Skip to main content

Twenty Worlds - Niall Deacon *****

This is a truly entertaining and informative book, but the reason I’m giving it the full five stars has as much to do with the refreshing novelty of the author’s style as anything else. There’s novelty in the subject-matter too – the wide variety of recently discovered exoplanets orbiting other stars – but even so this is the third book on the topic that I’ve read. The first two were a lot less fun to read, and (without naming and shaming the authors) it’s worth a brief diversion to explain why.

The first author was a university professor with a vast knowledge of the subject, who seemed determined to convey the entirety of that knowledge without stopping to think whether it was interesting or necessary for a general audience. The second author – another academic – took a different but equally tedious approach, with a plodding chronological account that focused as much on the dull routine of the scientists involved as on their work.

Niall Deacon doesn’t make either of those mistakes. He’s a professional astronomer too, though you wouldn’t guess that from his writing style, which is as straightforward and lucid as science writing gets. Each of his 20 chapters is focused, not just on a single planet, but on one or two interesting new things about it. This gives him more space to get the key points across, without cluttering up the picture with peripheral detail. It’s this lack of extraneous detail that gives the book a different feel from the usual run of popular science books. We’re rarely told, for example, the date that a particular planet was discovered or the names of the researchers involved (although these can be surmised from the list of references at the end).

Deacon’s narrative style is unconventional, too. New scientific ideas are approached by an oddly lateral route, starting with a seemingly random, everyday metaphor and then gently easing the reader towards the point he’s trying to make. So you get chapters starting with anything from Ramadan or the Beatles or David Attenborough to frisbees, vaccinations and mountain lakes. I  found this rather bemusing at first, but once I got used to his style it was fun trying to guess where he was going with an idea.

The fact that there’s at least one new idea per chapter means the book’s emphasis is on breadth and variety – not just of the exoplanets themselves, but of how they were discovered. A few of the more obscure ones were new to me, despite my previous reading on the subject. I didn’t know exoplanets had been found using gravitational microlensing, for example – or that, with hindsight, evidence for a planet orbiting van Maanen’s star may have been found more than a century ago. I was also delighted to learn about WASP – Britain’s low-budget answer to the Kepler space telescope, consisting of an array of Canon telephoto lenses purchased on eBay and installed on a mountain in the Canary Islands.

When I saw the word ‘worlds’ rather than ‘planets’ in the book’s title, I assumed the focus would be on potentially habitable, Earth-like planets. But if anything, the opposite is true. To use Deacon’s analogy, beginning a planet hunt by saying ‘let’s look for another Earth’ is a bit like British tourists in an exotic far-flung destination saying ‘let’s find a fish and chip shop’. I’m aware of three or four well-known exoplanets that are often mooted as possible ‘other Earths’ that he doesn’t even mention. But to do so would risk turning the book into a boringly repetitive catalogue – and happily it’s the exact opposite of that.

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re