Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Why does E = MC squared.

imarcs

By imarcs
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

imarcs

imarcs

Posted
Posted

Thought i would learn a bit more about the bigger picture so turned to Brian Cox's "Why does E=MC squared"

First 100 pages. Mind = Blown

The second part is a touch more involved but with some perseverance i'll get through it.

If it had ended at the 100th page it would still be worth the money, i thoroughly recommend it to the physics delinquents (like me) out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply
imarcs

imarcs

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hi Imarcs

At least it should be warm in KL. Same thing happened to mush my head when I read ' A Brief History Of Time'.

Cheers

Well, i went to Manchester airport today, en route to KL via Amsterdam. flight was cancelled, queued for 5 hours, got bumped to a flight tomorrow morning - so returned home.

So, the end result is, I have moved in time, but not space. But as neither of these are absolute, i have indeed moved in spacetime. I wouldn't of known this a few days ago without this book. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Yes of course! It's not plagiarising as in stealing a murder plot or love story - this is all scientific stuff, perhaps not truths but at least as true as it gets to the best of the knowledge of science of today but there is not one new idea or angle in that book!

Read for example John Gribbin, Richard Panek, Paul Davies, Manjit Kumar, Marcus Chown, Frank Wilczek, Stephen Hawking and even Michio Kaku and it's all there - only five to ten years before Coxy...

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moonshane

Moonshane

Posted
Posted

I am currently reading this by coincidence too and really enjoying it (I have read most of Hawking's major works and am reasonably well read (for a layman) in other work too - especially evolution of natural history). OK it's not new stuff on the whole but it doesn't pretend to be. What he does in this book as he does well in most things he does as far as I am concerned, is distill the available information into an easily digested format. This then either hooks you and you go on to read perhaps some of the other authors mentioned or give in as even Cox's work is too complex. You may even come up with an original idea if you follow things through far enough.

I for one like his style; what's wrong with a bit of awe and wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Well, for example; did you read about the light clock on the moving train? Did it seem at all familiar? Just one of many...

Cox hasn't included ONE single source or reference. Most other books on the subject has a whole chapter with references...

I am just not very impressed with this particular book... (Or his gig on tv...)

Sure, may be perfect for some but since this is the banter filled lounge I don't mind sharing my opinion.

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamespels

jamespels

Posted
Posted

I've not read this one bet but one I have read and highly recommend is Sander Bais' "Very Special Relativity" (Very Special Relativity An Illustrated Guide ONL : An Illustrated Guide: Amazon.co.uk: Sander Bais: Books). It is an utterly fascinating book that makes extensive use of space-time diagrams to illustrate concepts, largely avoiding complex equations in the process and making it relatively (no pun intended) readable.

My dad is an avid popular science reader and reckons Cox's "Why Does E=MC Squared" and Bais' Very Special Relativity go very well together.

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

Popular science books aren't peer review journals, so I don't think referencing is that important. It's not like someone doing serious research will quote from a popular science book. Popular science books need to be written in such a way that would appeal to the general public who may be interested in science but may not have study science beyond A-level.

Light on train is pretty much the standard way used to explain relativity to the average public, in the same way apple falling from a tree was used to explain gravity.

I doubt I'd enjoy 'the wonders of the ...' series or Sky at Night if they spend a third of the program reading out a list of references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Haha, see what you mean Keith, but my point is that this has been covered before down to each and every chapter - just as well or better by other authors on that same shelf in Waterstones or elsewhere - they are just not as famous...

It's like an X-factor winner doing a cover of a rock classic and selling a bundle! Sure he is a professor and all due respect to that fact but why this book?

I'm not troubled by references btw (at the end) as they point you towards more reading.

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Haha, well Brian May has a PhD on the subject too, he just does not cash in on it. (Well, the odd foreword to books surely doesn't count...)

A well, got to prepare my This Morning Gino recepie and practice my John Sergeant Rhumba now... ain't got time for Coxy ;-) Halleluja, this is my winning song!

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamespels

jamespels

Posted
Posted
Why is Cox "cashing in" and Hawkins, Kaku, etc, are not?

Come again? Hawkins not cashing in on it? He is a multiple best-seller and has even added his name to the current Channel 4 series "Brave New World" despite doing nothing more than giving a few voice-over intros. Every scientist with a bit of charisma is cashing in as best they can - Jim Al-Khalili and Maggie Aderin Pocock are both in the same show and have both had their own stints on TV. In a different field, Richard Dawkins is hardly media-shy and, outside of TV, there are many eminent scientists doing the lecture circuit (and getting paid handsomly for it). As for Kaku not cashing in - check out his website: the tagline is "Official website of famed futurist - physicist - bestselling author - radio & tv personality"!!!

If it helps fund science and gets the message across, then why not? It has to be better than hour after hour of junk TV.

On a different note (and a bit of a plug!), PSP2011 raised not far short of £1,000 - as well as helping the local dark skies campaign, this will be reinvested into local education and we will be relying heavily on these same scientists to help us out. Thanks to everyone who came and watch this space for updates towards the end of the year.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

James I think umadog agrees with you!

Of course the people you mention cash in and quite rightly so. I just sense a difference between Cox and say Hawking who has presented some new ideas, and fought for them too!

Dawkins is also a fighter of sort, relentless in pushing his point of view across - a view perhaps beyond the edge of what we can even discuss here on SGL haha!

The book at the top of the thread is in my view just a re-arrangement of what's already on the popular science shelves, and includes no new takes or angles or ways to explain to us mortals.

As for Kaku, well respect to a man who describes how to build a light sabre - never saw that before either! New stuff.

I acknowledge the work Cox is doing on the scientific front and elsewhere - this book is not up to par with that. Sorry Jeff Forshaw by the way, you're in on this too...

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamespels

jamespels

Posted
Posted

OK, two ways of reading that sentence - sorry, umadog, if you also mean that the others are cashing in too!

Prof Cox may well be making a name for himself by presenting "old" theories but surely putting ideas as complex and utterly mind-bending as special relativity and quantum theory into language lay-people can understand is an achievement in its own right? Yes, other people have done it too (particularly Bais whose SR explanation is a favourite of mine) but few have done it as well.

Either way, I suspect we may well hear a lot more of Prof Cox's work in the future - his work at CERN isn't as "sexy" as the theoretical work with the impressive predictions made by, say, Hawking but it could be instrumental in understanding whole new realms of partical physics.

Thanks all, btw - now I have to read "Why does E=MC squared"!!!

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Never read Bais, but now I want to!

I too hope that everyones work at CERN will lead to new theories, or that they prove the old ones - just as good really! And I hope Cox is right there doing it! THAT's a book to wait for :-)

All the best

/Jessun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.