Skip to main content

Chasing the Ghost - Leonard Cole ***

The ghost in question is that fascinating particle, the neutrino - almost undetectable particles that were predicted to exist in the 1930s but not discovered for over 20 years. And Leonard Cole is well placed to document the neutrino's discovery as he is the younger cousin of Fred Reines, one of the pair who delivered clear evidence of the neutrino's existence in 1956.

The particle itself has been well-documented in Frank Close's excellent book Neutrino, however Cole is able to give us far more detail on one of the lesser known of the twentieth century's great physicists. I hadn't realised the quite shocking reality that Reines was only awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995 (long after his coworker, Clyde Cowan had died). It's not just the near-40 year wait, but the real surprise is that other physicists were awarded a Nobel earlier for discovering a second type of neutrino. I don't therefore begrudge Cole's labelling Reines a Nobel Prize winner in his subtitle, though I wish he hadn't used the term Nobelist - if it is a word, it ought not to be.

There's always a danger that a biography by a relative will not stand up well to a critical read. To be honest, I expected getting through this book would be rewarding, but a slog. And on occasion Cole doesn't explain enough of the science or why something that's stated is true. So, for example, we are told that Reines' description of the neutrino was 'the most tiny quantity of reality ever imagined by a human being'. My immediate response to this was to wonder it what sense a neutrino is tinier than a photon - we need a bit more explanatory detail (or even an argument against). Even so, I was pleasantly surprised by the opening 'Beginnings' section, where Cole proved able to tell a good story and keep the reader engaged. For me, though, the best part of the book was the Discovery section. In the end, this is what it's all about. This is where it's important to go beyond an account that presents the scientist as hero, and Cole does well in providing us with a three part story.

Firstly there is now bizarre suggestion of using a nuclear bomb as a source of neutrinos. Cole puts this into the context of the time when bomb enthusiasts were proposing all sorts of applications for nuclear weapons, from propelling spacecraft to civil engineering. Thankfully, this idea was put to one side in place of siting detectors alongside nuclear reactors (or, later, down mines to capture natural neutrinos). These detectors do not pick up the neutrinos themselves, but rather the outcome of their (very infrequent) interaction with other particles. Perhaps most interesting was the second part of the story, when Reines and Cowan produced a 1953 result which they themselves were not really convinced by, yet which was talked up (partly by them) to the extent that it was largely reported in the media as an actual discovery. Finally, with detectors modified to cope with the potential false causes of the 1953 outcome, they would achieve convincing results in 1956.

We then hit the near-inevitable problem of structuring a scientific biography. Reines lived more than 40 years after the discovery and did interesting work, but nothing as significant as that 1956 detection - which in the end is the point of the book. The result can be something of an anticlimactic read, and the experienced scientific biographer will use various tricks to get over this problem. Unfortunately, that doesn't really happen here - so much of what comes in pages 115 to 253 feels a bit of a let down. It's not helped by a structure where Cole devotes whole sections to Cole's artistic interests and views on religion, and to giving detail to his later academic career, which was no doubt inspiring to those who attended his lectures, but not so interesting to the reader following the neutrino story.

One other issue here, which I often seen in books published by academic presses, is the tendency to treat each chapter as a separate document. As a result of this (or just poor editing), there is a lot of repetition. By page 20, for example, I’d already been told several times that the experiment in 1956 confirmed the neutrinos existence and that neutrinos were referred to as being ghostly. It's a bit like watching one of those cheap documentaries on a TV channel with adverts, where they insist on giving you a recap every few minutes. And although I generally enjoyed the opening section, it did try too hard to justify the importance of neutrino research. For example, there's a lot on why we wouldn't exist without neutrinos - but you could say the same thing about practically any common particle or other basic aspect of physics.

Overall, then, interesting insights into Reines' life and work, and particularly good on the discovery itself, but not at the top level of scientific biography writing.

Paperback: 
Bookshop.org

  

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

Comments

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...

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 ...

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 ...