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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
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