Skip to main content

Why Don't Things Fall Up? - Alom Shaha *****

At first glance, Alom Shaha's book is another of those compact hardbacks with six or seven essays that have done so well in the popular science field since Rovelli's Seven Brief Lessons in Physics. Even the subtitle 'and six other science lessons you missed at school' suggests this. But in reality, Shaha is doing something far more original and interesting. Popular science for absolute beginners.

The thing is, most popular science titles are written either by scientists or professional science writers who typically have a science-based degree. Shaha is, indeed, such a science writer, but he is also a secondary school science teacher. Scientists rarely grasp how to present science in a way that doesn't assume a reasonable amount of pre-knowledge. Science writers are usually better than this, but tend to favour the exotic and exciting bits of science, which often means going into more depth than many readers feel comfortable with. This is genuinely a book on science for people who don't read science books.

At first sight, Shaha's seven questions are distinctly simplistic. We get 'Why is the sky blue?', 'Why don't things fall up?', Why does ice cream melt?', 'What is the smallest thing?', 'What are stars?', 'Are fish animals?' and 'What am I made of?' Although these might seem something that could be answered in a couple of paragraphs (or with 'Yes' in answer to 'Are fish animals?'), Shaha uses the questions as starting points to delve into a whole range of scientific concepts, starting at the most basic level. So, for example, in the ice cream chapter, we get explorations of atoms/molecules, temperature, states of matter, statistical mechanics, Brownian motion and the basics of chemistry.

All this is done in a chatty, approachable fashion with some lovely little surprises. The absolute best is that when talking about waves, Shaha introduces the 'jelly baby wave machine' - I was hooked at its first mention, but in an appendix he even tells you how to build one. I might never do it, but it's somehow very pleasing that I now know how to do so.

There is one inevitable downside to a book like this - because Shaha is intent on keeping things as simple as possible (though a couple of equations do creep in), there is the occasional oversimplification. For example we are told that the force of gravity 'exists between any two objects with mass', which, while true, misses the reality that things without mass (photons, for example) can also be influenced by gravity. Similarly we are told about Franklin's infamous kite-in-a-thunderstorm experiment as if he actually undertook it, while it's generally considered by historians of science that he didn't actually do it.

Apart from that, I have just one concern. This is a book about science for people who don't read science books. Which is a great concept. But would someone who doesn't read science books ever read this book (even though they might benefit hugely)? I've a horrible feeling it won't necessarily reach the audience who most need to read it - but hopefully it will. Either way, it's a great idea, beautifully executed. 

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

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, ...

The Infinity Machine - Sebastian Mallaby ****

It's very quickly clear that Sebastian Mallaby is a huge Demis Hassabis fan - writing about the only child prodigy and teen genius ever who was also a nice, rounded personality. After a few chapters, though, things settle down (I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' description of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ) and we get a good, solid trip through the journey that gave us DeepMind, their AlphaGo and AlphaFold programs, the sudden explosion of competition on the AI front and thoughts on artificial general intelligence. Although Mallaby does occasionally still go into fan mode - reading this you would think that AlphaFold had successfully perfectly predicted the structure of every protein, where it is usually not sufficiently accurate for its results to have direct practical application - we get a real feel for the way this relatively unusual company was swiftly and successfully developed away from Silicon Valley. It's readable and gives an important understanding of...

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...