Skip to main content

The Three-Body Problem (SF) - Cixin Liu ***

I'm reviewing this book at the suggestion of one of my Buy me a Coffee supporters. I put off reading it for quite a while due to a perverse aversion to reading a book, or watching a TV show, that everyone is raving about... but I had to submit in the end, and I'm glad I did. There are elements of the book I loved, and aspects that really grated.

What was brilliant was Cixin Liu's evocation of the impact of the Cultural Revolution in China on academics. The character whose life threads through the book, Ye Wenjie, an astrophysicist who witnesses her father's murder by Red Guards is remarkable and I would have been happy reading a straight lab lit novel of her experiences without the aspect of alien contact that takes over the plot. When I was at school, a young history teacher got in trouble by getting all the class to obtain a copy of the Little Red Book - learning about this period in China is one of the few details I remember from school history.

I was also impressed with the way that initially Liu brings in plenty of real science. I was thinking of commenting that this wasn't just SF, it was SCIENCE fiction until reading further. And much of the book is very readable. But there were also those issues.

Firstly, long chunks of the book feature a character's experience in a weird virtual reality game, called Three Body, of which the significance is not revealed until well into the book (so I won't give it away here). I found these sections tedious in the extreme - it was far too much like listening to someone's detailed description of their dreams. 

Then there was the underlying premise of alien contact and future invasion of the Earth. Of course, this has featured many times in science fiction, and Liu makes it different and interesting by factoring in the sheer length of time it's going to take the alien fleet to arrive at Earth. For that matter, the consideration of whether or not we ought to make aliens aware of our existence is always interesting. But the driving factor here of people hating humanity so much they want aliens to destroy us, or naively think, with no evidence whatsoever, that the aliens will be beneficial and sort out our problems for us, didn't work for me.

There were also some technical issues. I would overlook the history of science error of reading far more into the cosmic background radiation than would have been known in the 1960s. But I wasn't happy about employing the classic quantum entanglement fallacy of thinking that it can be used to send instantaneous messages (it can only send random values), and simply couldn't engage with the idea that two protons could be used to produce mass illusions and to give the appearance of adding randomness to the laws of physics. (Also if this randomness had happened, the physicists would surely be talking about Noether's theorem, which isn't mentioned.)

A final moan concerns the understanding three body problem itself - central to the plot. The assumption in the book seems to be that this classic gravitational interaction problem, where three or more bodies interacting become chaotic is intractable. In reality, while absolute complete solutions are impossible, we can produce very good approximate solutions - so the idea of pure chaotic unpredictability that lies at the heart of the book doesn't make sense. For example, our solar system is a far more than three body problem, yet we can predict orbits thousands of years into the future. Yes, there's some uncertainty. So, for instance, current modelling gives Mercury a 1% chance of leaving its orbit and hitting Venus in the next few billion years. But we have no problem making good predictions of what will happen in the shorter term.

I don't think I'm going to bother with the follow up books. It was an interesting read - but didn't work as well for me as it clearly has for many readers.

Paperback:   
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

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