Skip to main content

Supernova - Or Graur ***

A solid entry in MIT Press's pocket-sized 'essential knowledge' series, introducing supernovas. (The author would not like my use of this plural: he sniffily comments that 'although "supernovas" is sometimes used in popular media, it is seldom used by astronomers'. This is because 'nova' comes from the Latin - which it does - but perhaps it's worth pointing out we are writing in English, not Latin.) A supernova can be one of several different types of collapsing/exploding stars: Or Graur gives us a good deal of detail on current best ideas on the different ways a supernova can form and behave.

Along the way, we are introduced to the history of our noticing supernovas, the role of star remnants in distributing the heavier elements across the universe and how astronomers use supernovas as standard candles to measure great distances (amongst other things). Graur is unusually flexible for an astronomer here, allowing that dark energy is based on distinctly uncertain data (derived from supernova observations), though elsewhere he refers to dark matter with no suggestion that this too has uncertainty about its existence. Unusually for these books there is a glossy colour plate section in the middle, allowing for much clearer images than is normally possible on conventional paper, which was real benefit.

Graur also makes it clear (with relish) that there are plenty of questions left for astronomers and astrophysicists still to answer about these phenomena. Superficially there is nothing very surprising in this book, but there is considerably more up-to-date detail than would usually be presented in a title pitched at the general reader. This has its good side - we find out, for example, about exotic supernova types that will not usually get a mention - but it also has a less useful aspect as there is, if anything, too much detail on each type, meaning that the writing can get more like a bullet-pointed fact sheet than a readable narrative.

There is a real problem, which Graur highlights without realising the consequences in his introduction. He tells us 'For too long, popular culture has focused on a handful of famous, eccentric, or controversial scientists... In reality, there are tens of thousands of scientists spread across the world... To combat this pernicious stereotype, I have sought to highlight the global and collaborative nature of astronomy and refrained from gossiping about the astrophysicists mentioned in this book.' Of course the collaborative aspect is true - but what Graur unfortunately seems to miss is that stories need insights into individual humans - by largely sticking to impersonal facts you also produce uninspiring writing. It's a paradox - we do need to emphasise the wide-ranging collaboration, but also to provide specific stories of real people's individual work if a book is to be accessible.

I read most of this book while in a public space, which highlighted to me the worst thing about the series format. Every few pages, a whole page is black with a short pull quote in large white letters. These don't add anything at all - and the quotes themselves are rarely thrilling (for example 'Today hundreds of astronomers routinely discover thousands of supernovae each year'). I found it quite embarrassing for these things to be visible to those around me, as if I were reading a children's book and rushed past them.

An effective, up-to-date summary for those who want more detail on supernovas than is usually found in a popular science book.

Paperback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on