Skip to main content

Black Holes: a very short introduction - Katherine Blundell ***

Black holes have to be amongst the most fascinating phenomena of astronomy/cosmology and as such make a perfect topic for a new addition to OUP's vast collection of pocket guides, the 'very short introduction' books. I read my copy on a couple of 45 minute train journeys - it's long enough to give a good grounding in the basics of black holes, without being heavy or over-technical.

We are taken on a tour that includes the early black hole-like concepts, and the nature of the real thing, what would happen if you fell into one, the black hole's thermodynamics (which is more interesting than it sounds), how we discover things like their mass and spin rate, how they grow (and shrink) and plenty more. Considering this is just 93 pages, Katherine Blundell packs in the good stuff.

The writing style is generally approachable, and this is a popular topic, so I was all set to give the book four stars, but there were sufficient issues to pull it back down. The first was the errors. Almost every popular science book has at least one, but there seemed rather more than usual. The expected one, which I couldn't blame Blundell for, was in the description of Hawking radiation, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The reason I don't blame the author is that almost all popular science descriptions of Hawking radiation don't make sense, because all of us, except working physicists, assumed Hawking described it correctly in his book. Unfortunately he didn't - in attempting to simplify a messy theoretical concept, he came up with an 'explanation' that doesn't hold water, which was then, unsurprisingly, repeated elsewhere over an over. It's unfortunate timing that there has been a lot of publicity this year for this problem. 

Less forgivable were a couple of oddities. The Andromeda galaxy is described as being 6 million light years away. It is actually around 2.5 million light years. While you might argue this is order of magnitude correct, even the worst taxi driver wouldn't take you on a route that was 3.5 million light years too far. We are also told that white dwarf stars are cold. This seems to suggest a lack of understanding of stars - you can't radiate blue-white light and be cold. What might have been intended is that over time white dwarfs do cool in the way that ordinary stars don't, because there's no hydrogen fusion to heat them, but it's a very slow process and observable white dwarfs tend to be pretty toasty.

Finally, there's the matter of omissions. Most of the work on black holes is theory rather than observation, and there's a rich vein in the theory around, for instance, the concept of firewalls - whether an observer passing into a black hole would not notice the event horizon or would burn up, as some theories suggest. Other theories put the entire universe in a black hole, making the possibility of a holographic reality. It's a shame this fun speculation isn't there, both to see and be analysed, especially as so much about black holes is based on theory rather than observed data.

Not a bad book, by any means, but enough issues to raise a small flag.


Paperback 

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under