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

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

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...