Skip to main content

A History of the Solar System - Claudio Vita-Finzi ***

It was interesting to read this book straight after Ali Almossawi's Bad Choices. The topics may be totally different, but they are both small books - in this case a mere 100 pages - at high prices for their size. But there the similarity ends. Where the other title conceals a very small amount of content, Claudio Vita-Finzi packs in a huge amount of information on our best understanding (c 2016) of how the solar system came into being, the constitution of its components, where it extends to and far more. But that packing comes at a price, which I'll return to.

I wasn't clear on first seeing the book if the 'history' in the title referred to a sweep through historical views or what has happened to the solar system through time. In practice it does both, but there's relatively little on early ideas, concentrating mostly on our best present theories. It might be a surprise how fuzzy some of those theories are. For example, we still aren't anywhere near certain how the Earth/Moon system formed - and where I thought it was now clear that Earth's water didn't come from comets, as the hydrogen/deuterium ratio is very different, it turns out that this isn't true of all comets... so maybe some of it came from comets after all.

I'd say the ideal use for this book is as an information resource for a student starting a degree in astronomy or a writer wanting some pointers on the solar system. It's a great fact book. Sadly, what it doesn't manage to do is be a good introduction for the general reader. Vita-Finzi packs in so much by making sentence after sentence pure fact statements - almost bullet points - there is very little narrative flow, making the book no easy read.

It doesn't help the readability that the publisher Springer has a weird publication style where each chapter is treated like an academic paper with an abstract, a DOI number and separate references. Bearing in mind an abstract is supposed to be, erm, abstracted, where do they think it's going to go? And those references are particularly obtrusive, both because they are cited with inline numbering like [42] which really breaks the flow of the text and also because, particularly puzzlingly, those numbers seem to be picked at random - in a chapter I just picked at random, the first reference was number 13, followed by number 41.

The slim volume is printed on expensive glossy paper, which means that the colour images could be high quality, though they are often too small to really impress. Nonetheless, apart from reproducing the common repeated misleading assertion that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for saying there were many other worlds revolving around other suns (see this post for detailed reasons why this is incorrect), there is a huge amount of useful information in this book that would benefit anyone who needed more detail than is available in a typical popular science title.
Paperback:  

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more