Skip to main content

Destroyer of Worlds - Frank Close *****

At first glance at the title you might assume that this book is another Oppenheimer biography - and of course he features - but it's far more. Frank Close starts with a large pre-bomb section taking us through the development of nuclear physics. Some aspects of this are familiar, such as Rutherford and the nucleus, others less so - it's great, for example, to have story of discovery of the neutron as it has rarely been covered and was a real scientific race, laden with misunderstanding and last minute experiments. 

There are a lot of names presented here and it would be easy to turn this into a tedious collection of who did what, but Close is skilful enough to make the telling of the story gripping, and brings in some less familiar characters, such as Majorana and Compton to season the familiar names. Close excels at digging out aspects of the history that were a little different from the way the stories are often told, for example casting doubt on the details of Szilard's alleged revelation of chain reactions while crossing the road into Russell Square in London.

The whole book could have been dedicated to the increasing knowledge of the nucleus and its potential for generating energy (Rutherford's famous quote 'Anyone who looks for a source of power in the transformation of atoms is talking moonshine' is also given a novel context), but Close brings in the details of both the initial fission bomb science and a considerable amount on the extension to fusion (H-bombs) both in the US and in Russia.

At one point I did raise an eyebrow - I don't know if it's because Close is an Oxford man to the core, but he does have a moment of architectural madness, first describing a Cambridge college’s courts as quadrangles (many, but not all. technically are, but it’s not what they are called), then apparently referring to the elegant stone entrance of the Cavendish Laboratory as 'a red brick building whose windows could have doubled for offices in a Northern mill town.' Admittedly there is a red brick building further down Free School Lane, but this wouldn't feature in the walk described and it is the engineering labs, not the Cavendish (also the brick building is handsome in its own right).

My only other slight moan is that the name of the book suggests an attempt to hitch onto the publicity arising from the Oppenheimer movie, given its status as an extract from Oppenheimer's famous quote from the Bhagavad Gita 'Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds' - but Oppenheimer himself only gets a few passing lines - and Close with typical verve adds in the comment of another watcher at the Los Alamos test '"Now we are all the sons of bitches," which more prosaically described what the scientists' achievement would make them.' Minimal reference to Oppenheimer is entirely legitimate for a book that concentrates on the science behind nuclear weapons (and power) rather than the organisational details of the Manhattan Project, which has been covered at length elsewhere - but it does feel a touch misleading.

An excellent combination of nuclear physics primer and history of the developing science of nuclear power and weapons through to the mid-sixties. One of his best yet.

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 or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

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 ...

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...

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, ...