Skip to main content

The Planet in a Pebble – Jan Zalasiewicz ****

This is such a wonderful idea for a book. No, not just wonderful, it’s absolutely brilliant. It may to some extent have been inspired by the early geologist Gideon Mantell’s book Thoughts on a Pebble – but the idea of using an in-depth exploration of single slate pebble, picked from a Welsh beach, to reveal a whole host of aspects of the formation of the universe, the Earth, early biology, chemistry, geology and more is inspired. I couldn’t help think of Blake’s lines from Auguries of Innocence:
To see a world in a grain of sand 
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
This book really is about seeing the world, if not in a grain of sand, in a pebble.
In terms of format, then, this is a top notch popular science book. What’s more, unlike many of the more academic authors, Jan Zalasiewicz has a lovely approachable writing style (if there’s any criticism, he’s a bit over-zealous in his attempt to be matey). This has all the makings of a classic. Then there are some wonderful revelations in the contents.
I couldn’t get as excited about the universe/Earth forming bits, because they are familiar from many a book on cosmology, but when it came down to all the detail that was in a single pebble, it was awe-inspiring. Apart from what seemed to be a whole chemistry cupboard full of elements, in that one pebble we have quartz crystals and zircons, fool’s gold and (in tiny quantities) the real thing. There are fossils and geologically formed structures. From these many things can be deduced about what was happening around this bit of rock as it formed, although a lot of the deductions seemed to be on the edge of what’s possible.
So with so much to love about the book – and there really is – why doesn’t it get the maximum five stars? The trouble is evident in the way the book was introduced when the author got a brief spot on the Today programme on Radio 4. Although it’s a relatively short part of the contents, the introduction talked mostly about the big bang and the Earth forming. The reality is that a good number of the chapters are about rock formations moving around and sediments, erm, sedimenting. (I know, I know.) Although what’s crammed into the pebble itself is amazing, the geological processes don’t just make paint drying look speedy – they make it rather interesting too. Zalasiewicz has an uphill struggle to make them exciting – and sometimes he fails.
Apart from the nature of this part of the material (hardly the author’s fault) the only real issues I have with book occur early on. In the chapter about the origins of matter in the big bang and stars, Zalasiewicz gets the balance of explanation wrong. There is rather too much on the details of the formation of matter post big bang, but nowhere enough basics right up front. According to a recent survey only 20 percent of Americans know what a molecule is, yet here we are told that a process ‘knocks electrons out of orbits’ without any attempt to clarify what either of these is. Someone also really should have spotted that the author is unaware that ‘enormity’ doesn’t refer to something that is very big.
Overall, a brilliant book – one of the best finds of 2010 – if only you can maintain an interest in the geology part.

Hardback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Peter Spitz
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more