Skip to main content

Particle Physics: a very short introduction – Frank Close ****

Frank Close packs in a lot of information in this “very short” introduction (notice there’s no promise about difficulty!). That is at once this book’s biggest strength and its potential challenge. The reader who picks it up expecting a breezy, bird’s-eye-view of particle physics is in for a surprise. But if you stick with it, your efforts will be amply rewarded. In ten concise, albeit dense, chapters, Close covers everything from the basic scale of fundamental particles and forces and the three families of matter to quantum chromodynamics, the origins of mass, and even more esoteric subjects like dark matter.
The first four chapters are a particular delight. One of Close’s strengths is his ability to make extremely large or small quantities relatable by using apt analogies and by carefully explaining the units physicists use, such as electron volts. His writing is consistently accessible, unassuming and fun in a wry sort of way, but you never get the sense that he is dumbing down the subject matter or taking the sorts of shortcuts that lead to misunderstandings. These chapters serve as an admirable mini-introduction in their own right.
I have to admit that the fifth and sixth chapters, though worthwhile, occasionally tried my patience: these focus heavily on the history and development of particle accelerators and detectors. While I agree that covering the experimental side of particle physics is necessary in order to understand its current state, Close’s descriptions of cyclotrons, synchrotons, linear accelerators, emulsions, bubble and spark chambers, neutrino detectors and the likes could have benefitted from less historical detail, which is interesting but not essential.
In thinking about the book’s four last chapters, it’s inevitable to point out that these were written before the LHC discovered the Higgs boson in July 2012, so there is some speculation about the LHC that an updated edition would remove or replace. One wonders too, based on what we now know, whether speculative ideas such as supersymmetry, for which we have yet to find any experimental confirmation, might be de-emphasized. But these minor quibbles don’t detract much from an engaging and rigorous discussion of the standard model, antimatter and questions that remain open. Close’s clear, balanced approach is to be applauded. I should also point out that there are plenty of helpful diagrams and tables – as well as a few equations – throughout.
It seems only fair to acknowledge that rating this book using stars may seem a bit prosaic, given its subject matter. So I will translate this rating into particle physics terms: On a pentaquark (they haven’t been confirmed experimentally yet, but exist hypothetically) scale of book rating, I award this volume two positively charged K mesons. And if that just has you scratching your head, I encourage you to pick up this excellent primer.

Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Alvaro Zinos-Amaro

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on