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 Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more