Nowhere does it better

I'm delighted to say that I'll be giving my talk based on my new book Interstellar Tours at the Royal Institution in London on 16 March 2024 (see the Ri website for details/booking).

Speaking at the Royal Institution is always something of a thrill. When I first gave a talk there, they had a terrifying introduction. It went something like this. 'Welcome to the Royal Institution, where lectures to improve the public understanding of science have been given since 1800. Ten of the chemical elements were either discovered or first isolated here. Michael Faraday lectured many times from this very desk. Now Brian Clegg is going to talk to you...' For the pedants amongst you, it's now reasonably widely known that the desk was reconstructed - nonetheless it was certainly the same space with a very similar desk. It was a distinct challenge to follow that.

Now they're a little less scary to their speakers, but even so there's a certain necessity to perform well that goes with speaking there that I suspect makes most of us a little nervous. Certainly you get a discerning audience and can expect some challenging questions - but it's all part of the fun.

When I gave my first talk there (based on A Brief History of Infinity) someone came up to me afterwards and said that he'd never been to a lecture before, but saw it in Time Out and thought it looked interesting. Now he was hooked, and he'd be coming regularly. That was a wonderful moment.

If you're in London (or able to get there) on the day and fancy coming, it would be great to see you. There's nowhere quite like it.

P.S. No, that's not my car - I travelled by train.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

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

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 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

Search This Blog