers will 'know' that), it's a handy format to provide what are often surprisingly little snippets of information that are very handy for 'did you know' conversations down the pub (or showing up your parents if you're a younger reader).

Some of the incorrect statements that head each article are well-covered, if often still believed (for example, people thought that world was flat before Columbus), some are a little tricksy in the wording (such as seas have to wash up against land) and some are just pleasantly surprising (countering the idea that gold is a rar…