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

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...