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

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