Skip to main content

Exploring the Universe

Apologies to anyone who thinks my books are turning up rather too thick and fast this year - but I've got another one out! (It will be a bumper year: there are three more due out in the next six months.) On the other hand, it's very different from anything else I've done.


Exploring the Universe is a book of striking photographs in an exploration of astronomy and cosmology. It's a sort of manageable coffee table book - big enough for the photos to be impressive, but small enough to be able to read with your wrists falling off.

That reading part is important because although the pictures (around 100 of them) are a significant component of this book it was really important for me that the text was both readable and had plenty to say. I think a real danger with this kind of book is that they can be just a collection of pictures with some hastily assembled text. In this case I've tried to make sure that the text packs in plenty of fascinating information.

So, for example, while I hugely recommend the iPad Solar System app which inevitably is driven by the graphics, the book version of it was a bit of a let down, because the text is too bitty. In my tour through the universe, the text came first - and it flows through the book, rather than being a set of tiny standalone articles.

I ought to explain one thing - the title. It might sound like a book on space exploration, but I wanted to make the point that our main vehicle for exploring the universe is light, not spacecraft. Going out and experiencing things close up is never going to be an option for most of the universe. We have to rely on light in all its forms to enable us to find our way around our remarkable universal environment.

Take a look at the book's web page to find out more or buy a copy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 recent 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 ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou