Skip to main content

Astrophysics for People in a Hurry – Neil deGrasse Tyson *****

When I reviewed James Binney’s Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction earlier this year, I observed that the very word ‘astrophysics’ in a book’s title is liable to deter many readers from buying it. As a former astrophysicist myself, I’ve never really understood why it’s considered such a scary word, but that’s the way it is. So I was pleasantly surprised to learn, from Wikipedia, that this new book by Neil deGrasse Tyson ‘topped The New York Times non-fiction bestseller list for four weeks in the middle of 2017’.

 Like James Binney, Tyson is a professional astrophysicist with a string of research papers to his name – but he’s also one of America’s top science popularisers, and that’s the hat he’s wearing in this book. While Binney addresses an already-physics-literate audience, Tyson sets his sights on a much wider readership. It’s actually very brave – and honest – of him to give physics such prominent billing; the book could easily have been given a more reader-friendly title such as ‘Secrets of the Universe’. But it would still have been astrophysics by stealth, because it’s only thanks to physics that we understand anything beyond our own planet. As Tyson puts it: ‘the universality of physical laws makes the cosmos a marvellously simple place’.

 Although the book is new, its chapters (now suitably updated) originated over a period of many years as self-contained magazine articles. They cover a wide range of topics, from the big bang and dark matter, via the electromagnetic spectrum and the periodic table, to asteroids and exoplanets. The coverage isn’t comprehensive; some of the most obvious subjects, like stellar evolution and black holes, are barely touched on. That isn’t a problem, though. The book doesn’t set out to explain everything we know about the universe, but to show that what we do know about it, we know because of physics. That’s just as interesting, and much rarer at a popular science level.

 Personally, I loved the book – and I would have loved it even more when I was 15 years old, and my knowledge of physics was largely aspirational rather than actual. In those days, the book would probably have been written by someone like Isaac Asimov – and that’s a fair comparison, because Tyson’s style is a lot like Asimov’s. It manages to be clever, engaging, witty and lucid all at the same time. I kept finding myself stopping to read bits again because they were so good. Here are three examples of the kind of thing I mean:
  • On quarks: ‘The most familiar quarks are ... well, there are no familiar quarks. Each of their six subspecies has been assigned an abstract name that serves no philological, philosophical or pedagogical purpose, except to distinguish it from the others.’
  • On dark energy: ‘When you estimate the amount of repulsive vacuum pressure that arises from the abbreviated lives of virtual particles, the result is more than 10120 times larger than the experimentally determined value of the cosmological constant. This is a stupidly large factor, leading to the biggest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science.’
  • On the cosmic microwave background: ‘The molecule cyanogen gets excited by exposure to microwaves. If the microwaves are warmer ... they excite the molecule a little more. In the big bang model, the cyanogen in distant, younger galaxies gets bathed in a warmer cosmic background than the cyanogen in our own Milky Way galaxy. And that’s exactly what we observe (you can’t make this stuff up).’
Although the book’s aimed at beginners, I have to admit that rather spooky last point came as news to me. And it wasn’t the only thing I learned. I  never realised there was enough energy in a single cosmic ray particle to knock a golf ball across a putting green. I didn’t know thunderstorms could produce gamma rays. Or that, if we could see Jupiter’s magnetosphere, it would be several times bigger than a full Moon in the sky. 

 All in all, this is a book I can heartily recommend to anyone, regardless of how much or how little they know about physics.
Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


Review by Andrew May
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more