Skip to main content

The Big Questions of Science - Antonino del Popolo ***

For a particular audience, this is an interesting book. Specifically, popular science readers who want to get their hands a little dirty - to dig in a little more to what is happening in the science than a high level overview. Antonino del Popolo (an Italian physics professor) addresses a range of 'big questions', though apart from one about life it would have been more accurate to call this The Big Questions of Physics.

The topics covered include big picture items, such as 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' and 'Are there other universes?' and more focused questions such as 'What is a black hole?' and 'Can we travel through time?' These queries (strictly, one section 'What the World Looks Like Seen From a Ray of Light' isn't a question - and is really more 'What's the special theory of relativity about?') get about 20 pages each - enough to give an effective overview and sometimes to dig in with some alacrity.

The writing style can feel somewhat textbook lite. For example, when dealing with the relativity of simultaneity there is a paragraph that begins: 'Consider a train moving with speed v to the right. Consider an observer S', standing inside the train, and another, S, standing on the platform. Two lightning bolts simultaneously strike the train at points A and B. Suppose that when this happens, the observer on the platform is at the midpoint M, between A and B, and the observer on the train is also at the midpoint M', between A and B...' and so on. One of the lessons of making science accessible is to move away from the obscure-feeling labelling used in more rigorous approaches, but here it is a little turgid.

Like many academic writers, del Popolo falls for the error of making practically every sentence a fact statement, so it can sometimes feel like reading a set of bullet points, rather than proper writing with narrative flow. If the reader can cope with this, though, we get a good picture. Unusually, del Popolo even gives a quite balanced picture of dark matter - admittedly that section is almost all on various dark matter particle possibilities. But in the final page he admits 'the situation is complex: we have no certain proof of the existence of dark matter, and at the same time, we do not have a modified theory of gravity that could replace dark matter.' It would be interesting to see if recent discoveries on early universes would sway this opinion at all.

A tiny minority of academics are really good at communicating with the general public. This isn't always a limit on the success of a book (think A Brief History of Time), but it can make for dry reading. I wouldn't say that del Popolo is a natural communicator, but he gets the message across and delivers a surprising amount of detail without getting into mathematics. This definitely isn't for everyone - but for someone who doesn't want to go to textbook level, but would like to know a little more on a range of physics and cosmology questions, this is an effective vehicle. Sadly, though, Big Questions is ludicrously expensive even as an ebook, so likely to be one to get from the library.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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