Skip to main content

The Planet Factory - Elizabeth Tasker ***

The way this book opens has the feel of an author trying too hard to get her personality across, as popular science books sometimes do. Elizabeth Tasker opens by asking an astrophysicist 'What would make you throw my book out of the window?' and as a reader, I hardly take in the next page and a half wondering why anyone would ask such a question. Then, just as I regain the ability to process what I'm reading, I get 'In 1968, Michael Mayor fell down an ice crevice and almost missed discovering the first planet orbiting another sun'. And I'm thinking 'But no one made such a discovery in 1968', not realising that this statement had nothing to do with his much later work on exoplanets (planets that orbit other stars) but was just a way to try to make the character more interesting.

 Thankfully, once we get past the introductory section, Elizabeth Tasker's style settles down in a big way - if anything it goes to the other extreme and becomes distinctly dry, delivering more of a collection of facts than a narrative. However, in terms of content, The Planet Factory can't be faulted. It is excellent, for example, on planetary system formation. We're used to hand waving explanations of planetary formation from a disc of dust and gas, but Tasker shows how there's not long (in planetary timescales) for this to happen, and why it's really distinctly difficult for a cloud of dust grains to do anything more than bounce off each other, rather than clump together to form a planet.

 Even in the heavy fact sections there is a tendency to use odd analogies, for example: 'this uncertainty leaves us as much in the dark about the planet's type as would the sex of a foetus with its legs crossed in the womb,' but these become less frequent after a while. Tasker gives us oodles of detail, emphasising how complex the planet formation process is, as new discoveries often make old theories wrong, or at least throw oddities into the mix. As readers, we soon realise that an awful lot is being deduced from a relatively tiny amount of data, so there is a strong whiff of speculation in the air much of the time. This is emphasised when Tasker describes the way that three planets found orbiting Gliese 581 were later thought not to exist - in the case of two of them, it was enough that the star had the equivalent of a strong sunspot to produce the misleading data.

 This is the first popular book I've read about the formation of both our solar system and exoplanets that gives a real, gritty, coal-face feel for the complexity of the process involved, how much we know... and how much we don't. To be honest, it's not the most engaging book - I don't think that's Tasker's fault - it's just that as a topic it's rather like geology - probably the hardest of all scientific topics to make interesting to the general reader. It's notable that in the final section, where Tasker takes on whether or not planets (and moons) are correctly placed to be able to provide the essentials for life as we know it, things get more interesting. But if you have an interest in the solar system or planetary formation on a wider scale, and are hazy on the details, it's a must-read.

 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

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more