Skip to main content

To Infinity and Beyond - Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lindsey Nyx Walker ***

This is a strange mixed bag of a book that starts with three parts that take sensible steps from leaving Earth, through 'touring the Sun's backyard' to 'into outer space', but then makes an odd leap in the final section 'to infinity and beyond' to explore the extremely hypothetical field of time travel - great fun as a topic, but hardly much to do with the rest of the book.

Overall, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lindsey Nyx Walker (something of a name overload) give us the print equivalent of a TV science show (perhaps not entirely surprisingly given Tyson has done a number of these and Walker is a TV producer and podcast writer). It's mostly presented at the superficial level of such shows (with a certain amount of Brian-Cox-on-a-mountain-style flowery prose), which kind of misses the point of a popular science book that you can go beyond the superficial. Occasionally we do get some more detail, but it's often not presented in a particularly approachable way.

There is, without doubt, plenty of high level interesting material in here, presented in a light and accessible fashion. We get some interesting asides - for example, about what was necessary to get the Mars Ingenuity helicopter to work in Mars' thin atmosphere, and a takedown of the impact of the dust storm in the movie The Martian. It's unusually non-linear, jumping around from topic to topic - which can be entertaining. For example, at one point the authors take us from Buys Ballot demonstrating the Doppler effect with musicians on a train to supernovae in 3 pages. But sometimes the approach seems to lack all structural integrity, jumping around for the sake of it, with no clear direction for the reader to follow. Even so, the approach is not too distressing until the authors attempt to take on time travel.  This is a heavy duty area to delve into the science without good structure, and the reader is left baffled as we bounce around, never getting the chance to grasp what’s being shown. 

The weakest part of the book is something Tyson has a track record of getting wrong - science history. We are told, for example, that the Moon was considered a flat disc for thousands of years until the seventeenth century. That’s plain wrong. Since Ancient Greek times, including in Aristotle's model that held sway until that seventeenth century, the Moon was considered a sphere. Particularly strange was the omission of Richard Feynman from a discussion of the cause of the Challenger disaster. And we're told the scientific method of testing a hypothesis by experiment didn't take hold until the 17th century, which is a wild over-simplification. There are also times when what's close to science fiction is presented in something of an uncritical fashion, whether it's in the time travel section or a piece on space elevators that only touched the surface of the problems such technology would face, telling us 'operational space elevators are current on the drawing board in multiple countries. Whoever builds the first... will launch a whole new era of mass transit and space exploration'. Frankly, that's fantasy.

One last moan: I know this book primarily has a US audience in mind, but even so, I find a science book that only uses units such as miles and degrees Fahrenheit somewhat painful.

The book is nicely illustrated, and entertaining in its bouncy fashion. But it could have been so much better.

Hardback:   

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

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

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...