Skip to main content

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 everything from engines and life to the arrow of time, decay and the future of the universe that in the right hands it can still be made interesting, and Sen does this well by hanging his narrative on the lives of the key characters in the history of our understanding of thermodynamics.

Some historians of science (and some scientists) get distinctly sniffy about the 'heroes of science' approach, pointing out how much every scientist builds on the work of others, and (particularly these days) science is hugely collaborative, so picking out individuals can be historically inaccurate. But to complain about this is to fail to understand how storytelling works. We need characters that we can get our heads around. Namecheck everyone and you end up with a bureaucratic document, not an engaging narrative. A good science writer like Sen can focus in on key characters without overdoing the lone genius concept.

Inevitably, we find out a lot about heat and the development of ideas on this, but by far the most interesting aspect of thermodynamics is entropy, and the book is good at explaining this and putting it into context. I think Sen stretches the thermodynamics label more than a little - applying it, for example, to Einstein's short paper extending the special theory of relativity to bring in his famous E=mc2 equation, but this is forgivable.

I have a couple of issues. One is the title. Einstein's fridge is very much a bit part player here. Dragging Einstein into the title does a disservice to the greats of thermodynamics. (The word 'thermodynamics' doesn't even appear on the cover.) I also felt at one point that Sen's narrative structure was pushed too far from reality to try to establish a neat storyline. At the end of the chapter on the wonderful James Clerk Maxwell's work on statistical mechanics, Sen claims that despite his work, Maxwell and his contemporaries 'could say why a cup of tea felt hot, but not why, when left to its own devices, it cooled down'. He does this to then be able to introduce Boltzmann's work. But in taking this line Sen assigns a naivety to Maxwell that is unfair. Sen even resorts to breaking his timeline to move Maxwell's demon later in the book, even though it would have been impossible for Maxwell to develop the concept without having a perfectly good idea of how heat is transferred from hot to cold bodies.

This may have caused me a raised eyebrow, but it didn't stop me enjoying the book. Sen has given thermodynamics the importance it deserves, along the way introducing us to some fascinating people and detail of their lives and work. Hot stuff, even if it will eventually cool to ambient temperature.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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