Skip to main content

The Magicians - Marcus Chown *****

The title may seem an odd one for a popular science book, but it refers to what Chown describes as ‘the central magic of science: its ability to predict the existence of things previously undreamt of which, when people went out and looked for them, turned out to actually exist in the real universe’. That may be true of all branches of science, but physics – which is what the book is about – is a special case, because its theories are rooted in mathematical equations rather than words. This makes the matter completely black-and-white: if the equations predict something you had no inkling of, then either the maths is wrong, or that thing really does exist. This book describes some remarkable instances where the maths was right.

Actually, I’m not sure the title is strictly accurate. It’s true that it centres on people – both the theoreticians who came up with the predictions and the experimentalists who proved them right – but in most cases the ‘magic’ is something the human players simply stumbled across. Perhaps the real protagonists are the mathematical principles themselves. A couple of quotes in the book hint at this, such as this from Heinrich Hertz: ‘One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers’. Paul Dirac put it even more succinctly: ‘my equation was smarter than I was’.

The book recounts nine of the most impressive mathematical predictions in physics, eight of which might be described as ‘the usual suspects’: Le Verrier’s prediction of the planet Neptune, Maxwell’s prediction of electromagnetic waves and Dirac’s prediction of anti-particles, followed by neutrinos, the cosmic microwave background, black holes, the Higgs boson and gravitational waves. There’s a huge amount of fascinating science in that list, but I rushed through it because they’re so well known you probably already know what I’m talking about. But Chown’s other example is much less widely known – or I hope it is, because I was unaware of it until I read this book.

I knew that Fred Hoyle, before he became notorious for his rejection of the Big Bang theory and his wacky ideas about panspermia, did some pioneering work on the synthesis of chemical elements in stars. But it turns out that one prediction he made was as impressive as any of the other examples in this book. He knew stars had to make carbon – for the simple reason that we wouldn’t exist if they didn’t – yet there are no easy ways for them to do this. He couldn’t think of any hard ways, either, unless there was a highly improbable coincidence between carbon and helium energy levels. If there was, it would permit a resonant nuclear reaction to occur in the heart of red giant stars. Highly improbable or not, Hoyle knew that carbon exists, so his theory had to be correct – and carbon had to have an energy state at precisely 7.65 MeV. That wasn’t something that was known experimentally, or could be predicted by nuclear physics theory, but it had to be the case. After Hoyle persuaded a group of sceptical experimenters to look for it, he was the only one who wasn’t flabbergasted when they found it.

All the stories in the book are as dramatic and significant as that one. But the fact remains that they’re based on specialized, complex physics, and many authors would make heavy going of them. Not so Marcus Chown, who draws on his past forays into science fiction to produce a book that often reads more like a novel than a work of non-fiction. Some of the tricks he uses I really liked, such as the Quentin Tarantino style nonlinear narrative, jumping back and forth in time (often by many decades) between theoretical prediction and experimental verification. I was less happy with the fanciful dramatization of some of the scenes – such as Maxwell stopping outside Mary-le-Strand ‘utterly transfixed by the light sparkling on the surface of a puddle in the road’, or Einstein running his finger down a letter ‘nodding emphatically as he did so’ ¬– for which there’s no documentary evidence at all. I guess I want my non-fiction books to be 100 per cent factual – but that’s just me, and other readers might love this sort of thing. Overall, in any case, it’s one of the best-written books about physics I’ve ever come across, and a highly enlightening one at that.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May


Popular posts from this blog

Patricia Fara - Four Way Interview

Patricia Fara lectures in the history of science at Cambridge University, where she is a Fellow of Clare College. She was the President of the British Society for the History of Science (2016-18) and her prize-winning book, Science: A Four Thousand Year History (OUP, 2009), has been translated into nine languages. An experienced public lecturer, Patricia Fara appears regularly in TV documentaries and radio programmes. She also contributes articles and reviews to many popular magazines and journals, including History Today, BBC History, New Scientist, Nature and the Times Literary SupplementHer new book is Erasmus Darwin.

Why history of science?
I read physics at university, but half-way through the course I realised that had been a big mistake. Although I relished the intellectual challenge, I was bored by the long hours spent lining up recalcitrant instruments in dusty laboratories. Why was nobody encouraging us to think about the big questions – What is gravity? Does quantum mechani…

The Idea of the Brain: Matthew Cobb *****

Matthew Cobb is one of those people that you can’t help but admire but also secretly hate just a little bit for being so awesome. He is professor for zoology at the University of Manchester with a sizable teaching load that he apparently masters with consummate skill. He’s a scientific researcher, who researches the sense of smell of fruit fly maggots; I kid you not!  He’s also an attentive and loving family father but he still finds time and energy to write brilliant history of science books, three to date. His first, The Egg and Sperm Race, describes the search for the secret of human reproduction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and is one of my favourite history of science books, on the period. His second, Life’s Greatest Secret is a monster, both in scope and detail, description of the hunt to decipher the structure and function of DNA that along the way demolishes a whole boatload of modern history of science myths. The most recent, and the subject of this review, is

The Search for Life on Mars - Elizabeth Howell and Nicholas Booth ***

From the book’s enticing subtitle, ‘The Greatest Scientific Detective Story of All Time’, I was expecting something rather different. I thought the authors would kick off by introducing the suspects (the various forms life might take on Mars, either now or in the past) and the kind of telltale traces they might leave, followed by a chronological account of the detectives (i.e. scientists) searching for those traces, ruling out certain suspects and focusing on others, turning up unexpected new clues, and so on. But the book is nothing like that. Continuing with the fiction analogy, this isn’t a novel so much as a collection of short stories – eleven self-contained chapters, each with its own set of protagonists, suspects and clues.

Some of the chapters work better than others. I found the first three – which despite their early placement cover NASA’s most recent Mars missions – the most irritating. For one thing, they unfold in a way that’s at odds with the cerebral ‘detective story’ na…