Skip to main content

Cracking Quantum Physics

I'm very pleased with my new book Cracking Quantum Physics. It's a chunky, beautifully produced, heavily illustrated little book, designed to give beginners an idea of what quantum physics is all about.

In over 300 pages, mostly in easily digestible two-page spreads, it covers everything from our first thoughts about the nature of matter through to possibilities for quantum gravity.

One thing I do need to address, as it has already caused John Gribbin to raise a sarcastic eyebrow is the sub-title 'You, this book and 200 years of sub-atomic science.'

This book is part of a series of 'Cracking' books (Grommit) and they all have this kind of format in the subtitle, for which the author has no input.

I sort of get what the 'you, this book and...' bit means, even if it is a trifle cringe-making, but the part John was surprised about is '200 years of sub-atomic science.' What could this possibly refer to?

Arguably the first definitive sub-atomic science came in a number of discoveries that suggest bits could break off atoms or be particles that were less than atoms. These could include:

  • Hittorf's 1869 observation of cathode rays
  • Bequerel's 1896 discovery of radioactivity
  • J. J. Thomson's 1897 suggestion of the existence of the electron
... but it's difficult to use even the most shaky arithmetic to get 200 years out of any of these.

I asked the publisher, and their justification is that 'Although the book starts in ancient Greece, I didn’t think anyone would be convinced by a strapline that said "2,500 years of sub-atomic science", so I thought the early 1800s was a more likely start point given Dalton’s introduction of the weight of atoms... Although not ’sub-atomic’ it is where the story gets going and gives us a nice meaty number.'

However, I think we can go one better than this by using Dalton, for which the round figure of 200 doesn't work too badly. Although we refer to Dalton's 'atomic theory', there is an implicit sub-atomic order in the (often incorrect) atomic weights that Dalton published. Without some kind of sub-atomic structure, it's hard to see how the relative weights of atoms could possibly vary by round numbers. 

So actually, despite my first puzzlement and admittedly with a touch of sophistry, I don't think it's too bad a subtitle after all. 


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

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