The Universe Inside You

It's out!

It has rather crept out in dribs and drabs - but today is the official publication date of my new book, The Universe Inside You.

We start with looking at your body in the mirror. Usually you might think 'I need to lose a few pounds.' But that's not the point. Really look. What you see in front of you is one of the most amazing things in the universe. I wanted to start from your body and use that to explore science, both the direct science of what is in there and everything that contributes to making that body you.

So we explore the brain - using optical illusions amongst a whole range of experiments, and all the unexpected science in your body, like the amazing zoo of bacteria - you have 10 times as many bacterial cells as human in there. But also we get a chance to see how the science of the universe impinges on your body. We see how light from the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light years away stimulates your eyes. Those photons of light have been on their way for 2.5 million years, long before humans existed. Or taking a rollercoaster ride we discover how we have many more than 5 senses, detecting things like acceleration and heat - and how our bodies experience the warps in space and time that Einstein showed were the cause of gravity. That's not just a body, it's a lab to explore the wonders of the universe.

I can't remember when I last enjoyed writing a book so much - I suppose in the end because it's hard not to be interested in your own body, but more so because of all that you discover along the way.

The book has an accompanying website which includes a range of experiments, some involving the brain, for the reader to try out. Do take a look at www.universeinsideyou.com and see what you think.

As I write this, but not for long, you can get the Kindle ebook for just 99p in the UK and $1.57 in the US.

If you would prefer a hardcopy you can click through to Amazon from 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