Skip to main content

Mercury - William Sheehan ****

Driving to work one morning several years ago, I spotted a tiny white dot close to the rising sun. ‘That’s Venus,’ I said to myself. Almost immediately I saw another, much brighter dot a few degrees away. ‘No, that’s Venus – the first one must be, um ... Mercury.’ Even with a lifelong interest in astronomy, I always manage to forget Mercury.

With eight planets in the Solar System, one of them has to be the least interesting – and Mercury got the short straw. That’s a relative statement, though, and a diligent author could still dig up enough fascinating facts about that tiny dot by the Sun to fill a short book. William Sheehan has done a brilliant job of doing just that.

One of the reasons Mercury is so easy to forget is that it’s almost impossible to get a good view of it from Earth. Even after the invention of the telescope, which turned planets like Mars and Jupiter into explorable worlds, Mercury remained a mystery – and the subject of some pretty wild speculations. In 1686, for example, Bernard de Fontanelle offered the following gem on the subject Mercurian natives: ‘that they never think deeply on anything, that they act at random and by sudden movements, and that actually Mercury is the lunatic asylum of the universe.’

There’s one situation when Mercury can be seen quite easily through a telescope, and that’s during a transit – when it passes in front of the Sun (advance notice to astronomical enthusiasts: there’s a Mercury transit coming up in a year’s time, on 11 Nov 2019). The trick is knowing exactly when to look – and that’s easy, because planets move as predictably as clockwork, don’t they? Well, not in the case of Mercury – at least not in the 18th and 19th centuries, when several transits were observed at the ‘wrong’ time, or missed altogether. The problem (as we now know) is that Mercury obeys Einstein’s rules of gravity, not the Newtonian approximation that was in use in those days.

The inability of Earthbound telescopes to discern surface features on Mercury – despite various 19th and 20th century claims to have done so – is highlighted by the fact that no one knew what the planet’s rotation speed was until it was measured by radar in 1965. The answer is 58.65 days, exactly two thirds of the Mercurian year of 88 days. That means the days on Mercury are very long – even longer than you might think. The 58-day period is relative to an inertial frame, but during that time Mercury is also going round the Sun. So a ‘day’ (the time from one sunrise to the next) is actually closer to two Mercurian years.

The final demystification of Mercury came with the first space probes – the Mariner 10 flyby in 1974 followed by the Messenger orbiter, which circled the planet for four years starting in 2011. Although they produced a wealth of data, their main achievement was to confirm Mercury’s status as ‘least interesting planet’ – a small, airless, heavily cratered world that resembles the Moon more than it does any of the other planets. There’s one small consolation in the fact that all those craters needed names, and aficionados of high culture can have great fun browsing through the list at the end of the book (there’s Magritte, Melville, Mendelssohn, Michelangelo, Milton, Monet and Mozart, just to mention some of the Ms).

It’s not all bad news, though – Mercury has a few genuinely unusual and unexpected features. It’s made up of 60 per cent iron – an amazingly high proportion, twice that of our own planet. And it has a faint comet-like tail – something I was unaware of till I read this book. As I said at the start, Sheehan has done a great job of pulling together all the genuinely interesting facts about Mercury – in a serious, well-sourced style that’s easy to read without talking down to the reader – while resisting the temptation to pad the text out with unnecessary details. Add to that top-quality production standards and some lovely photographs from the Mariner and Messenger missions, and the result is a book that easily convinced me the Solar System’s ‘least interesting’ planet is still a pretty fascinating place.


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


Review by Andrew May

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...

The War on Science - Lawrence Krauss (Ed.) ****

At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier.   It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book. There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing...

The Infinite Alphabet - Cesar Hidalgo ****

Although taking a very new approach, this book by a physicist working in economics made me nostalgic for the business books of the 1980s. More on why in a moment, but Cesar Hidalgo sets out to explain how it is knowledge - how it is developed, how it is managed and forgotten - that makes the difference between success and failure. When I worked for a corporate in the 1980s I was very taken with Tom Peters' business books such of In Search of Excellence (with Robert Waterman), which described what made it possible for some companies to thrive and become huge while others failed. (It's interesting to look back to see a balance amongst the companies Peters thought were excellent, with successes such as Walmart and Intel, and failures such as Wang and Kodak.) In a similar way, Hidalgo uses case studies of successes and failures for both businesses and countries in making effective use of knowledge to drive economic success. When I read a Tom Peters book I was inspired and fired up...