Skip to main content

Worlds without End - Chris Impey ****

I was a bit wary when I saw this book because there seem to be almost as many books about exoplanets and astrobiology as there have been planets discovered around new stars. However, it proved a pleasant surprise, as a result of the approach that Chris Impey has taken, and I found it an enjoyable read.

In four sections, Impey takes us through the search for exoplanets, the potential habitability of different worlds, from gas giants to Earth clones, what can be done to search for the existence of life in other planetary systems, and space exploration. The last section, to be honest, really is unnecessary - it's a distinctly different topic covered better in other titles, and I would have been happy to have had more on the earlier subjects. But in the first three sections, the great thing about Impey's approach is the way he drives the discoveries and ideas (there aren't, of course, any astrobiology discoveries per se as it is all theoretical so far) from the individuals involved.

To pick out two examples, the 'Doppler wobble' chapter begins with the sounds of corks popping in 1995 as Swiss astronomers in the south of France celebrated the uncovering of data that provided the first confirmation of an exoplanet, despite, as Impey comments 'using a telescope not big enough to be in the top seventy worldwide.' (It wasn't the first detection, but the first time it became pretty much definitive.) In a later chapter we see the Drake equation being first written in 1961. This very guesswork so-called equation is perhaps given rather more coverage than it deserves as it tells us nothing: but the story is interesting, and, unlike some, Impey at least acknowledges the degree of uncertainty that makes it pretty much useless, except as a way of reminding us of how difficult it is have any idea of how common intelligent life might be in our galaxy.

I do have one big complaint - like many scientists writing popular science, Impey is fine when he sticks to the science content, but can go astray when he gets into history. He commits the worst example of Brunoitis I've seen in a long while. Giordano Bruno (who funnily enough I've just reviewed in his fictional role as a detective) was a sixteenth century Italian mystic who famously commented on the stars being suns with peopled planets and who was burned as a heretic. Impey makes the two classic mistakes. Firstly, he makes it sound as if Bruno's cosmological ideas were original - but they were taken from the much earlier Nicholas of Cusa. The second is to suggest that Bruno was martyred for his science. In reality, Bruno's primary heresies were all conventional religious ones (notably, Nicholas was not persecuted just for having these ideas - in fact, he was made a cardinal). Of course Bruno's persecution was still horrible - but Bruno didn't die because of his very waffly cosmological musing.

As long as you hold your breath and get past Bruno (who is much more entertaining as a fictional character) though, this book gives a great picture of the personalities involved in exoplanet detection and astrobiology, and simple yet effective descriptions of the science that lies behind the discoveries and ideas.

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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more