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 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