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

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
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

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more