Skip to main content

Discordance - Jim Baggott ****

Jim Baggott is one of the most reliable hands in the business when it comes to exploring complex physics and cosmology issues in an approachable but never over-simplified fashion, so a new Baggott on the shelves is always a treat. For reasons I'll go into in a moment, while the explanation here is as lucid and interesting as possible, I found the topic a little underwhelming.

The topic Discordance covers is the Hubble tension - the reality that there are two ways of measuring the Hubble constant that describes the rate of expansion of the universe, both of which are based on solid science, but which don't agree. Admittedly, the distinction is only seven per cent, but in theory they should converge, and as Baggott makes clear, although both of the measurement methods have potential issues, if the tension proves genuine, it puts the most widely accepted version of the Big Bang theory in jeopardy. 

The book starts with historical material on how we measure distances in space, the theory behind and discovery of the expanding universe, and the various errors and disagreements between scientists along the way, going right back to whether the Milky Way was just one of many galaxies, or the whole universe. As things develop, we also get introduced to the cosmic microwave background radiation, which provides the second way of measuring the Hubble constant after the red-shifting of galaxies at known distances (where 'known' always has a degree of uncertainty). There's also coverage of the dark energy thought to be causing the acceleration of expansion, and even dark matter that has a more indirect involvement. Finally, we look to the future of where we go from here and the potential for new physics to explain what is happening.

My agent always used to say 'Is it a book or is it a magazine article?' This topic is definitely more than an article, but I felt it might have been better as a couple of chapters of a book. The elements are interesting and the ongoing split between different ways of measuring the constant is intriguing. But too much of what was involved was getting more or less accurate measurements for absolute stellar magnitude, establishing safe standard candles, reaching accurate numbers on expansion rate/acceleration and the like. It's true that lots of scientific work is, frankly, boring repetitive slog. And we perhaps don't see enough of this in popular science. But despite all of Baggott's skill, it's hard to make this too engaging.

Don't get me wrong, this is a really good book - far better than much of the popular science I read. I'm glad I read it and while the historical material and that on dark matter/energy was very familiar, some of the more recent attempts to explain away the Hubble tension and its implications for the canonic Big Bang theory was new in the detail and of genuine interest. But the overall subject, for me, simply wasn't ideal for book-length treatment. 

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

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