Skip to main content

Small but beautifully formed

Here's a sheep and goats question. What's the first thing that comes into your head when I say 'Physics'? If it's 'Wow, exciting stuff!' go to the top of the class. If it's 'Boring!', please stay after school.

Actually school probably has a lot to do with this impression. Physics shouldn't be boring. It's how the universe works, after all. But all that stuff with ray diagrams and force equals mass times acceleration can get a trifle tedious, I admit.

So I'm quite pleased with my latest little book, Instant Egghead Guide: Physics. Rather than start with the dull Victorian stuff it starts where we should start - with the real essentials (and the fun bits) like quantum theory and relativity. The book has 100 bite-size sections on a wide range of physics topics, each with a little 'cocktail party tidbit' (sorry, prudish US spelling) to liven it up.

If you'd like to find out a bit more, see its page at my website or at Amazon.co.uk (if you click the buy new/used from Marketplace you can buy a signed copy from me) or Amazon.com
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney20 November 2009 at 12:01

    Wow! Another book! Congrats. This is a good opportunity to tell you I'm halfway through "The God Effect." Great! I wish I had it when I was writing Tangled Roots!! Now, how about writing one (quickly) about new technologies in medicine and/or medicine and music so it's ready before I start getting into writing my new novel in earnest? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg20 November 2009 at 13:32

    Thanks Sue. They can be a bit like busses - I don't expect any more until 2011 now.

    Glad you're enjoying The God Effect. I'd love to help you out on the background to your new novel, but I suspect you'll get there before I could!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more