Skip to main content

Mass - Jim Baggott *****

Jim Baggott is one of the UK's best popular science writers and never disappoints. As the book's name suggests, Mass is about what seems at first sight a straightforward and ordinary aspect of matter. It's just a property that stuff has that makes it behave in a certain way. But the further we get into the book, the less obvious the nature of mass becomes - as a reader, it can feel a little like following Alice down the rabbit hole.

 We begin with a run through the history of our growing understanding of what matter is, and the nature of mass. Apart from repeating the myth that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for supporting a heliocentric cosmology, this is fairly straightforward stuff, but then Baggott makes the interesting step of not just making the transition from a philosophical view to a scientific one, but continuing with the philosophy to include, for example, Kant's 'Ding an sich' or 'thing-in-itself' concept that underlines the way that we can't actually know reality, only our sensory responses and the models we build. There was a time when scientists were on the attack as far as philosophy is concerned (Stephen Hawking infamously declared philosophy to be 'dead' in The Grand Design), but in practice, with a concept like mass, that philosophical consideration is important and useful.

 As he continues, Baggott takes us through relativity and its implications for mass to be dependent on frame of reference and quantum theory to underline our growing understanding of what stuff is, before coming to his coup de grace, where we find that mass is not that fundamental aspect of stuff that it appears to be, but is rather a combination of the interaction of quantum fields and an effect produced by energy. It's a neat inversion of our usual way of looking at mass and matter - beautifully well presented. Along the way, Baggott manages his usual trick of going into the physics to a slightly deeper level than is common in popular science coverage - for example, in his description of what is involved in the renormalisation used to get rid of infinities from quantum electrodynamics - while keeping the text mostly approachable.

 If I have any criticism, I felt the skip through relativity didn't quite do the subject justice. It was too summary to really get a feel for it, but too detailed to be scene setting, making it one of the less interesting parts of the book, particularly if you've read anything on relativity before. That balance seemed to be handled better with quantum theory. I'd also say that towards the end, where we get into abstruse matters, there isn't quite enough explanation, so the reader is occasionally left thinking 'I don't see how you make that leap.' This seemed particularly true when talking about spontaneous symmetry breaking. There's a diagram showing how ice has lower symmetry than water that confuses rather than helps, and we are told that for spontaneous symmetry breaking to occur when water freezes 'we need to add something (impurities or inhomogeneities, in this case) to encourage it to happen.' A very reasonable reader response is 'If you have to add something, it certainly isn't spontaneous' - a problem that isn't addressed.

 Despite a few points like this towards the end, for me the book was interesting throughout (I liked the business book style 'five things we learned' at the end of each chapter) and it encourages the reader to really think about the nature of matter and how something as apparently straightforward as mass is not what it seems. That delight in revealing the unexpected typifies, for me, the joy of physics.

Hardback:  

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

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