Skip to main content

The Phantom Scientist (SF) - Robin Cousin ****

Over the years I've come across a range of graphic novels and graphic popular science (that's 'graphic' in the sense of illustrated, not explicit) and rarely found one that wasn't a bit of a disappointment compared with a traditional book. I think this is because, despite the old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words, the reduction of text to speech bubbles and tiny captions means that it's difficult to get any subtlety into the fiction, or depth of understand of the science into non-fiction.

The Phantom Scientist is a graphic novel, but one that according to the description 'draws together linguistics, biology, astrophysics, and robotics in a mind-bending puzzle that will thrill and inform readers' - so it takes on the very difficult role of both being an SF mystery thriller and something that puts across mathematical and scientific concepts. Because what happens is certainly not possible at the moment, it does stray into science fiction. The combination of putting across real science and maths plus fiction is hard enough with words, and doubly so in a graphic novel form.

There is, however, good news. This is the best attempt I've ever seen at putting scientific and mathematical ideas into a graphic novel format - and Robin Cousin manages to give the book a distinctly intriguing sense of mystery. It's because of this, despite its quite significant flaws, that I've given it four stars. The book features a strange institute, the fourth of its kind, where various random scientists are brought in so that their interactions cause increasingly chaotic occurrences, supposedly to inspire creativity. We get bits of system theory, the travelling salesman problem, fractals and more, all coming together quite effectively.

This is very much the Lego Movie style of comic strip - there is no attempt at life-like imagery, but enough to get a broad pictorial feeling of what's happening across. Having said that, for at least half the book I thought two different characters were the same person, and I could never identify who half of them were, which was quite confusing.

For no obvious reason, some of the images are very low contrast (see the examples to the right) - unless you read it under a bright light, where there's text, for example, it's almost impossible to read in these sections, which is a real pain.

Apart from the impossibility of a system predicting human behaviour as occurs here (the reason it's impossible is even stated by one of the characters), there are also a couple of plot holes: something that supposedly was going to occur in 36 hours' time happening after about 2 hours, and also a group of astrophysicists who seem to have no relevance to the overall picture (and whose only role seems to be to provide a torch). There's also a decidedly confused ending.

Despite these flaws, though, there is a quite impressive introduction to the P=NP question and its implications, plus various other bits of science and maths that emerge from the interaction of disciplines. If not entirely successful, it's a very good try at a near-impossible goal (which given the whole P=NP business, is arguably not a bad thing for it to be).

Hardback:   

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

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more