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

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re

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