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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

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...