Skip to main content

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 religious beliefs, posing an ongoing creation in opposition to the decline of the universe into heat death championed by British physicists such as James Jeans and Arthur Eddington.

By contrast, Compton believed that cosmic rays were produce by atomic decay and consisted of charged particles, which he initially thought were primarily electrons, originating from the outer reaches of the atmosphere. In principle it was possible to distinguish between the two theories by checking whether there was a variation in cosmic ray levels as you headed from the equator to the poles: the path of charged particles would be influenced by the Earth's magnetic field, but photons would not.

Wolverton gives us chapter and verse of the many (many) expeditions to detect cosmic rays around the world, using increasingly sophisticated technology, and deploying the detectors on everything from round the world cruise ships to record-breaking balloon ascents. He also, more than is commonly the case in such books, brings in commentaries from (US) newspapers. As Wolverton points out, while today we may be more aware of Shapley and Curtis's debate, back then the cosmic ray debate garnered far more publicity and interest from the public, in part because it was spuriously tied in with the concept of nuclear power and the imaginary potential for practical use of cosmic rays as an energy source.

The very name 'cosmic rays' (coined by Millikan) has a wonderfully 1930 science fiction feel to it, but what makes the whole thing more interesting is the clash between two major scientists that did at times become quite heated. While Millikan was without doubt a significant scientist, he comes across as a major self-publicist who regarded cosmic rays as his domain - at some points even refusing to acknowledge the work of Compton and others, and clinging on to his theory long after it became unsupportable. If anything, Wolverton is rather kind to Millikan, toning down the negative aspects of his personality and self-centred view of science.

The biggest problem with this book is that for chapter after chapter the content can be summarised as 'more of the same'. We get lots of details of the various expeditions, pronouncements and how the newspapers covered them (with hilarious bias from the Los Angeles Times in favour of local boy Millikan). This detail is very welcome in giving a clear picture of the long, drawn out nature of this scientific argument, and how small incremental gains in data gradually changed the picture of what cosmic rays were - but it can feel a little hard work reading it all.

My other smaller complaint is that some of the references outside of the central characters and the US can seem a little adrift, particularly to a non-American reader. After mentioning J. J. Thomson, we are told that 'fellow Britisher Ernest Rutherford discovered...' - although New Zealand was not a fully independent country at the time, I wouldn't apply the term 'Britisher'. Similarly, it feels odd to describe James Jeans - a  Lancastrian whose main academic ties were to Cambridge - as having an 'Oxford accent'. This does reflect a newspaperish approach to the writing style throughout.

This is a genuinely interesting dive into a little-remembered scientific debate, leavened by much reporting from US newspapers. The slow resolution of the nature of cosmic rays reflects the realities of many scientific endeavours in opposition to the 'sudden dramatic discovery' school of science writing. And the contrasting personalities of Millikan and Compton make for an interesting reflection of the human nature of science. All in all, a worthwhile contribution to the popular science canon.

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