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

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

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 ...