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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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