Skip to main content

Ghost Particle: Alan Chodos and James Riordan ****

The popular science market is reasonably well served with books on the neutrino. Frank Close's Neutrino is still the best on the basics despite being over ten years old, while Leonard Cole's Chasing the Ghost  gives interesting insights to the work of Cowan and Reines who first detected it. But Ghost Particle does provide enough that new and different to make it a worthy addition to the field.

Alan Chodos and James Riordan give us a good description of why the neutrino was first needed by particle physics and significantly later discovered. They take us through the unlikely attempts at detection and the puzzle over why the Sun appeared to have around a third of the neutrinos that theory predicted it would have in its output, including some interesting material on alternative theories as to why this was the case. There's good coverage of the brief explosion of interest when it was thought neutrinos were detected travelling faster than light and a look at neutrino applications, including reaching astronomical places that other particles (notably photons) cannot reach.

While lacking Close's mastery of making complex science simple and approachable, Chodos and Riordan give us workmanlike writing that gets the point across. They are particularly strong on the argument over whether or not neutrinos are their own antiparticles, which has had a powerful impact on the development of our understanding of these elusive particles.

Sometimes the writing can be a touch clumsy. Chodos and Riordan spend around five pages repeatedly saying 'Majorana's model produced the same result as Dirac's without the need for a negative energy sea' in slightly different ways - by the end I was shouting 'We get it, guys.' Sometimes also the writers fall into the trap of not explaining enough, something that is common when academics write a book like this, but in a collaboration between a physicist and a science writer you would hope it would have been avoided.

The best example of insufficient explanation is that we read of relic neutrinos (left over from the early days of the universe): 'These relic neutrinos have cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero…' - physicists are familiar with what is meant by the temperature of a particle, but it's not something an ordinary reader is likely to understand in this context without some expansion. Also, neutrinos are often spoken of as travelling at near the speed of light, yet unlike photons, the only way a massive particle can have a very low temperature is by travelling very slowly, which again needs expanding given the way neutrinos are widely portrayed as moving at near the speed of light, exploring the impact of the expansion on the universe on the speed of massive particles travelling through it.

Overall, though, a very creditable picture of the theoretical basis, discovery and subsequent expansion of our knowledge of these ghostly particles.

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

Who Invented the Computer? – Ian Watson

Ian Watson is the author of  The Universal Machine  and featured in a recent  Four Way Interview . Saturday June 23 2012 was the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the troubled genius who invented the modern computer. Why though do so few people recognize his name and his great achievements? In 1936 English mathematician Alan Turing, published a paper,  On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem . This became the foundation of computing. In it Turing presented a theoretical machine that could solve any problem that could be described by instructions encoded on a paper tape. A Turing Machine could calculate square roots, whilst another might solve Sudoku puzzles. Turing demonstrated you could construct a single  Universal Machine  that could simulate any Turing Machine. One machine solving any problem for which a program could be written – sound familiar? He’d invented the computer. Then,  computers  were peop...

The Star Book – Peter Grego ****

This attractive landscape format book combines an excellent introduction to the stars and basic astronomy with a set of star maps, plus in depth looks at some of the stars featured, with a  bonus section on the solar system. Amazon says it’s a hardback, but in fact it’s a paperback with a rather ingenious cover – you can’t tell from the photo, but the words ‘The Star Book’ are punched through as a series of holes that show the white paper of the next page beneath. Like many astronomy/space books, the cover lacks shelf appeal because it is mostly black, but at least there is some original thought here. Unlike many books in this format which tend to concentrate on the pictures, there is a good deal of excellent text by Peter Grego, so there was no feeling that you were only getting the star maps and star ‘biographies’, something these days much more suited to an iPad or smartphone app. Instead, the opening 30 or so pages give a very good introduction that would be valuable to ...

Ignorance: How it drives science – Stuart Firestein *****

This is a delightful little book that really gets you thinking. I stress the ‘little’ part not as a negative, but as a good thing. There is nothing worse than fat, bloated popular science books where the author feels they have to get 120,000 words to be taken seriously. This is the sort of book that can be read in a couple of hours – but you will get so much more out of it than one of those tedious doorstops. The premise underlying the book is in once sense extremely simple, yet is fundamental to an understanding of what science is and what scientists do. And it is an understanding that is totally at odds with the typical way science is portrayed both in university lectures and popular science books. As Stuart Firestein points out, what is important is not the facts, but rather the area of ignorance. The interesting part and the fundamental heart of science is not about what we know, but about what we don’t know and where we want to look next. Take this lovely quote: ‘Working ...