Pop Sci Book Fail

I may have posted this before somewhere sometime, not sure. But I am trying to discover a subject to really truly delve into this summer. I had such an enjoyable experience last summer reading about World War II (enjoyable in terms of the discovery process; not in any way reveling in the horrors of that terrible conflict, though perhaps a bit in the eventual triumph over them). I want to repeat the experience. To do so, I’ve brainstormed a list of nearly two dozen topics I would love to know more about. Among them are various “higher” physics subjects – the quantum world, faster-than-light travel, time travel, expanded dimensionality, grand unified theory.

The problem is this: when it comes to physics, there is a vast gulf between the pop sci book and a college textbook.

I have perhaps a dozen unread pop sci books. That many because they’re so cheap; I can pick ’em up at one or two bucks a piece. I also have two of my “modern physics” college textbooks, as well as Einstein’s own published book on General Relativity and another physicist’s mid-40s training manual on relativity.

The latter are rather dry and make my heart palpitate thinking of the inevitable Final Exam. (Where I’ll show up naked and utterly unprepared – oh, wait, that’s just one of my recurring nightmares.)

The former, these popular science books … just … fail.

Why?

A couple of reasons keep me from cracking them open.

1. They avoid mathematics more involved than E = mc 2 at all costs! God forbid someone whose interested in cutting edge physics be exposed to a math equation! Why, show the reader an integral or a one of those backward-6 differential equation thingies, and he may return the book to the publisher and tell sixteen of his friends not to pick it up!

2. They regurgitate the history of physics ad nauseum. Maybe a little bit of Greek thought (from a superior post-modern perspective, of course), usually a bit on Newton’s revolution, but always, always, always Einstein life story. Which in itself is not a bad thing, but must every pop sci book assume it’s the very first one the reader is reading and feel the need to spend page after page glorifying St. Einstein, whose main achievements are now reaching the century mark?

3. And in regurgitating the history of physics, it is mandatory – MANDATORY – that we stop in the Renaissance and beat up the Church for its mistreatment of St. Galileo. Note: this happens in 99.7 percent of all pop sci books. Trust me, I’ve done the research.

4. They spend far, far, far too much time on the quirky personalities of physicists (male dominated, but don’t mention that!), and not nearly enough on their fascinating theories – and the consequences, both known and extrapolated, of such theories. That’s what I’d love to read about.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love me some physics. Studied it in college for two years and been reading and writing science fiction all my life. But these four trends I see in those popular science books I’ve read over the years really turn me off to the whole field.

Addendum: There are two levels of pop sci books. Those written by physics, and those written by non-physicists. The vast majority of the latter are guilty of these four transgressions. The former, though not entirely innocent, write much more worthy books.