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.

Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more