Skip to main content

White Holes - Carlo Rovelli ***

One of the comments on the cover of this book is from fantasy author Alan Garner, who calls Carlo Rovelli 'the poet of physics'. White Holes is probably the most appropriate of Rovelli's books for this accolade, which also makes it one of the most frustrating. There is some really interesting (if totally speculative) cosmology/astrophysics here in the suggestion that as black holes come to their end they (quantum) tunnel into tiny white holes - but there is an awful lot of poetic waffle surrounding it.

Is this really science? Bearing in mind it's highly unlikely there will ever be good, real world evidence to support the theory, I'd suggest it is ascientific (to use Sabine Hossenfelder's term). Not unscientific, but not supported by evidence. Another way of looking at it is hard science fiction - it's based on good current science, but as Rovelli says himself 'I do not know if it is correct. I do not even know if white holes exist.' 

If we are to use Sagan's epithet about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence, our default position should probably be to say that they don't. But that still does not make the ideas behind this book uninteresting, and, were it not for that waffle and one other thing, this would be a five star book. For example, Rovelli's description of a trip into a black hole is genuinely engaging, including things that are obvious when you think about it but rarely mentioned, such as you can see out past the event horizon, and other aspects that are far less obvious. (The one, odd, omission here is there is no mention of spaghettification.)

However, Rovelli does seem to be trying unnecessarily hard to live up to Garner's accolade. Every now and then, for no obvious reason, he goes all e e cummings and writes a whole paragraph with no capital letters. Throughout, he makes tedious references to Dante's Inferno. I've nothing against Inferno - I've even read it in translation - but here the references just look like someone showing off. They don't help understand the science.

Lack of understanding is probably the worst thing. The explanations are very thin and explain very little. Sometimes Rovelli uses examples, but seems to cherry pick them. So, he tells us 'gravitational attraction does not become repulsion by reversing time'. His examples for this are a planet orbiting the Sun and a stone thrown up that then falls back down. But this simply doesn't work if your example is a meteorite crashing into Earth that didn't start here. Later on he tells us plonkingly that 'information cannot vanish' - but there is no supporting argument at all. I know the logic behind his statement, but the way it's phrased it doesn't help someone who is aware that this is exactly what happens when the power is turned off to her computer part way through typing a document.

This is is also a very expensive book given it is a very slim, compact hardback. Overall, it's a bit like a nut with a huge, inedible outer shell. The nut is sweet and tasty, but that shell is highly frustrating.

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

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more