Skip to main content

The Possibility of Life - Jaime Green ****

This is a book about extraterrestrial life, and it isn’t all science. For me, that’s what made it such a rivetingly good read, although (speaking as a former astrophysicist) I can’t imagine saying that about any other popular science subject. I’d be very dubious, for example, about a quantum physics primer that contained a detailed account of Ant-Man’s experiences in the Quantum Realm. That’s because quantum physics is real science, with real experimental results and real practical applications – and it doesn’t need a sci-fi take on it to bring it to life. Aliens aren’t like that.

Yes, I know there’s a well-established branch of science called astrobiology – I’ve even written a book about it. But astrobiology deals with the search for extraterrestrial life, not the nature of extraterrestrials themselves, about which there’s no data. Books like mine are interesting for people who want to know how real scientists think and work – how they decide what sort of evidence to look for, and then design instruments to do that – but they can be frustrating for readers who just want to know something about the aliens themselves. Jaime Green classifies my kind of ‘whether or not’ questions about aliens as ‘very boring’ – which I think is a little harsh, though I won’t dispute that the ‘what if’ questions she focuses on instead are by far the more interesting ones.

When I said the book ‘isn’t all science’, I was referring to the fact that it’s a roughly 50/50 mix between science fictional portrayals of aliens and ideas that various scientists – many of them interviewed by Green for this book – have about them. But even the latter tend to be more speculative than scientific in nature. The scientific method depends on consensus, and mature branches of science – such as quantum physics – are based on a very strong consensus. On the other hand, even the most basic questions about extraterrestrial life have no meaningful consensus at all. How likely is it, for example, that an intelligent alien would be roughly the same size and shape as a human being? Green quotes some scientists who say it’s pretty certain they would be, while others consider the idea ludicrously improbable.

With such a lack of consensus, the field is wide open for ‘what if’ type speculation – and that’s what this book is all about. What makes it such a fascinating and enjoyable read is that it’s all intelligent, well-informed speculation – and that applies just as much to the sci-fi scenarios that Green picks out as it does to the views of the scientists she speaks to. It’s also surprising just how many different topics there are to speculate about. The book’s half-dozen chapters progress from the nature of life and the kind of planets it might be found on, through the types of lifeforms that might exist and how they might display intelligence, to the possibilities of alien technology and language.

It’s fascinating to read a book that’s ostensibly on the same subject as one I wrote myself, yet actually has almost no overlap with it. Jaime Green’s book won’t tell you much about how astrobiologists set about searching for alien life, but unless you’re a particular kind of science nerd you’re probably not very interested in that anyway. What most people really want to know is what aliens might be like – and that’s something I’ve never seen discussed quite as brilliantly or entertainingly as here.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Andrew May - Subscribe to a weekly digest of all our reviews and more for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...