Skip to main content

How to be a good publicist - Brian Clegg - Feature

Here at we get offered a lot of books for review, and often we turn them down. This should have been a review of one we said ‘Yes’ to – a book called Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity by Selwyn Wright. Unfortunately, the book does not fit our criteria.
There are three key essentials we insist on, and this went wrong on every count. So here’s the quick guide to how to be a good publicist from our viewpoint.
1) We don’t usually review self-published books, particularly ones with new theories, unless they are by someone with appropriate qualifications. Don’t bend the truth. Clearly for a book on this topic we need a well-qualified physicist, and the press release describes Dr Wright as a ‘physicist’ and a ‘retired Stanford and NASA physicist.’ (Elsewhere I have seen him described as a ‘former professor of physics at Huddersfield University’.) But as far as I can see – I’m happy to be proved wrong – Dr Wright’s doctorate was in engineering, and his work has largely been in acoustic engineering.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against engineers – they do a brilliant job, and to be an academic engineer needs a high level of expertise. But engineering is not physics, and being an acoustic engineer doesn’t make you an expert in relativity. The point here is that is in no position to judge the quality of a book describing a new theory (we don’t claim to be experts in anything, apart from what makes a good popular science book!) – so it’s a reasonable assumption as a minimum that a book we review should be written by someone with appropriate qualifications, and that inappropriate claims are not made.
2) We only review books for the general reader. So publicist, have you read and understood the book? The press release is titled ‘A theory of relativity for the lay person’, but almost from page 1 it was clear this was not the case. The arguments are not put in terms you can understand without a reasonable training in maths and physics. Would you honestly expect a general reader to cope with a page like this:

… and there are many such pages. If the publicist really thinks this is for the lay person, my suspicion is that he hasn’t read it.
3) Don’t claim that new theory ‘disproves’ another theory (especially one by Einstein). This is one we see so often. The press release tells us that Dr Wright has ‘finally showed that Einstein’s ether-less aspect of relativity is in error.’ The problem is you can’t disprove a theory with another theory – only experimental evidence can do this. You can come up with an alternative theory that can be put alongside an existing one, see which best matches the evidence and use the one that gets a scientific consensus as the current best theory – but you can’t say ‘my theory proves yours is wrong.’
I assumed that this was a result of the publicist not understanding science, but I’m not entirely sure having read the start of the book. We hear repeatedly phrases along the line of ‘There is a fundamental requirement, confirmed by measurement, that all waves need a propagation medium to propagate.’ Variants of this are repeated again and again, page after page – which doesn’t make for great reading, but I also have problems with this in terms of the scientific method. (I ought to stress once more that I am not qualified to comment on the detail of Dr Wright’s theory, merely the approach taken here.)
What we seem to have  is a problem of semantics. It’s a truism that if you define a wave as an oscillation in a medium, there has to be a medium. And this is the case with the sound waves with which Dr Wright has much expertise. But you can’t assume, just because something is called ‘a wave’ that it is also an oscillation in a medium, as these repeated statements appear to do. You, could, for instance, mean ‘a particle that has a property called phase that varies with time, resulting in wave-like behaviour’. And that would not require a medium. An electron, for example, is such a particle, but it certainly doesn’t require a medium.
Elsewhere, Dr Wright criticises special relativity because in the case of two spaceships ‘According to Einstein’s relativity, either ship could be considered moving and the other stationary. Either set of astronauts could be considered to age less than those on the other ship. Amazingly, against all logic, both situations were considered possible, even at the same time, which is physically impossible (non causal) in the real world.’ Again, the attempt is to disprove a theory not by appeal to experiment, but to common sense. But science doesn’t work like that. You only have to consider a very simple light clock experiment to realise that the viewpoint he describes as ‘physically impossible’ is what actually happens – no longer impossible because both clocks are seen from different frames of reference.
The fact is that relativity is well supported by experimental evidence. There is also good evidence that light is not a conventional wave – since the start of the 20th century there have been many observations and measurements that light can act as a particle. Quantum theory means that we can consider light as being like a wave, a particle or a fluctuation in a quantum field. All these are models that are used to produce results – but there is no suggestion that light is a wave in the same sense that sound is. There is a huge amount of experimental evidence that this is the case. Yet I didn’t spot any reference to quantum theory here.
So, unfortunately, this book failed on all three criteria. The author didn’t have the right credentials to be giving us a new theory, the book isn’t suitable for the general reader, and the author is not presenting well-documented experimental evidence to disprove a theory in any consistent way. Sorry, folks, that’s not how we do business.


Popular posts from this blog

The Feed (SF) - Nick Clark Windo ****

Ever since The War of the Worlds, the post-apocalyptic disaster novel has been a firm fixture in the Science Fiction universe. What's more, such books are often among the few SF titles that are shown any interest by the literati, probably because many future disaster novels feature very little science. With a few exceptions, though (I'm thinking, for instance, The Chrysalids) they can make for pretty miserable reading unless you enjoy a diet of page after page of literary agonising.

The Feed is a real mixture. Large chunks of it are exactly that - page after page of self-examining misery with an occasional bit of action thrown in. But, there are parts where the writing really comes alive and shows its quality. This happens when we get the references back to pre-disaster, when we discover the Feed, which takes The Circle's premise to a whole new level with a mega-connected society where all human interaction is through directly-wired connections… until the whole thing fails …

Everything You Know About Space Is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

What we have here is a feast of assertions some people make about space that are satisfyingly incorrect, with pithy, entertaining explanations of what the true picture is. Matt Brown admits in his introduction that a lot of these incorrect facts are nitpicking - more on that in a moment - but it doesn't stop them being delightful. I particularly enjoyed the ones about animals in space and about the Moon.

Along the way, we take in space exploration, the Earth's place in space, the Moon, the solar system, the universe and a collection of random oddities, such as the fact that Mozart didn't write Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. Sometimes the wrongness comes from a frequent misunderstanding. So, for example, Brown corrects the idea that Copernicus was the first to say that the Earth moves around the Sun. Sometimes there's some very careful wording. This is used when Brown challenges the idea that the Russian dog Laika was the first animal in space. What we discover is that, i…

Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs - Lisa Randall ****

I did my PhD in galactic dynamics - which is an awkward subject when people want to know what its relevance to the 'real world' is. So I was excited when Clube and Napier's book The Cosmic Serpent came out, around the same time, because it provided me with a ready-made answer. It argued that the comets which occasionally crash into Earth with disastrous results - such as the extinction of the dinosaurs - are perturbed from their normal orbits by interactions with the large-scale structure of the galaxy.

I was reminded of this idea a few years ago when there was a flurry of media interest in Lisa Randall's "dark matter and the dinosaurs" conjecture. I was sufficiently enthusiastic about it to write an article on the subject for Fortean Times - though my enthusiasm didn't quite extend to purchasing her hardback book at the time. However, now that it's out in paperback I've remedied the situation - and I'm glad I did.

Dark matter is believed to exi…