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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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