Skip to main content

Before Time Began - Helmut Satz **

This is an odd little book. The aim seems to be to provide more detail about the most widely accepted cosmological theories than we usually get in a popular science title, which to some extent it does - but in a way that, for me, fails the Feynman test (more on that in a moment).

 In his introduction, Helmut Satz tell us that not everyone agrees with some of the things he is going to describe, but I'm not sure that's good enough. For example, we are presented with the full current inflation theory as if it were fact, yet it seems to be going through a whole lot of uncertainty at the time of writing. It's fine to present the best accepted theory, but when there is significant concern about it, it's important to at least outline why it has problems and where we go from here.

 In content terms, it's hard to fault what Satz covers - it gives us everything from a description of spontaneous symmetry breaking to the Higgs field, all with significantly more detail than you might normally expect. There's plenty too, for example, on nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background. The problem I have with this book is the way this is presented.

 There's one trivial issue. I hate the way the book is structured. It treats all the headings as if they were part of the body text. This totally misunderstands the point of headings, which is to provide an indicator of a clear break. What's more, readers don't always read the text of a heading, so end up with disjointed text. It's ironic that a book about the structure of the universe so messes up the structure of a book.

 The bigger issue, though, is that Feynman test. The great American physicist Richard Feynman famously made the distinction between knowing something and knowing the name of something. Feynman pointed out that his dad taught him as a kid when looking at birds: 'You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts.'

 I got exactly that feeling here - we're told the name of everything but don't get any feel for what's really happening or why it's happening. Take transitions and spontaneous symmetry breaking - there is a good example made using magnetisation (much clearer than some of the analogies I've seen) - but the phenomenon is just described. We get no idea why this is happening. Elsewhere analogies are used, but not necessarily very effectively. In describing the action of the Higgs field we are told it's a bit like the way a snowball gains mass by rolling through snow. But the snow it rolls through is the same material and itself has mass - the snowball is just accreting mass - so as an analogy it provides little benefit.

 I don't think this book is a waste of time. It will fill in some gaps for those who only have a conventional popular science view of cosmology and may encourage some to move onto the more mathematical material. But I don't think it really achieves what it sets out to do.

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



Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

  1. psbraterman20 October 2017 at 13:45

    Thanks. Yet another occasion where you have saved me a lot of time and frustration. Keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more