Skip to main content

Hubble, Humason and the Big Bang - Ron Voller ***

Edwin Hubble is a controversial figure in the history of astronomy, and it has become fashionable to downplay his contribution to our understanding of the universe, particularly of his understanding of the significance of the redshift of galaxies in suggesting an expanding universe. In this detailed analysis of Hubble's work alongside observer Milton Humason, Ron Voller does an excellent job of giving appropriate weight to the pair's findings, while not glossing over Hubble's aggressive defence of his position and love of publicity that did not endear him to his peers.

The book is a very helpful source for someone attempting to dig into Hubble and Humason's work in some depth. Without every becoming too technical, it takes the reader through the detail of their discoveries and fits them into the timescale of the period. What it's less successful at, however, is what the author seems to be trying to make it, which is being an account that will be enjoyed by a general readership.

Voller has taken to heart the importance of context to popular science - but goes over the top with it to such an extent that backgrounditis can overwhelm useful content. There is, for example, a 64 page chapter covering 'two centuries of astronomical discovery' that simply gives far too much detail, including not only the astronomical developments of the period but most of the steps forward in basic physics too. There is then a whole chapter simply providing a fictional account of the first meeting of Hubble and Humason. While careful use of fictional depiction can be useful in TV, it has to be handled incredibly well in written non-fiction to avoid appearing cheesy, and here it feels distinctly uncomfortable - it's hard to see what the reader gains from it. Of course the two must have had a first meeting, but we know nothing about it, and it doesn't contribute to understanding their work to have something made up.

We then jump back in time (there is far too much jumping around in time) to get lengthy descriptions of both Hubble and Humason's family background. A couple of lines would be fine, but I really don't care too much about their families, I want to know about their input to the Big Bang theory - which we don't get onto until around page 289.

My other slight concern is that Voller misses some easily checked facts (particularly about the UK). For example, he puts Slough '60 miles west of London' (it isn't) and misses the whole point of Herschel ending up there because it was near Windsor. He calls William of Ockham 'Bavarian', which the inhabitants of Ockham (in Surrey) would be surprised to learn, and he calls Oxford's colleges 'schools', where Oxford's schools are its departments not its colleges, e.g. the school of medicine. I am hoping that the astronomical history parts - obviously far more significant to the value of the book - are more accurate.

Despite the issues, anyone investigating Hubble or the development of the understanding of the expanding universe would find this book both interesting and useful.

Paperback: 
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 Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more