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

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...