Skip to main content

Defying gravity


I'm delighted to announced that my new book Gravity - How the weakest force in the universe shaped our lives is now available in the US. (UK readers, the proper UK version is out on 25 October, but if you can't wait that long, there are some copies of the US version on Amazon, and the UK link from my website will point to that until the official US version is out.)

I have recently done a few relatively light topic books, which is hugely enjoyable to do (and, I hope, to read), but it's nice to get your teeth into something meaty, and it's interesting that my best selling physics-based book remains The God Effect on quantum entanglement, one of my more challenging titles. The great thing about doing the book on gravity is that it's a subject that is very obvious - you can avoid the effects of gravity in everyday life - and yet for most of human existence it has been quite mysterious.

Then, when you get onto general relativity it becomes even more fascinating, and if you don't try to do the maths (which you'll be pleased to know I don't), it is still surprisingly approachable. I've gone into more depth in general relativity than I've seen before in a popular science title, but I really think its worth it, as it gives you a chance to explore, for instance, why frame dragging, the effect that is used in conceptual general relativity time machines, exists.

For light relief there is the whole anti-gravity business. There's a hilarious mid-20th century article on how the world will be transformed by anti-gravity (quite serious), there are the real scientific attempts to counter gravity... and the sometimes delightful amateurs. Not to mention the conspiracy theories.

All in all, I think this is a book that should go down well - and I think it's the best cover St. Martin's Press has ever done for me (the blue one at the top of the page). I've also included here the UK cover from Duckworth, which I think is great fun, though I'm not so sure about the subtitle, which no one consulted me about.

If you are on Goodreads, I've a free copy on offer - see the link at the bottom of the page. To finish off, here's a few fun factoids from Gravity:


  • The gravitational attraction of the midwife is a stronger effect than that of the planets – so basing astrology on gravity is problematic
  • Thanks to a project sponsored by KFC we know that birds eggs don’t develop in zero gravity, as the yolk needs to be kept near the shell
  • Originally gravity was paired with levity, the tendency light things have to move upwards
  • Surprisingly, Galileo’s famous observation that pendulums swing with the same frequency however far they swing is wrong. It only applies for small swings
  • Newton’s ideas on gravity were called ‘occult’ by his contemporaries because he referred to ‘attraction, and the only meaning for the word was the attraction between people – he seemed to be saying the Moon orbits the Earth because they fancy each other
  • If you fire a bullet horizontally and drop a bullet from the same height at the same time they will both land at the same time
  • If there was water on the Moon the tides would be dramatic – 80 times the size of those on the Earth
  • If you fall through a hole dug from point to point on the Earth (e.g. from one side to the other) it takes 42 minutes to fall through
  • The gravity on the International Space Station is around 90 percent Earth normal – but they don’t feel it because they are constantly falling and accelerating towards the Earth
  • The famous experiment that ‘proved’ general relativity right by measuring the deflection of starlight round the Sun in a total eclipse in 1919 was fudged to get the right results (though it has since been proved)
  • Relativity made Einstein such a media star he was asked to appear for a season at the London Palladium, explaining his theories. He politely declined
  • For five  decades, millions of dollars have been spent on a whole range of experiments to detect gravity waves but as yet not a single one has been detected
  • There is no evidence to support conspiracy theories about antigravity technology – we know all about stealth technology, which doesn’t have commercial applications – antigravity would inevitably ‘escape’ from the military sphere it if it existed
  • It is possible that antimatter is repelled by gravity rather than attracted – we have never had enough of it to measure the effect
 
 

    Goodreads Book Giveaway
 

   
        Gravity by Brian Clegg
   

   
     

          Gravity
     
     

          by Brian Clegg
     

     
         
            Giveaway ends July 06, 2012.
         
         
            See the giveaway details
            at Goodreads.
         
     
   
   

      Enter to win


Comments

  1. This sounds great, Mr. Wizard. Fingers crossed that I win the give away!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope