Skip to main content

Extraterrestrial Languages - Daniel Oberhaus ***

Despite the title, this book isn't about the languages that aliens use, but rather how should we format messages that are intended for non-human recipients? Every now and then, we send something off into space, whether it's the inscribed plaques on the Pioneer probes or messages beamed from radio telescopes. Whether we should do this or not is a contentious issue - Daniel Oberhaus briefly examines the arguments for and against - but the meat of the book is trying to answer the question 'If we do want to communicate to aliens, how could we make our message comprehensible?'

Oberhaus opens the book with a fascinating story I hadn't heard of the astronomer Frank Drake sending a message (by post) in 1961 to 'nine of the smartest individuals in the United States' as a hypothetical message from outer space, consisting of 551 zeroes and ones. The recipients were supposed to spot that this is a multiple of prime numbers, array the zeroes and ones by these numbers and interpret the visual message then presented. None understood it (though one did spot it was a visual array in this format and replied in kind). This so strongly underlines how difficult it is to send a message to someone who has no clue about the format. If humans couldn't interpret a message from other humans, how much harder would it be for a truly alien species?

In the book, Oberhaus takes us through the mechanisms used in the various attempts as well as some theoretical ways of communicating such as artificial languages that have never been used. It is genuinely interesting, but I found it too technical - there were pages at a time that were very hard to get your head around if you aren't involved in the field.

Apart from this occasional impenetrability, as someone involved in improving the quality of university essays, I was a little worried about Oberhaus's assertion that 'Gauss was correct in his estimation of the importance of extraterrestrial contact [as a greater discovery than America]' being made without any evidence to back it up. Bearing in mind we are almost certainly talking about one way communication, I'm not sure this is at all obvious.

Overall, I think the biggest omission is that Oberhaus is not critical enough of the various attempts, which seem intensely naive in their assumption that aliens would be able to (or could be bothered to) interpret something that the chances are no one on Earth could decipher. This is perhaps best underlined in a section on using the arts to communicate. While Oberhaus does end up mostly closing down this approach at one point he says 'One possible solution is to use solely abstract art, which may be considered universally intelligible given its rejection of "cultural, historical or political contexts". This seems totally back to front - abstract art entirely fails to communicate anything concrete with any certainty, being entirely dependent on interpretation.

So, a fascinating topic if, perhaps, talking about a pointless exercise, but could have been addressed more critically and should have been written in less of an academic style if it were to be made approachable by the general reader.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more