Reviews for Nuclear Reactions for Astrophysics: Principles, Calculation and Applications of Low-Energy Reactions

The average rating for Nuclear Reactions for Astrophysics: Principles, Calculation and Applications of Low-Energy Reactions based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-12-30 00:00:00 Aaron P Levi There's so much about this book to like. It is divided into major "epochs" (particles, galaxies, stars, planets, chemicals, biology, culture) that trace the evolution of the known universe from the Big Bang to humans. That development is continuous, each epoch providing the stage for what follows. Chaisson argues that this evolution is movement toward greater complexity. While the universe as a whole moves toward entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) through the dissipation of heat, life is a "local" exception to this universal process. Life draws energy and builds complex (highly ordered) structures, culminating (for now at least) in human consciousness. This type of Big History is an excellent way to demonstrate our connection to all that has gone before and the materialist foundations for life. Chaisson is at his best in the first part of this book. He starts with the undifferentiated and superhot energy at the moment of the Big Bang. Within a fraction of a second, the energy cools sufficiently to allow for particle formation in its various sequences (subatomic, atomic, molecule) that subsequently result in the formation of large bodies (galaxies, starts and planets). Along the way, the reader can wonder if time is nothing but the sequential movement of energy as it moves along the energy gradient from high to low. As matter forms in the process of cooling, is matter implied in energy? Are particular forms of matter properties within energy that await to emerge with cooling? It is said that the Big Bang creates space as well as time. Is space a blanket of dissipated, expanding energy and matter? Seen in this way, more time grows more space and deep space displays deep time so that time and space are locked together as spacetime. We know about the four forces that govern the interaction of energy and matter, but those forces seem in some fundamental way to be reduced to two if not three universal patterns: the inward pull of matter into itself (creating density and mass) and the outward push of pressure (energy/heat expanding). Is there a critical mass where the gravitational pull of matter creates too much heat and pressure results in an explosive expression of energy? In that explosive energy wave, will not matter be part of that energy, but in non-solid form? Gravity itself seems to display those patterns of pulling (attraction) and pushing (the resistance of bodies to the attraction of other bodies). In this way, might a third universal pattern be this movement toward equilibrium among mass and matter (as well as energy). Chaisson also discusses the role of chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, in all of this. He refers to density fluctuations where the random movement of atoms in an expanding energy wave creates density points where gravity, over time, pulls matter into collections of galaxies, stars and planets, all separated from each other in a dynamic balance of mass and energy. That intermediate point between gravitational pull of matter and expressions of energy also characterizes our star, the sun. In the second part of the book, Chaisson's presentation gets weaker in two respects. First, he argues at some length about the problems involved in defining life and concludes that inorganic matter and organic life do not differ in kind but only by degree. Life, he says, is a more complex form of matter. For even hard core materialists, that characterization seems to be missing something fundamental. Life begins by randomness, molecules that self replicate. But after that, in defiance of entropy, life sustains itself by taking energy into itself and life's mission then focuses on how to do that. Does inorganic matter transform itself based on information received from the environment so that it can promote its survival and replication needs not only by reacting properly, but by active and appropriate seeking? What is it about life that precedes (and governs?) its self-transformation so that it maintains an adaptive balance vis-a-vis the environment? Chaisson does not dig into these questions but only surveys the general arguments that don't do justice to life's distinctive character. Chaisson also states that life reflects the nature of the DNA molecule and he says that the cell is as it ought to be. This sounds innocent enough, but it seems loaded with implications: If this is true, aren't we a collection of DNA molecules and cells and don't we have our own distinct, inborn character More generally, could it be that we are matter infused with energy that needs to be free as we were designed to be, as a species member and individually? Could our own visceral need for freedom to be who we are meant to be come from our deepest, material self? Life seems to mementarily defy matter and take exception to it. Just as we take in energy to defy entropy, we are dead when we no longer take in energy. Then we become like inorganic matter once again and disintegrate into thermodynamic equiibrium. In death, we move toward the bottom of the energy gradient, like all matter and energy. Second, regarding the second weakness of the book, Chaisson labels the last epoch as cultural, which is consistent with his theme that in our neck of the woods cosmic evolution tends toward complexity. He believes we are the most complex clumps of matter in the universe. "There's no denying it," he writes, even though just a few pages later he states that there are always problems when we "make grandiose pronouncements about our own species." "Culture" seems the wrong label for this final Chaisson epoch. It does not fit with the overall theme of this book, which is about the various manifestations of energy and matter through time. He speaks of the radiation era and the matter era that follows it, and then the life era that comes from matter. Life differs from matter by concentrating energy locally by decreasing energy elsewhere, consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Humans are great energy gatherers. In the grand cosmic scheme, that's our distinctive trait. Given that cosmic paradigm, our cultured consciousness seems not relevant at all as compare to human concentrations of energy that come at the expense of other life forms, of the earth itself and ultimately, perhaps, of ourselves.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-08-21 00:00:00 Dawn Morton Chaisson writes an epic account of the history of the universe. While this book is a bit dated it is still worth reading to get a great overview of the universe from its beginnings to our current cultural age. Each chapter covers an epic, begins with an introductory section which sets the stage and is broken into smaller chunks, and concludes with a summary and segue way into the next epic -- which is useful since this is quite a tome. I found the initial chapters long and slow going -- perhaps mostly because I was relatively unfamiliar with this material and wanted to understand the details. Despite this, the book is well written. Chaisson ends with an epilogue and a list of further reading for each epic. It is important to remember that this book was published in 2005. Since that time some of his material has changed or been further developed. Despite this, there were a few troubling remarks - which are wrong or misleading. I found his discussion of plants misleading in that he stresses their importance in photosynthesis but seems not to be aware that plants also do cellular respiration. I find incorrect his assertion that animals make carbon dioxide from carbon sources and oxygen. Animals do not do this; rather, through cellular respiration, animals completely oxidize glucose (and other carbon sources) to carbon dioxide and water. The oxygen we breathe is used to accept the hydrogen atoms and their electrons (from glucose) to make water. The carbon dioxide produced is the break down product from glucose and does not involve the oxygen breathed. Chaisson also asserts incorrectly that all neuron connections involve a chemical synapse in which there is a gap between the neurons. Some neurons have electrical synapses in which there is no gap but rather gap junction channels which attach the plasma membranes together (a bit like the intercalated discs in cardiac muscle). I also think his portrayal of the dinosaurs is a bit too Holly Wood. As long as there have been animals, there have been predators and nature has been "red in tooth and claw." Chaisson does not seem to appreciate dinosaurs in their full diversity and ecology. But further Chaisson is incorrect to say that all the dinosaurs died out. Clearly they did not: we have birds, descendants of dinosaurs. Chaisson also goes a bit too far in his assumption that emotions, etc. are only brain activities or even neural ones. Despite these errors and misleading remarks, the book still shines and is a good place to start with cosmology. I wish he had written more about the cultural epic but then there is so much that could have been added. The book may be a bit heady but I still highly recommended it.