Skip to main content

Why Cats Land On Their Feet – Mark Levi ***

When I saw this book and its subtitle ‘and 76 other physical paradoxes and puzzles’ I thought ‘Great, a nice relaxing evening.’ There’s a certain class of popular science book which piles in a collection of rather interesting factoids with a spot of background, the literary equivalent of watching a soap opera on TV. You sit back, disengage the brain, and chill out. Only, when I switched on this soap opera (as it were) the opening credits said ‘Written and Directed by Ingmar Bergman.’
This is anything but a collection of entertaining science facts. Rather it is a set of challenging physics puzzles, some of which I suspect the average university lecturer would get wrong on the first attempt.
Broadly the 77 items fall into two camps, the delightful and the tedious. The delightful ones present you with a comprehensible (and often apparently straightforward) scenario and ask you either to predict what happens next, or to explain why it happens. These I found very enjoyable. I was taken back to my primary school, where there was a science event where you had to guess what would happen if, for example, you blew between two ping-pong balls suspended near each other by threads. Then you would try it and see what really happened. These puzzles are very much the mental equivalent.
Let me give you two quick examples. The first has two astronauts, fixed to either end of a weightless space capsule. One pushes a helium balloon towards the other. What happens to the capsule itself? Does it move, and if so in what direction? The second involves bashing the bottom of a wine bottle against a wall. (It’s recommended you put a book between the book and the wall, and wear protective clothing.) With repeated thumps, the cork will gradually move out of the bottle. But why?
The tedious examples either involved mathematical working (which for me is the point at which something goes from being a puzzle to being homework) or involved complex setups it was difficult to relate to or have any interest in. Sadly, there were considerably more of these than the delightful problems.
One other issue was that the explanations were often too summary to give a real understanding of what was going on. The book would have been better with fewer problems and a bit more detail. Take the example of one of the delightful puzzles. How does a child (or anyone else) manage to get a swing moving when they are sitting on it? The key to the explanation is that the movements you make on the swing amount to doing work and ‘the energy mismatch goes into increasing the amplitude of the oscillations.’ But this doesn’t really help. I want to know why it increase those oscillations. Why the energy goes to that as opposed to, say, making the seat bounce up and down. There isn’t enough detail, and what there is can be quite impenetrable unless you know the physics anyway.
So – a great idea, with some entertaining examples, but nowhere near as good as it could have been.


Review by Brian Clegg


Popular posts from this blog

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 

An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

The Universe Speaks in Numbers - Graham Farmelo ****

Theoretical physics has taken something of a hammering lately with books such as Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math. The suggestion from these earlier titles is that theoretical physics is so obsessed with mathematics that many theoretical physicists spend their careers working on theory that doesn't actually apply to the universe, because the maths is interesting. Even experimental physics can be tainted, as the driver for new expenditure in experiments, such as the proposed new collider at CERN, is not driven by discoveries but by these mathematically-directed theories. Graham Farmelo presents the opposite view here: that this speculative mathematical work is, in fact, a great success.
As I am very much in the Hossenfelder camp, I expected to find Farmelo's book rather irritating, as it's effectively a love letter to mathematically-obsessed theoretical physics - but in reality (an entertaining phrase, given the context) I found it both interesting and enjoyable. Far…

The Perils of Perception - Bobby Duffy ****

How we see the world is not the way it really is. There have been several books based on this premise in the last few years, from Hans Rosling's impressive Factfulness to the distinctly fanciful The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman. In The Perils of Perception, Bobby Duffy takes an approach that is similar to Rosling's in surveying large numbers of people in different countries (in fact, one chapter of the book specifically references Rosling), but rather than concentrate as Rosling does on the specific topic of development, Duffy takes a much wider sweep of coverage of our perceptions of our world - and just like Rosling finds that most of us are way off on our appreciation of how things really are.
Whether we're dealing with politics and immigration, finance, climate change, sex or crime, Duffy shows that the majority of people tend to get things wrong. (I think I've read too many of these books, as I tended, if anything, to err in the opposite direction to the …