Skip to main content

The Matter of Everything - Suzie Sheehy ****

It's notable how many of the superstar physicists from Newton and Einstein through to Feynman have been theoreticians. Experimental physicists - utterly essential, apart from anything else to temper the imaginations of the theoreticians (which is probably why there are so many wild theories in cosmology) - rarely penetrate the popular imagination. Because Suzie Sheehy is covering the development of experimental particle physics here, she doesn't include arguably the greatest experimental physicist of all time, Michael Faraday - but as well as, for example, Rutherford and Thomson, there are plenty of names here that will be unfamiliar, making this an important book in uncovering the practical difficulties that particularly the early experimenters faced.

Starting with the discoveries of X-rays and the electron using cathode ray tubes, we are taken through Rutherford's evidence for the atomic nucleus, cloud chambers and cosmic rays, particle accelerators, neutrinos, quarks and the Higgs boson (though that gets relatively short coverage, perhaps because it's difficult to talk about individual experimenters). At each stage, Sheehy finishes the look at a particular topic by uncovering applications. Some of these seem a bit like the painful attempts to justify NASA spending on a handful of spinoffs - surely better simply to go for science for science's sake - though there are possibly a few surprises, such as the use of cosmic rays to get information on the innards of objects too big and/or dense to use X-rays. 

It's wonderful to see the work of experimenters properly celebrated and described. On the whole, Sheehy does this at a sufficiently high level that the non-technical reader can easily follow. It helps that the more esoteric aspects of theoretical physics only get mentioned in so much as they're necessary to explain what the experiments are intended to achieve, while the big name twentieth century theoreticians, such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Dirac, flit through like ghosts with little more than passing mentions.

The only real issue here is that Rutherford's infamous (but arguably accurate at the time) comment that all science is either physics or stamp collecting probably should have been 'either theoretical physics or stamp collecting'. Experimental physics is about gathering facts (and building the equipment to gather those facts), or more recently producing statistics. While the practicalities are initially fascinating, particularly in the string and sealing wax era, by the time we get onto later particle accelerators, the technology starts to lack distinction, while the huge groups involved mean that the story loses the personal touch that makes popular science easier to relate to. It's not disastrous, but the second half of the book is less interesting than the first.

There are also one or two historical inaccuracies. J. J. Thomson is described as founding director of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, where that role fell to the arguably much greater physicist James Clerk Maxwell. We are also told that Harriet Brooks was the first woman to study at the Cavendish laboratory in 1902. In fact, though change was painfully slow, the first women studied there in 1878. 

However, these are minor issues - the book is a useful reminder of how the experimental side of physics has been underplayed in popular science and arguably undervalued in the wider field - it would be great if Sheehy could follow up with a similar look at other aspects of experimental physics.

A quick postscript on the cover - I usually show the UK version of a book here, but for this book I was first contacted by the US publisher, hence this being the US cover.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
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