Contemporary Authors

• Quantum Chromodynamics and the Pomeron Cambridge University Press (New York, NY), 1997
• Why Does E=mc2: (And Why Should We Care?) Da Capo Press (Cambridge, MA), 2009
•  Dynamics and Relativity John Wiley & Sons (Chichester, England), 2009
• The Quantum Universe: (And Why Anything That Can Happen, Does) Da Capo Press (Boston, MA), 2011

1.  The quantum universe : (and why anything that can happen, does) LCCN 2011942393 Type of material Book Personal name Cox, Brian, 1968- Main title The quantum universe : (and why anything that can happen, does) / Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw. Edition 1st Da Capo Press ed. Published/Created Boston [Mass.] : Da Capo Press, 2012, c2011. Description 255 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. ISBN 9780306819643 (hardcover) 0306819643 (hardcover) CALL NUMBER QC174.12 .C689 2012 Copy 1 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms CALL NUMBER QC174.12 .C689 2012 Copy 2 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms 2.  Why does E=mc2 : (and why should we care?) LCCN 2009009291 Type of material Book Personal name Cox, Brian, 1968- Main title Why does E=mc2 : (and why should we care?) / Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Published/Created Cambridge, MA : Da Capo Press, c2009. Description xiii, 249 p. : ill., map ; 22 cm. ISBN 9780306817588 (alk. paper) CALL NUMBER QC173.6 .C68 2009 Copy 1 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms CALL NUMBER QC173.6 .C68 2009 LANDOVR Copy 2 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms - STORED OFFSITE 3.  Quantum chromodynamics and the pomeron LCCN 97004006 Type of material Book Personal name Forshaw, J. R. (Jeffrey Robert), 1968- Main title Quantum chromodynamics and the pomeron / J.R. Forshaw, D.A. Ross. Published/Created Cambridge, U.K. ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997. Description xv, 248 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. ISBN 0521568803 (paperback) Links Publisher description http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam028/97004006.html Table of contents http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam022/97004006.html CALL NUMBER QC793.5.P58 F67 1997 Copy 1 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms 4.  Dynamics and relativity LCCN 2008053366 Type of material Book Personal name Forshaw, J. R. (Jeffrey Robert), 1968- Main title Dynamics and relativity / Jeffrey R. Forshaw and A. Gavin Smith. Published/Created Chichester, UK : John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Description xiv, 323 p. : ill. ; 26 cm. ISBN 0470014598 (hbk. : alk. paper) 0470014601 (pbk. : alk. paper) 9780470014592 (hbk. : alk. paper) 9780470014608 (pbk. : alk. paper) CALL NUMBER QC173.65 .F67 2009 LANDOVR Copy 1 Request in Jefferson or Adams Building Reading Rooms - STORED OFFSITE

• Wikipedia -

  Jeff Forshaw
  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Jump to: navigation, search
  Jeff Forshaw
  Born
  Jeffrey Robert Forshaw
  1968 (age 48–49)
  Nationality
  British
  Education
  Wigan and Leigh College
  Alma mater
  University of Oxford (BA)
  University of Manchester (PhD)
  Known for
  Particle physics, quantum physics, theoretical physics
  Children
  Two[1]
  Awards
  Maxwell Medal and Prize (1999)
  Kelvin Prize (2013)
  Website
  www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/forshaw
  Scientific career
  Fields
  Particle physics
  Institutions
  University of Manchester
  Thesis
  The Parton content of the photon and photon-induced minijets (1992)
  Jeffrey Robert Forshaw (born 1968)[2] is a British particle physicist with a special interest in quantum chromodynamics (QCD): the study of the behaviour of subatomic particles, using data from the HERA particle accelerator, Tevatron particle accelerator[3] and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.[4] Since 2004 he has been professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester.[5] He is the co-author of 5 books, most notably the worldwide bestselling[6] popular science books Why Does E=mc²?, The Quantum Universe and Universal: A guide to the cosmos, co-written with physicist Brian Cox. He has also written over 100 peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals[7][8][9][10] and speaks at international science festivals for children and adults. He frequently acts as science consultant to the BBC and other media[11] and is a columnist for The Observer. Forshaw is a recipient of the Maxwell Medal and Prize for his outstanding contribution to particle physics, and the Kelvin Prize from the Institute of Physics for his exceptional contribution to the public understanding of physics.[12][13][14]

  Contents  [hide] 
  1
  Education
  2
  Career and research
  2.1
  Publications and media
  2.2
  Awards and honours
  3
  Personal life
  4
  References

  Education[edit]
  Forshaw attended Hesketh Fletcher High School[15] and studied A levels at Wigan and Leigh College where he considered his teachers, Jim Breithaupt, Alan Skinner and Jean Wadsworth an important influence on his future career.[16] He went on to study physics at Oriel College, Oxford[7] graduating with a first class Bachelor of Arts degree in physics in 1989,[11] followed by a PhD in Theoretical Physics from the University of Manchester in 1992 for research on the parton content of the photon and photon-induced minijets.[17][18]
  Career and research[edit]
  From 1992 to 1995 he worked as a postdoctoral research scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory[7] near Didcot in Oxfordshire, in the group led by noted particle physicist Frank Close.[19] While studying he intended to become a school teacher but began lecturing at university level after his PhD.[20] He began his friendship and eventual collaboration with Brian Cox around 1995 when he was Cox's lecturer in Advanced Quantum Field Theory as they were the same age, despite being student and teacher.[1] In 2004 he became professor of particle physics at University of Manchester School of Physics and Astronomy at the relatively young age of 36.[5][11] At Manchester he is engaged in experimental and theoretical research in the field of particle physics, with particular interest in the behaviours of particles in high energy colliders as at the ATLAS experiment and Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiments, part of the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator research at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.[5] He has said of his theoretical physics research,
  “
  As a theoretical physicist, most of my time is spent doing calculations that are wrong. It's a humbling exercise, a massive dose of humility.[20]
  ”
  He has written over 100 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, including papers on ordering gluon emissions, quantum field theory and holographic wavefunction of mesons.[9] Forshaw and his frequent co-author Cox have stated the peer review process of science results publishing is important because it ensures that minimum standards are met in the scientific community and gives due attribution to all associates working on the piece who are finalising the presentation of the paper, and blogging research before it is published should be avoided.[21]
  As an educator Forshaw is keen to encourage the idea that basic principles and theories in particle physics should be introduced to children in school in order to encourage understanding of the scientific method and use of evidence-based thinking at a young age.[22][23] In 2008 he added his voice to the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) campaign against spending cuts to UK physics budgets in a letter to the then Secretary of State at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, John Denham, which was signed by around 350 prominent physicists from the UK theoretical particle physics community.[24] The letter pointed out the adverse effects the cuts would have, not only to physics research in the UK, but also in discouraging future students of astronomy, particle physics and science in general.[24] When asked whether investment in physics could potentially contribute to the UK economy he pointed out,
  “
  The world has been revolutionised by fundamental research into quantum physics done 60 years ago and now there are billions of transistors inside every home computer. They are a key ingredient of the microchip.[25]
  ”
  He also encourages people to see the relevance of quantum physics in everyday life and not purely as an academic discipline, using solar panels and lasers as examples of practical everyday applications.[20] In his many public lectures he has been described as "deeply enthusiastic about his subject"[26] and "entertaining and informative."[27]
  Forshaw often visits schools and colleges to speak in front of young people about aspects of his work[28][29] and has appeared on children's television in the UK explaining concepts such as the Higgs boson on BBC television programme Newsround for children aged six to twelve.[30][31][32] He is an ambassador for educational charity Potential Plus UK which aims to support the emotional and learning needs of gifted and exceptional children.[33] Forshaw also regularly contributes at SciBar events (literally science in a bar)[34] and Café Scientifique events in the UK.[35] He has supervised several PhD students and postdocs.[36][37][38]
  Publications and media[edit]
  Forshaw writes frequent popular science articles explaining complex concepts in physics for the press and magazine publications.[39] He has written on subjects such as matter and antimatter,[40] the Big Bang,[21] the existence of the Higgs boson,[41] quantum computers,[42] supersymmetry,[43] the Planck satellite,[44] dark matter[45] and the technology of nuclear fusion.[46] He has also co-authored a set of physics talks with educational support materials for TED Studies entitled Physics – The Edge of Knowledge which is designed to be used online by teachers and students. It explores the relationship between the laws of nature and quantum physics from subatomic particles to the wider universe.[47] Other popular science publications include:
  QCD and the Pomeron is a text book written with Douglas A. Ross (1997)[48] written for theoretical and experimental particle physicists and those in the field of applied mathematics and investigates the pomeron, an object in high energy particle physics. It was described as the "First book on the physics of the pomeron, fills a gaping hole in the literature."[49]
  Dynamics and Relativity written with Gavin Smith (2009)[50] is an undergraduate level text book on the physics behind classical mechanics and relativity.
  Why Does E=mc²? written with Brian Cox (2009)[51] is a popular science book exploring Einstein's Theory of relativity and what it means in relation to topics such as the Big Bang and the Large Hadron Collider. The book received very positive reviews for being easy to read and entertaining, despite dealing with complex physical theories and mathematics, from newspapers such as The Guardian,[52] New York Journal of Books[53] and New Scientist,[54] and was shortlisted for the Royal Society science book prize in 2010.[55]
  The Quantum Universe written with Brian Cox (2012)[56] is a popular science book that attempts to explain quantum physics. Economist magazine listed it as one of its 'Books of the Year' for 2011.[57] It received favourable reviews from The Guardian[58] and the Economist[59] while The Daily Telegraph described it as enjoyable but "not an easy read,"[60] and The Independent found the theoretical sections stodgy.[61]
  Universal, a guide to the cosmos written with Brian Cox (2016)[62] explores fundamental questions about the universe and the science of astronomy as it attempts to understand it. Universal was also well received, with the New Scientist listing it as one of their Great Christmas books, describing it, "Rarely has a difficult subject been rendered so accessible."[63] The Guardian referred to it as a magnum opus[64] and The Big Issue focussed on the book's encouragement of critical thinking.[65] The Daily Mail briefly summarised the book before moving on to speculating about aliens.[66]
  Forshaw is series editor of the Manchester Physics Series of textbooks aimed at university undergraduates and postgraduates.[67][68]
  Forshaw was science consultant for several BBC Television series and programmes including the following:
  The Science of Doctor Who, documentary, 2013
  Wonders of Life series, 2012
  Wonders of the Universe series, 2010 and 2011[35]
  A Night With The Stars, documentary, 2011[69]
  Wonders of the Solar System series, 2009 and 2010
  Horizon:- What on Earth is wrong with Gravity? 2009
  Horizon – Do You Know What Time It Is? 2008[70]
  Naked Science: Time Machine for National Geographic channel, 2008[citation needed]
  Equinox: The Big G, 1998[11]
  Of his writing and efforts to bring physics to the wider public he said,
  “
  (Science) is very beautiful...that's why I do it. For me that's the big passion, so that people should get to see how beautiful physics is.[71]
  ”
  Awards and honours[edit]
  In 1999 Forshaw was awarded the Maxwell Medal and Prize from the Institute of Physics for his outstanding contribution to particle physics.[72] In 2013 Forshaw received the Kelvin Medal from the Institute of Physics for his outstanding contribution to making complex physics accessible and understandable to the public.[6][35] In 2010 Cox and Forshaw's book Why Does E=mc²? was shortlisted for the Royal Society science book prize in 2010.[55]
  Personal life[edit]
  Forshaw lives in Manchester and has two daughters.[1]

• London Observer - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/23/brian-cox-jeff-forshaw-answers

  Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw explain the big bang
  What is infinity? Is the Milky Way omelette-shaped? Readers ask particle physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw to unscramble some of the universe's mysteries

  Particle physicists Jeff Forshaw, left, and Brian Cox in London. Photograph: Katherine Rose for the Observer

  View more sharing options

  Shares
  29

  Comments
  195

  Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
  Sunday 23 October 2011 00.06 BST
  First published on Sunday 23 October 2011 00.06 BST
  I
  t was a scientific match made if not in heaven, then in manmade conditions approaching the big bang: Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw first met at a particle collider in Hamburg 15 years ago. They have collaborated on various scientific projects ever since and are now both professors at Manchester University's Particle Physics Group and are involved in research projects at Large Hadron Collider at Cern, Geneva.
  Jeff explains their relationship thus: "Apart from Brian's pretty face, it's the fact that we both have this very direct, visceral love of physics, so we both really love what we're doing."

  Sign up for Lab notes - the Guardian's weekly science update
  Read more

  Their second book together, The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen, is published by Allen Lane on Thursday. It's as breezily a written accessible account of the theory of quantum mechanics as you could wish for – from the Planck constant to the Higgs particle and everything theoretically in between. Observers looking for evidence that science is the new rock'n'roll should note that the book jacket is designed by Peter Saville of Factory Records fame.
  Brian's frequent TV appearances, handsome features and drainpipes have led to him being described as "something of a sex symbol" by the Daily Mail, a spoof column in New Scientist and satirical YouTube clips. Jeff, however, cuts a more conservative jib.
  We asked readers to send in questions via email, theguardian.com and Twitter and you responded magnificently with queries both theoretical and practical, covering subjects from the subatomic to the infinite. Here is a selection of their replies.
  Physics
  Is there a centre of the universe?
  Marjorie Ainsworth, via email

  Advertisement

  JF: It's a common misunderstanding of the big bang that the universe exploded into something, like a firework went off or something like that, and there was a centre that spewed out into something.
  BC: That seems to imply that everything is flying away from us and we're therefore somehow in a privileged position; that isn't true. The way it's often described is if you imagine some bread with raisins in it that you're baking in the oven and as you heat it, it expands. On any particular raisin, if you look, you can see all the other raisins receding from it. So it's space that stretching, it's not that everything's flying away.
  JF: It's the big stretch, not the big bang.
  If everything came from a singularity, what created it?
  bbmatt, via web
  JF: What created the singularity? No idea. But that doesn't mean that some people haven't tried to come up with ideas. Anyway, everything coming from a singularity is a confusing line of questioning because the universe was probably infinite at the time of the big bang so it didn't really come from a singularity. It came from a singularity in the density, but I expect that the person who's asked that question imagined that the universe came from a point.
  … but that's very unlikely. We don't know what happens deep inside a black hole, so when the density of the universe gets very, very large then our calculations cease to work, so the honest answer is that before we reach the singularity, our ability to calculate fails. But that's not to undermine how accurately we can calculate, because we claim to understand the behaviour of the entire visible universe winding back through the big bang to a time when it was the size of a beach ball. So that's all the billions of galaxies and all the billions of stars in the galaxies compressed to about the size of a beach ball, which is pretty impressive.
  BC: General relativity, quantum mechanics, those things break down in there, so the idea that there is such a thing as a singularity in nature is unlikely. A lot of people think that if you have a proper theory of gravity that works smaller than the beach ball metaphor then you don't have these issues, but it's not known.
  Advertisement

  JF: Another misunderstanding, which stems from that question, is the idea that the universe was small at the big bang. What was small at the time of the big bang was the entire visible universe, so everything we can see now, which is about 14bn light years away, all of that was compressed to the size of a pinhead. But it was one pinhead in an infinite space, so there's an infinite amount of stuff, as far as we can tell, outside our universe. So it's right to say that it's 14bn years old, but it's wrong to say that it's 14bn light years in size because it's probably infinitely big.
  However, the question that's probably been asked is what happened before the beginning and the answer to that is that nobody has a clue – so that's the honest answer.
  If there exists some particle that can travel faster than light, then surely there should be a way of sending information into the past?
  jamma88 via web
  BC: Yes, that's true. If you don't modify Einstein's theory of relativity and you take it at face value and send something faster than light, then yes, you can send messages into the past. So, if the current result is shown to be correct, then probably what you're saying is that you want a new theory of space and time, and then, who knows?
  JF: In a nutshell, if Einstein is right, then yes is the answer to the question. But you'd be very hard pressed to find a physicist who thought that Einstein is right if you find a particle travelling faster than the speed of light. What that means is that Einstein is wrong because you can't travel back into the past and so there's some new theory that comes into play, which protects the law of cause and effect. It's very hard to conceive of a logical universe in which cause and effect doesn't hold.
  What does no Higgs mean for physics? What are the other theories?
  Jason Mickler via email
  JF: No Higgs would be very exciting.
  BC: It could be more exciting than finding it. The favoured candidate for the something new that we know must exist at the Large Hadron Collider is the Higgs, but it could be something else.
  We've written several papers together and our most cited one is what would happen if there isn't a Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider and how we might explore the physics that must be there if there isn't one. It's very rare that you get to build an experiment in science where you're guaranteed to discover something new. The Large Hadron Collider is such an experiment, in that the standard model of particle physics predicts that there's going to be a Higgs particle. But it's not necessarily going to be there and if you take away the Higgs particle out of our standard theory, you take away all the maths and throw it in the bin and see what's left… and what's left is a theory that doesn't make sense.
  Advertisement

  JF: Something will show up sooner rather than later. If the Higgs particle is relatively light, there's a range of masses we expect it to have and we should see it very soon, we could even see it before Christmas. If it's heavy or if the alternative to it is heavy, then it could take a few more years before we find it. We're closing in on it fast now though – the machine is working absolutely wonderfully, it really is.
  How do you feel about scientists who blog their research rather than waiting to publish their final results?
  Stephen Marks via email
  BC: The peer review process works and I'm an enormous supporter of it. If you try to circumvent the process, that's a recipe for disaster. Often, it's based on a suspicion of the scientific community and the scientific method. They often see themselves as the hero outside of science, cutting through the jungle of bureaucracy. That's nonsense: science is a very open pursuit, but peer review is there to ensure some kind of minimal standard of professionalism.
  JF: I think it's unfair for people to blog. People have overstepped the mark and leaked results, and that's just not fair on their collaborators who are working to get the result into a publishable form.
  Scientists use supernova explosions to measure how far away supernovas are. The distance depends on how bright they appear against how bright they really are. How do scientists know how bright the supernova explosions should be?
  Bas Bouma via email
  JF: When stars explode in a particular way (called Type Ia supernovae) they do so in a remarkably consistent manner – that is to say one such explosion looks pretty much the same as any other. That means that if we can measure the distance to a "nearby" supernova using some other method (and not its brightness) then we can use that to calibrate things and determine the distance to more distant supernovae using only their brightness. Incidentally, these supernovae are remarkable events. White dwarf stars are small dead stars and they survive purely as a consequence of quantum mechanics but only if they weigh less than 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. If this thing accretes matter and sneaks past the magic 1.4 solar masses then the electrons within the star start to move close to the speed of light and that triggers a catastrophic collapse – the supernova.
  Advertisement

  If question-asking is so fundamental to science, why has there been no research into how we might improve question-asking for learners in our places of education?
  Laurence Smith via email
  BC: I think, for example, quantum mechanics should be taught in schools for this reason. One of the reasons is that it's a great way of seeing how the data from experiments can drive you to a rather counterintuitive picture of the world. For example, the rules of quantum physics are not by themselves complicated, but they are philosophically challenging. I think the scientific method is more important to teach than facts. I'm not that bothered if people know about the structure of the atom or whatever but I want people to understand how you get to these conclusions about the world.
  Mathematics
  My question is: I cannot perceive or understand infinity. For man, everything has a beginning and an end. Answer, please!
  Harry, via web
  JF: The reality is that we don't know for certain what's outside the 14 billion years' worth of what we can see, so there could be an edge to the universe, it's possible, but there's no evidence in any of the data.
  BC: The universe was opaque about 380,000 years after the big bang and at that point became diffuse enough that light could travel through it. And we can see that light, people measure it in great detail, and you could see if the universe had an edge in that data, but there's no sign of it.
  The physics behind the current understanding of the universe isn't complete, but do you think that a new kind of mathematics will be needed, and what kind of mathematics might that be?
  John Read, via email
  JF: There isn't a Nobel prize for mathematics, its equivalent is called the Fields Medal and people who are working on fundamental questions in physics, string theory in particular, have won that prize in recent times, so it already is the case that physicists are breaking new ground within mathematics. People are trying to understand the universe at its birth – the behaviour of phenomena down to mind-bogglingly small scales – we're talking like 10-40cm. So new mathematics may well be needed and people are inventing new mathematics.
  But it should be stressed that the known physics, the physics that we've measured in experiments, none of that really has mandated in any particularly significant way our theories of mathematics. There are exceptions, such as the idea that numbers have the property of commutativity, which means that 2x3 is equal to 3x2, but the theory of elementary particles used, for example, at the Large Hadron Collider utilises a mathematics where in the product of two numbers the order matters, so X times Y doesn't equal Y times X.
  Astronomy
  Advertisement

  How do we know what shape the Milky Way is? I've seen many illustrations of our galaxy as a spiral, but how can we tell what it looks like when we're deeply embedded inside it?
  Chris Muggleton, via email
  JF: If you lived in an omelette, and you lived on the edge of that omelette, you could measure the distance between all the pieces of mushroom in the omelette. If you were clever enough to work out how far it was to all the different parts of the omelette, you'd be able to reconstruct it. So it's all a question of measuring the distance between the stars. Because they don't move any significant distance in the time you're measuring them [relatively speaking], to get the shape of it, all you need to know is the distance.
  How do you feel about amateur astronomers, in today's hi-tech society?
  Duncan Jones, via email
  JF: Years ago, amateurs played a big part in the understanding of the cosmos, with observations and the recording of events. Unfortunately, with the advent of modern technology, the role of the amateur has been left far behind.
  BC: In things such as astronomy, there's always been a place for amateur observers because there's a lot of sky. Certainly in searching for things such as new comets, they do make a contribution.
  In particle physics, it's impossible for amateurs to be involved in the data because there's too much infrastructure required. In theoretical physics, Jeff might want to comment, and in theory the amateur could make a contribution because you don't have to be an academic to submit to a academic journal. If the paper makes sense then it can be published.
  JF: I get a lot of papers sent to me by amateur scientists. But they've usually not got the scientific background or the training to make a contribution in theoretical physics, so it's very hard unless you've got that training.
  Politics and economics
  How likely is it that we'll be able to harness fusion power before we run out of fossil fuels?
  @craighitchings via Twitter
  Advertisement

  BC: If we were to invest in it properly, then I'd say very likely, because the technology has been proved. In fact, the most effective fusion reactor at the moment is still in Oxford, which is where it's been for more than 30 years – and it works.
  The problem is that it's not a very good commercial option at the moment because no one's demonstrated that you can build a commercially viable reactor. That's why government money has always been needed – because it's a 20- to 30-year investment. That's not the way you do things in private companies but governments can certainly help; we're talking single-figure billions, not going to the moon. So in my view, the technology has been demonstrated and it's simply a question of working out how to build industrial-scale plants that can return profit.
  The real problem is that you have to contain plasma that's at a very high temperature – dismembered gas, basically. So it's very difficult to model and there are real engineering challenges. We need to understand what happens to this plasma.
  Is the €75bn spent on the Large Hadron Collider worth the investment?
  Oliver Gerrard via email
  BC: The UK spends about £70m a year on the LHC. We spend less in Britain each year on Cern than we do on peanuts, literally, so it's a very tiny amount of money. A lot of that money funds PhD students and a lot of it pays for academics in universities – the bulk of the money actually stays in Britain. So breaking it down, it costs very little.
  The other thing to understand is that the LHC is often portrayed as the search for another esoteric particle and that's nonsense. It's been built to solve a specific problem in our understanding of three of the four forces of nature. And there are all sorts of theories about how that might work, the Higgs being one of them. To portray it as some kind of esoteric hunt for an elusive particle is nonsense: it's the mainline of physics, which has arguably created wealth beyond anyone's wildest dreams and will continue to do so.
  Can science save the economy?
  Andrea via email
  Advertisement

  Both: Yes!
  BC: It's the foundation of the economy for a start, so it'll have to! Nothing else will save it. The modern world is based on science, so that's it – there is nothing else.
  JF: Yes, I'd be that definitive. For example, a significant fraction of the global economy relies upon the existence of a transistor – the world has been revolutionised by fundamental research into quantum physics done 60 years ago and now there are billions of transistors inside very home computer. They are a key ingredient of the microchip.
  BC: It's science and engineering, you've got to put them together. Science and engineering together are the economy. Earlier this month, George Osborne announced the funding for science projects, including £50m for research into graphene, a material that has the potential to revolutionise the 21st century. More powerful electronics, stronger aeroplanes… pretty much anything you can think of, graphene can improve.
  We are one of the world's leading scientific nations and it's my view that we should aspire to be the best.
  Actually, George Osborne and this government are beginning to show signs of believing that. I think a lot of credit goes to the science minister, David Willetts, for making his point over and over again. I think it's beginning to bear fruit and we're starting to invest even at this difficult time – in fact especially at this difficult time, as that's what you need to do.

• London Independent - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/how-we-met-professor-brian-cox-professor-jeff-forshaw-we-argue-all-the-time-9386798.html

  How We Met: Professor Brian Cox & Professor Jeff Forshaw - 'We argue all the time'
   
  Nick Duerden, Adam Jacques
  Saturday 17 May 2014 23:00 BST

  Click to follow
  The Independent Online

  Forshaw (left) says: 'I remember shouting at Brian about the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics and him shouting back, 'You're a bloody idiot'' Jean Goldsmith
  Professor Brian Cox OBE, 46
  A lecturer in quantum physics and relativity at the University of Manchester, Professor Cox (right in picture) presents science-based TV series including the BBC's 'Wonders of Life. He lives in London with his wife, the TV presenter Gia Milinovich, and their son
  I met Jeff at the University of Manchester – it must have been 1994 or 1995. He was my lecturer there, but we are actually the same age. I was getting to university late on account of taking five years out to become a musician. He was the youngest lecturer there. He took the Advanced Quantum Field Theory course, which was great, but it was at the summer school – which every PhD physics student has to attend – where we bonded. The fact we were the same age helped, but it turned out we also thought about physics in much the same way.

  Die schönsten Frauen in der Politik
  Agloogloo

  Kaufe die neue Kollektion der Rieker Anti-Stress …
  aboutyou.de

  EuroMillions: Superpot auf 190 Millionen Euro gek…
  The Lotter | EuroMillions
    
  by Taboola 
  Sponsored Links 
  We love to find things out, and discuss fundamental physics issues. I'll give you an example. If you got a stick, a big long one that could reach the Moon, and then give it a push… OK, the question is this: given Einstein's theory of special relativity, you can't really know it's connected for around three seconds, as that's how long it takes the light to travel up and back again. So what's the physics here? If it doesn't weigh anything – in physics, we call it a light inextensible rod – then why can't you tell if it's connected to the Moon? Turns out you're not allowed to have a light inextensible rod; special relativity prevents it. See?
  So, yes, we like talking about stupid things like that. Not stupid, actually: fun. And that's what bonded us: we both think that physics is tremendous fun. We've written three popular-science books together now – and many very complicated research papers – in which we set ourselves problems and try to work them out. There is so much to learn, and we argue all the time. Physicists do. There's no politeness in the understanding of how the universe works, because the universe doesn't give a shit, frankly. Nature is nature. There are no right answers, but there are plenty of wrong ones.
  As a result of my public profile, and my TV programmes, I don't get to do as much research as I otherwise would, and that's why Jeff wouldn't want to swap places with me. Fundamentally, he is a research physicist, and perfectly happy to sit in a room on his own for days on end doing just physics.
  We do socialise together, but we only ever really talk about one thing. All physicists are the same. I remember being at a conference a few years ago in Rio. I took my wife with me. We were on Copacabana Beach, and there I was, talking to another physicist, drawing with a stick in the sand, discussing physics. We couldn't help it.
  Everything we do – in our lectures, in our books – has the same aim in mind: to help explain science and get people interested. The more scientific our country is, the better.
  Professor Jeff Forshaw, 46
  A professor at Manchester's School of Physics and Astronomy, Forshaw has written more than 100 scientific papers, with much of his work now focused around the Large Hadron Collider. He is also the author of two popular science books with Professor Brian Cox: 'Why Does E=mc2?' and 'The Quantum Universe'. He lives with his wife and two daughters in Manchester
  When I met Brian, he'd just started his PhD and I was his teacher. We were the same age, but while he was an undergraduate he'd gone off to be a pop star for a few years [as the keyboard player in D:Ream]. I remember seeing him perform on Top of the Pops with really long hair, but when he returned to Manchester for his PhD [with short hair], I didn't recognise him at first, and he certainly didn't draw attention to what he'd done.
  But as he was older than the rest of the students, he stood apart, and he wasn't quiet: he was up for talking about particle physics. His thesis was on the stuff I was really interested in: what happens when you smash electrons into protons, and his PhD took him to Hamburg as there was a [particle] collider operating there, which I was working on, too. We got to know one another over a number of memorable all-night sessions out in Hamburg.
  When he got back to the UK after his PhD, Brian got a place to live in Saddleworth, up in the hills [in Greater Manchester], and that's when our collaborations really took off. We used to go on 10-mile runs in the hills and drink beer, eat Indian food and talk about physics until early in the morning.
  More than once, after both of us had had too much to drink, it got very raucous, descending into rude arguments at 3am. One occasion I remember shouting at Brian about the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics and him shouting back, "You are a bloody idiot, you don't understand."
  I think he's so engaging on TV because he genuinely loves physics and he's motivated to help people understand it in the same fashion he does his – though there's this constant battle [with the producers] to not dumb down.
  He's got a few rock'n'roll friends, and I've been out with them – I don't want to say who, but it's a lot of fun. He's still a brilliant keyboard player, of course, but he never shows off: I have to rope him into doing it. I was just round his place yesterday – he's now got an electric piano in his kitchen – and I got him to play some Elton John tracks for me.
  I have no desire to have the celebrity Brian has: I'm happy to hide and let him do it, as I can see how he's had to compromise on the research he is doing. But Brian loves doing the hairy things for his TV programmes [which Forshaw consults on], such as getting sent up in a rocket or descending into the Amazon, as he's much more adventurous than I am.
  The exhibition Collider: Step Inside the World's Greatest Experiment is at the Museum of Science and Industry, in Manchester, from Friday (mosi.org.uk/whats-on/collider)

• University of Manchester Website - http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/forshaw/

  Research Interests
  I work on the phenomenology of elementary particle physics. That means I spend much of my time trying to figure out what the data from the world's particle physics experiments are telling us about the fundamental constituents of matter and their interactions with each other. 
  The INSPIRE database can provide a list of my publications.
  Web course on  Quantum Field Theory in Particle Physics.
  I have co-authored a collection of "TEDStudies" support materials on particle physics called "Physics - The Edge of Knowledge". These might be of interest to anyone wanting to learn more about particle physics, including school teachers.
  Some graduate theses:  Norman Evanson; George Kerley; Agustin Sabio Vera; Theo Diakonides; Anahita New; Gavin Poludniowski; Chikara Kimura; Yu Wei; Ruben Sandapen; James Monk; Tim Coughlin; Martin Yates; Zhen Guo; Rosa Duran Delgado; Bob Dickinson; Edward Reeves; Rene Angeles Martinez

• School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester Website - http://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/people/staff-spotlights/jeff-forshaw/

  Professor of Particle Physics

  Jeff Forshaw
  We have some excellent researchers doing world-leading research across a wide range of subjects. That quality has a direct impact on our undergraduates, who get to hear about physics from excellent researchers.

  Physics at Manchester is in great shape. We have some excellent researchers doing world-leading research across a wide range of subjects. That quality has a direct impact on our undergraduates, who get to hear about physics from excellent researchers. I'm proud to be a member of such a strong department.
  I have been here since 1995, and think it is the very best place in the UK and one of the best in the world for my area of research. I have terrific colleagues and work is fun.
  My research
  I am interested in making sense of the data collected by the world's particle colliders, like CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
  I am particularly keen to understand how quarks and gluons (subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons) behave; the theory behind their interaction is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD). It is a quantum field theory of particles and it has been enormously successful over the years.
  However, there are some big holes in our understanding and the LHC is doing a good job of challenging the theorists to improve things. As a spin off, better understanding will also mean we can better utilise the data to explore any new physics that shows up; such as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson.
  I enjoy the challenge of understanding something new; it’s very hard to do and very rewarding to crack a problem. It’s an exciting time to be involved in particle physics at the moment – I have waited over 10 years to see the data from the LHC!
  My teaching
  I like to teach because it is rewarding to share my understanding of physics and I think it's very important to help people develop that. I also like to teach for purely selfish reasons; it can be fun to prepare a lecture course because it sharpens your own understanding to present material in a pedagogical and precise fashion.
  In addition to getting a good degree, I think the real measure of success for our graduates is how well they have learned to think independently and effectively about hard problems. The skill of 'thinking like a physicist' is much more than just tackling a few exam questions; it’s closer to a way of life.
  I hope students remember me as someone who gave interesting tutorials and lectures, and helped them develop into better scientists. On a personal level, I hope that my tutees think I have offered good advice and been supportive whenever they have problems.

  Jeff has co-authored two books with Brian Cox: The Quantum Universe and Why Does E=mc2? as well as two textbooks: Dynamics and Relativity with Gavin Smith, and Quantum Chromodynamics and the Pomeron with Douglas Ross.

• Financial Times - https://www.ft.com/content/a6a7c4d6-0024-11e1-8441-00144feabdc0

  Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
  https://www.ft.com/content/a6a7c4d6-0024-11e1-8441-00144feabdc0

  In pursuit of the universe: Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

  The physicists are on a mission to ‘sell’ science. They talk about quantum physics in schools and what a ball flying through the air tells us about the universe

  Read next

  Watch how to build the perfect cheeseboard

  Share on Twitter (opens new window)

  Share on Facebook (opens new window)

  Share on LinkedIn (opens new window)

  10

  Print this page

  Save to myFT

  October 28, 2011
  by Chris Cook

  Brian Cox has it made. The cheerful, good-looking physicist is the face of British science. After a brief career as a chart-topping pop musician in the early 1990s, he is now a university professor who fronts epic BBC television series on life, the universe and everything. Cox and I meet to discuss these matters over lunch in the Coal Hole on the Strand, along with Jeff Forshaw, a fellow professor of physics at the University of Manchester. The two men have written a new book, The Quantum Universe, about an area of science that is generally considered inaccessible to the public.Quantum physics is concerned with the constituent subatomic parts of the universe around us, whose behaviour – for a species more versed in dealing with much larger objects – can seem extremely perverse. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland, which sits in a massive underground laboratory, has been built precisely to explore this baffling world.Cox and Forshaw are a long-established writing and research double act in this area – not that they came to their stations by the same route. “We’re the same age,” says the 43-year-old Cox, “but because I’d had my little sojourn into pop music I started at university late. So I was actually a PhD student when Jeff was a very young lecturer.” The two professors now stand together on the cutting edge of their discipline: their most high-profile research paper outlined a method by which scientists might be able to detect the Higgs particle (an elusive subatomic particle believed to exist by most quantum physicists), using the Large Hadron Collider.Despite their elevated status, both men remain tiggerishly excitable about their subject. They cut in on one another as we work through our beer, pies and sausages, evangelising about why science needs to be better understood. “Obviously it’s an important part of culture,” Cox says, “and there are certain things you should know about in the same way you should know a little bit about Shakespeare.”Cox also wants the public to understand what scientists actually do, so that government policy is effective. He became more engaged in selling science in 2007 when the Labour government “messed up” physics funding, then “allowed it to continue to be a mess because they didn’t think it was really very important”. He wants to raise the political cost of making mistakes on science.But he and Forshaw do not just want the public to learn trivia; they want people to grasp the scientific method – how researchers test ideas against evidence. “Evidence-based thinking [has] been shown to be the most successful way of thinking that humans have yet developed,” Cox says. “One of the questions that always occurs to me is why on earth didn’t the Greeks do this, or the Romans, or the Egyptians. It would have been brilliant.” He jokes: “We would have been living on Mars now, if those idiots had just thought.”Brian Cox, left, with Jeff ForshawBoth men suggest that quantum physics should be taught in schools because it forces an understanding of scientific method: “It’s not technically difficult, but it’s intellectually challenging in the sense that the evidence tells you you have to think in a different way,” Cox says. Forshaw says quantum physics is so counter- intuitive that “nobody got it right first. Everybody had to have their intuition beaten out of them by the data.” He points out that, 20 years after the first great breakthroughs, senior physicists “were still being swayed by the idea that the world should be something like their everyday experiences of the way the world is.”He gives a classic example: “I can throw a ball through the air and we think the ball is kind of moving along some definite trajectory and that it’s always somewhere,” Forshaw says. “But that’s not what’s happening; every atom in that ball is in a real sense exploring the entirety of the universe at every instant.”Grasping how a ball can behave in a different way to its component parts requires both patience and suspension of disbelief. Cox and Forshaw’s book is a carefully guided tour through this quantum world – but an uncompromising one. It is an attempt to popularise without dumbing down. “We both have a view that physics is understandable to everybody,” Cox says, “if you just take your time and explain it. But it shouldn’t be simpler than that.” Despite their enthusiasm to sell science, both men are keen to distance themselves from the recent flurry of popularisation led by Richard Dawkins, the Oxford biologist, which links science to atheism. Cox says: “The atheism thing, to me, is unhelpful as a label for popularising science.” Forshaw agrees with him: “I think Dawkins polarises it too much… [The argument] turns people away from science a little.” Quantum physicists do not face the same kind of opposition from religion as evolutionary biologists, but Cox does not think that there is any necessary conflict between religious thought and “sensible” scientific thought. (“If you think the earth is 5,000 years old then you’re just not right. So we can’t do anything about that.”) Ultimately, Cox would rather be “some kind of unifying figure that celebrates the achievements of science than a divisive figure”. It seems not even the Almighty can distract Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw from their mission to sell science. Chris Cook is the FT’s education correspondent. ‘The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen’ by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw is published by Penguin (£20). To comment on this article, please email magazineletters@ft.com

Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos

264.4 (Jan. 23, 2017): p71.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
* Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Da Capo, $35 (320p) ISBN 978-0-306-82270-4
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Acclaimed British physicists Cox and Forshaw (The Quantum Universe) team up once again in this accessible, lucid, and entertaining introduction to cutting-edge astrophysics and cosmology. Revealing how scientists explore the universe, the authors celebrate the scientific method as much as the scientific discoveries they address. They begin close to home, asking "How old is the Earth?" That simple question leads naturally through discussions of plate tectonics, atomic structure, and radioisotope dating while demonstrating the roots of the scientific method: observing and collecting evidence, and applying logic to reach conclusions. From here, it's smooth sailing through increasingly complex topics. Determining astronomical distance introduces such concepts as Cepheid variable stars, supernovas, and redshift. Pondering the Earth's weight leads to measuring gravity with a watch, a ball, and a ruler. The authors also proffer an inventory of the universe and dig into the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. At the book's core are the Big Bang and considerations of relativity theory, gravity, and curved spacetime. The minimal-math approach progresses from simple to complex ideas, and detailed diagrams and colorful photographs help illuminate concepts. Curious readers will appreciate how Cox and Forshaw celebrate the scientific process as heartily as they embrace the wonder of the universe. Illus. (Apr.)
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
"Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos." Publishers Weekly, 23 Jan. 2017, p. 71. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA479714216&it=r&asid=e99320776e5a24fae6da78d774d4bccf. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A479714216

Cox, Brian. The quantum universe: (and why anything that can happen, does)

J.F. Burkhart
49.12 (Aug. 2012): p2323.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
49-6940
QC174
MARC
Cox, Brian. The quantum universe: (and why anything that can happen, does), by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. DaCapo Press, 2011. 255p bibl index ISBN 0306819643, $25.00; ISBN 9780306819643, $25.00
The Quantum Universe is replete with wonderful sound-bites, demonstrating Cox's dexterity with popular writing, probably fine-tuned as a science guru for the BBC. Here he continues a successful partnership with Forshaw, begun with Why Does E = [mc.sup.2] (CH, Jan'10, 47-2632). The University of Manchester (UK) professors write in a manner reminiscent of American physicist Richard Feynman (1918-88). Every aficionado of quantum physics recognizes the double-slit diffraction pattern. The Quantum Universe, like many other quantum books, opens with this pattern. It quickly differs, however, by taking Feynman's explanation seriously--that the pattern is explained by assuming that the electron takes all possible paths. And building on Feynman's clock faces to represent the wave function (see his QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, CH, May'86; expanded edition, 2006), Cox and Forshaw derive many of the perplexing fundamentals of quantum mechanics, including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the elusive Higgs particle, and the evolution of white dwarf stars. The book keeps the historical references to a minimum so that readers are not inundated with lists of and information on the lives of Nobel Prize winners. This and a folksy writing style make this work an entertaining, albeit challenging, quantum primer. Summing Up: Highly recommended. *** Students of all levels, general readers.--J. F. Burkhart, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Burkhart, J.F.
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Burkhart, J.F. "Cox, Brian. The quantum universe: (and why anything that can happen, does)." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Aug. 2012, p. 2323. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA299989861&it=r&asid=4c33c103e02d61ab189a58862b348ba5. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A299989861

The quantum universe (and why anything that can happen does)

27.2 (Apr. 2012):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Ringgold, Inc.
http://www.ringgold.com/
9780306819643
The quantum universe (and why anything that can happen does).
Cox, Brian and Jeff Forshaw.
Da Capo Press
2011
255 pages
$25.00
Hardcover
QB981
Written for general readers with an aptitude for science, this concise volume on quantum mechanics attempts to provide an accessible overview of the mysteries of the sub-atomic world. Beginning with a basic introduction to atoms and particles, the work discusses popular topics in quantum theory in a readable narrative style and provides diagrams and illustrations of key principles. Cox and Forshaw are professors of particle and theoretical physics at the University of Manchester and are the authors of a best-selling previous work, Why Does E=Mc2.
([c]2012 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
"The quantum universe (and why anything that can happen does)." Reference & Research Book News, Apr. 2012. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA284979793&it=r&asid=0259bfa8cf79e20e80fd60e632016ca5. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A284979793

The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen

479.7372 (Nov. 10, 2011): p175.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 Nature Publishing Group
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw ALLEN LANE 272 pp. 20[pounds sterling] (2011)
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

If quantum entanglement leaves you tongue-tied or you burn to know what fills 'empty' space, this offering from Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw is a solid introduction to the "inescapable strangeness" of the subatomic world. Particle physicist and presenter Cox and theoretical physicist Forshaw nip through the territory with brio, unveiling the quantum cornucopia with clarity and concision from the double-slit experiment, the wave-particle phenomenon and the key principles and constants, to the illusion of movement, the uneven spin of electrons and the death of stars.
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
"The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen." Nature, vol. 479, no. 7372, 2011, p. 175. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA273195039&it=r&asid=1ac1f5016f3227aee83e98881ad04f8e. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A273195039

Cox, Brian. Why does E=[mc.sup.2]?: (and why should we care?)

A. Spero
47.5 (Jan. 2010): p931.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2010 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
47-2632 QC173 2009-9291 CIP
Cox, Brian. Why does E=[mc.sup.2]?: (and why should we care?), by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Da Capo, 2009. 249p index afp ISBN 9780306817588, $24.00
Cox and Forshaw (both, Univ. of Manchester, UK) are specialists in elementary particle physics. Here, they provide a popular account of the intellectual interplay between elementary particle physics, relativity theory, and cosmology. The pretext for the work is the famous equation E = [mc.sup.2], but the book is really about the current thinking in elementary particle physics. It does a very nice job of explaining the counterintuitive aspects of spacetime and the relationships between time, space, energy, and mass. This reviewer found the chapter titled "The Origin of Mass" particularly well written. It discusses what is called the "standard model," which is the currently accepted theory of elementary particles. The standard model predicts the existence of the Higgs particle, needed to explain the masses of the fundamental particles. Recently CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) completed construction of the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator built essentially to find the Higgs particle. Once the LHC is available, the world can expect that the next few years will be revealing ones as the search for the Higgs particle commences. Readers of this book will be better prepared to understand the news coming out of CERN. Summing Up: Recommended. ** Lower-division undergraduates and general audiences.--A. Spero, formerly, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Spero, A. "Cox, Brian. Why does E=[mc.sup.2]?: (and why should we care?)." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Jan. 2010, p. 931+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA251859509&it=r&asid=d736bec6d2afb056db7da06c71ec55a7. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A251859509

Relativity and all that: Big Science bears down on Einstein's equation

Apurva Narechania
78.4 (Autumn 2009): p113.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Phi Beta Kappa Society
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/
WHY DOES E=MC2 ? (And Why Should We Care?)
By Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
Da Capo Press
262 pp. | $24
The speed of light is constant. It travels through the lenses of your eyes at a nice and even 299,792,458 meters per second. Albert Einstein has gained so much traction in the culture that many of us know this as a factoid from his theories of relativity, even though it has little relevance in our day-to-day lives. As far as we're concerned, light appears instantly and bathes everything, illuminating the way. But what does it mean exactly to say that the speed of light is constant?
In the everyday world, I might see the bus I need to catch just as it rounds the corner and disappears. I run after it while it accelerates to about 50 kilometers per hour; I frantically pick up my pace, peaking well short of the speed I need to catch up. I lose ground, lose hope, drop my bag, and trudge back to the stop. If I were a world-class runner, perhaps there would be a version of this story where I do catch up to the bus and maybe even overtake it. If I run parallel to the bus and match its speed, from my perspective the bus and I might as well be standing still.
Now, imagine a beam of tight red light emitted from a professor's laser pointer. I'd have to be much more than a sprinter (a miracle worker, actually), but endow me for the moment with the power to catch the tip of this beam of light. In principle, if I could accelerate to 299,792,458 meters per second, I should be able to pace the laser beam. It's just like the bus. If I have the legs, I can match the beam. Except this time, even if I somehow achieve the speed of light, the laser beam will always be traveling exactly 299,792,458 meters per second faster than I am. I can never hope to catch it. In this way, the speed of light is the same for me, speeding along, and for the professor pointing at some equation, standing still behind a podium.
Think about that for a moment. It is a bizarre assault on our common sense. Even more bewildering is that light's universal speed requires that time, our best and most constant friend, be as relative as space. But this result has been in the works for hundreds of years. Galileo's celestial observations seeded the notion of relativity: an object in motion only makes sense relative to some other object. Michael Faraday's experiments, showing that electrical current generates a magnetic field and that magnets in motion generate current, hinted at some deep connection between magnetism and electricity. James Clerk Maxwell formalized Faraday's ideas into a physical description of light: electrical and magnetic fields oscillating around one another at exact right angles, always at a fixed speed regardless of motion in the observer. And Einstein was smart enough to take them all seriously. Relativity was the next natural step in this scientific progression. Four physicists armed with simple instruments, pen and paper, imagination, and the courage to defy common sense, redefined Newtonian physics and relegated it to a mere approximation of reality.
We live in an era of Big Science. Galileo observed the skies using only a 20X telescope. Michael Faraday ushered in an understanding of electromagnetism from his lab bench with a few wires and some basic magnets. In contrast, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) is a 27-kilometer track through which subatomic particles accelerate almost to light speeds. Thousands of people engineered both the machines capable of the tremendous magnetic fields required and the high-resolution detectors necessary to detect the faintest subatomic particles. Today this is how bleeding-edge physics gets done. Large-scale projects in biology, including model organism genomics, require armies of technicians, engineers, scientists, and the computational horsepower to make sense of the data flood. Big Science broadens our view of nature, but it also deadens the romance of discovery.
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's Why Does E=mc2 ? (And Why Should We Care?) chronicles the unique but experimentally simple contributions of the physicists that inspired Einstein's crowning equation. But Cox and Forshaw also spend time dissecting the challenges involved in discovering the essential nature of matter, studies that require the Big Science embodied in the Large Hadron Collider. The more engaging portion of the book is historical. Cox and Forshaw skillfully combine biography with a narrative of discovery, employing some of Einstein's own thought experiments in conceptual derivations of his most famous results. They are careful to omit the math almost entirely, but consistently revisit something they call its "unreasonable effectiveness." Often mathematics alone leads us to "laws that describe physical reality ... and it is truly one of the wonderful mysteries of our universe that it should be so." Sparing us the math and then expounding on its prowess leaves the reader in a state of limbo. We're proud to have followed along but know that we've come up a bit short.
I expected Cox and Forshaw to lament the current gaps in physics: the fact that gravity (general relativity) does not jibe with quantum theory; that string theory is a mere figment until it is grounded in experiment; that we are probably more than a 27-kilometer loop away from a theory of everything. But they are optimist tempered by hard doses of reality. "Science is at its heart a modest pursuit, and this modesty is the key to its success." Rather than pining for something in an unknown future, they are preparing themselves for a break with the past. "Einstein's theories are respected because they are correct as far as we can tell, but they are no sacred tomes." Science stands until new science makes the old stuff fall, a self-correcting mechanism that leaves no room for ego.
Perhaps it is good then that we've entered a scientific era where accolades and failures are spread thin across all the minions manning Big Science projects. Once the Large Hadron Collider comes online, the energies of particle collisions will be such that the experiments will reveal something new. This kind of guaranteed result is unheard of. But it is unlikely that any result will ever bring an end to physical inquiry. Cox and Forshaw affirm this: "The perception that we somehow know enough, or even all there is to know, about the workings of nature has been and will probably always be damaging to the human spirit." Let's hope that the elusive theory of everything is like light: forever running away from you.
Apurva Narechania works at the Saekler Institute for Comparative Genomics at the American Museum of Natural History.
Narechania, Apurva
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Narechania, Apurva. "Relativity and all that: Big Science bears down on Einstein's equation." The American Scholar, vol. 78, no. 4, 2009, p. 113+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA212400390&it=r&asid=f37f76c82be06678bef5e251f24b3b9b. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A212400390

Why does e=mc2; (and why should we care?)

(Sept. 2009):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Ringgold, Inc.
http://www.ringgold.com/
9780306817588
Why does e=mc2; (and why should we care?).
Cox, Brian and Jeff Forshaw.
Da Capo Press
2009
249 pages
$24.00
Hardcover
QC173
In producing a text that would be accessible to general readers, Cox (particle physics, U. of Manchester, UK) and Forshaw's (theoretical physics, U. of Manchester, UK) major aim was "to describe Einstein's theory of space and time in the simplest way we can while at the same time revealing its profound beauty." They offer lay readers an explanation of Einstein's theory and how it underpins our understanding of the workings of the universe--answering questions such as what energy and mass are, what light is and why stars shine, why nuclear power is more efficient than coal or oil--providing readers with an opportunity to explore their own notions of space and time.
([c]2009 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
"Why does e=mc2; (and why should we care?)." SciTech Book News, Sept. 2009. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA207122271&it=r&asid=bdc0ed4e9337ed5b0ef44a6c809ab1a2. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A207122271

"Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos." Publishers Weekly, 23 Jan. 2017, p. 71. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA479714216&asid=e99320776e5a24fae6da78d774d4bccf. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. Burkhart, J.F. "Cox, Brian. The quantum universe: (and why anything that can happen, does)." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Aug. 2012, p. 2323. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA299989861&asid=4c33c103e02d61ab189a58862b348ba5. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. "The quantum universe (and why anything that can happen does)." Reference & Research Book News, Apr. 2012. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA284979793&asid=0259bfa8cf79e20e80fd60e632016ca5. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. "The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen." Nature, vol. 479, no. 7372, 2011, p. 175. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA273195039&asid=1ac1f5016f3227aee83e98881ad04f8e. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. Spero, A. "Cox, Brian. Why does E=[mc.sup.2]?: (and why should we care?)." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Jan. 2010, p. 931+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA251859509&asid=d736bec6d2afb056db7da06c71ec55a7. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. Narechania, Apurva. "Relativity and all that: Big Science bears down on Einstein's equation." The American Scholar, vol. 78, no. 4, 2009, p. 113+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA212400390&asid=f37f76c82be06678bef5e251f24b3b9b. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017. "Why does e=mc2; (and why should we care?)." SciTech Book News, Sept. 2009. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA207122271&asid=bdc0ed4e9337ed5b0ef44a6c809ab1a2. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.

• Kirkus Reviews
  https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/brian-cox/universal/
  Word count: 390

  UNIVERSAL
  A Guide to the Cosmos
  by Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw
  BUY NOW FROM
  AMAZON
  BARNES & NOBLE
  LOCAL BOOKSELLER
  GET WEEKLY BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS:
  Email Address
   Subscribe

  KIRKUS REVIEW
  Two physicists lead a tour of our universe and explain how we can better understand it by “doing science.”
  Authors who take on cosmology have a difficult job. Many concepts (relativity, quantum phenomena) are complex, and even familiar ones, like gravity and light, need at least a little mathematics to make sense. Since equations are often considered the kiss of death regarding sales to general readership, popular science writers traditionally assure readers that none will sully their texts. Even in skilled hands, the simplification and/or absence of math converts much of cosmology into a magic show. Although they’re entertained, readers must accept many phenomena on faith. This is not a problem since few creationists read these books, but TV commentator Cox (Particle Physics/Univ. of Manchester) and Forshaw (Theoretical Physics/Univ. of Manchester), who have co-authored multiple books, including The Quantum Universe (2012), refuse to take that approach. The authors not only describe what cosmologists have learned over the centuries, but how they proved it, and there is no shortage of math. As they note, “anybody, standing in their back garden with a reasonably sized amateur telescope…can prove that we live in an expanding Universe and measure the rate of the Universe’s expansion.” Readers willing to make a modest effort and use their high school algebra can confirm that examining the present universe makes it clear that it began with the Big Bang. Calculating when this happened is not difficult, but determining how everything—i.e. space, time, matter, and energy—evolved takes some thought. Fortunately, plenty of brilliant scientists, led by Einstein (a big favorite of the authors), gave it close attention.
  Many readers will settle for the magic show, but those who choose to pore over the authors’ explanations and perhaps take a pencil and paper to follow along will gain a more significant understanding of some profound cosmological phenomena.
  Pub Date: April 1st, 2017
  ISBN: 978-0-306-82270-4
  Page count: 320pp
  Publisher: Da Capo
  Review Posted Online: Jan. 16th, 2017
  Kirkus Reviews Issue: Feb. 1st, 2017

• Spectrum Culture
  http://spectrumculture.com/2017/03/21/universal-brian-cox-jeff-forshaw/
  Word count: 706

  Universal: by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
  Don Kelly
  March 21, 2017
  You will be rewarded with a little understanding and some hope for the future.
  3.5 / 5

  Like the Bible Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw begins in the time before the formation of the universe. The former describes an absolute beginning; God created the heavens and the earth. The latter tells the story of a speck of space no larger than a proton that evolved over 13.8 billion years and expanded into the Observable Universe. They are origin stories as disparate as faith and fact and Cox and Forshaw do not shy away from addressing the current cultural moment of politicized controversy surrounding what was once considered settled science. Life evolved. The earth, galaxy and universe are billions of years old. These are not secular musings but facts proven to the point of scientific consensus.
  This is a book about means and processes but also about wonder. Its audience includes those of us who watched Cosmos (both versions), read A Brief History of Time and are trying to achieve a greater understanding about how our universe works. Cox and fellow celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson have taken the mantel of generational science communicators once carried by Carl Sagan and Bill Nye, attempting to excite the general public about the wonders of science. Each chapter of Universal draws you in by beginning in layman’s terms before complicating matters because complicate matters it must. This structure is meant to optimize clarity for those of us who will always be daunted by mathematics.
  The subject of the book is cosmology, the science of the origin and development of the universe, which the authors call “the most audacious branch of science.” Topics include how the age of the earth and universe have been established, the weight of each, the time before the Big Bang and the distance between stars. Cosmology blends observable astronomy and physics and with it comes a new array of concepts. The Theory of Inflation, the Cosmic Microwave Background, dimensional spacetime and String Landscape which posits that the multiverse is made up of bubble universes that are governed by their own laws of physics. It seems unimaginable that theories such as these could be proven but as Einstein said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Computer modeling shows that the math continually checks out. The only limit on cosmologists is the processing power of their computers.
  Part of what Cox, a particle physicist, and Forshaw, a theoretical physicist, have set out to remind us is how consensus is created. It can take a handful of years or the length of centuries between Newton and Einstein. Scientists rigorously work to prove and disprove new and established theories until accruing enough evidence to consider something a settled fact. All sciences are a series of ongoing processes, driven by estimating the uncertainty of a given result. Uncertainty doesn’t play well in the political arena and can be manipulated. Settled science like manmade climate change and the Theory of Evolution are made controversial by those forces who would profit from doubt. Consensus should more than suffice, but ignorance is easily manipulated.
  These are precarious times for scientists. We keep hearing that we’ve entered the “post-truth” “post-fact” age. With the inauguration of the new administration, climate scientists rushed to copy their data and NASA worries about privatization and intrusive oversight. The scientific community is so concerned that a protest march for science has been scheduled for Earth Day this April 22. They will be marching for the right to imagine our beginning and our future. Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos is a bulwark providing an overview of how far we’ve come in understanding our universe and a taste of where we will go. As our professors and guides, Cox and Forshaw require our curiosity and patience. Passages will be reread. Graphs will be stared at indefinitely without guarantee of comprehension. By the end you will be rewarded with a little understanding and some hope for the future (which is also in great demand in these precarious times).

• Nottingham Science Blog
  http://nottinghamscience.blogspot.com/2016/12/review-of-universal-guide-to-cosmos-by.html
  Word count: 677

  Friday, 30 December 2016
  Review of "Universal : A guide to the Cosmos" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

  Just finished reading Universal : A guide to the Cosmos by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw and thought it might be worth sharing a few thoughts about this very interesting book.

  Universal aims to take the reader on a journey that shows how, from very simple beginnings, we can use observations of the world around us to answer surprisingly big questions such as "How much does the earth weigh?" and "How far away are stars?

  To take one example, Universal mentions the experiment performed by Lord Rayleigh to give an upper limit to the size of an atom. NSB had a try at it and you can too - all you need is some cooking oil, a paperclip, a ruler and a bowl of water.

  The oil drop NSB used to estimate the maximum size of an atom

  Equally simply, if given a suitable landmark off the coast and using a little geometry [developed by Al-Biruni], one can hazard a guess as to the size of the earth - something that the book describes using the geography of from Ogmore-on-Sea.

  NSB, living far from the coast, had a bash at replicating the experiment using suitable seaside photographs on the Internet, specifically this image of Keros taken from Koufonissia.

  Universal goes on to look at the distance to the stars and the size of the universe, taking time to gently explain to the reader how data was corroborated at each step

  Indeed, if you are an amateur astronomer with a small telescope in your garden and some photographic equipment; and make an assumption or two; you can show that the universe is expanding, and at what approximate rate!

  NGC 4414, about 60million light years away
  (The Hubble Heritage Team)

  An important point that Universal makes is explaining how science works and how our confidence in measurements is strengthened when they can be determined via different techniques - for example, there is confidence in the age of the solar system being ~4.6billion years because estimates of the age of the sun (using knowledge about nuclear fusion and the heat received by the earth) and estimates of the age of the earth (using knowledge about radioactive decay in rocks) both give values around this figure. As the book comments:
  "It is easy to cook up a scenario, however fanciful, that casts doubt on some measurement or other. But it is usually extremely difficult to argue for a radical change in one area without making large parts of the whole interlinked [scientific] edifice inconsistent"

  The book also mentions the words of Richard Feynman:
  "In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

  Another point that is made is how hard, and for how long, people have worked to obtain key pieces of information, such as the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

  Towards the end of the book, having taken the reader on an incredible journey through space, time (and space-time), Cosmos ponders why the universe is the way it is, so finely tuned to allow the formation of suns, planets, water and us. The book also explores theoretical possibilities such as that of the "multiverse"

• San Francisco Book Review
  https://sanfranciscobookreview.com/product/universal-a-guide-to-the-cosmos/
  Word count: 533

  Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos
  We rated this book:

  $35.00
  Panning half a century, our quest to understand how the universe works has remained at the forefront of our most engaging inquiries. It’s only been in recent times that the tools to study the marvels of nature have come into existence. Scientists, too, have evolved to partake in this amazing journey to understand our place in the cosmos.
  With great enthusiasm, Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw have compiled an incredible volume, Universal, that helps explain it all. Brian Cox is well known for his dynamic narratives in hosting science documentaries on television. The two authors are colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, where they are professors in particle physics and theoretical physics, respectively.
  One of the more intriguing discoveries of the authors’ work is Brian Cox’s discussion of how vast distances such as the distance between stars are calculated using the concept of parallax. He managed to describe the distance of stars with easy-to-understand concepts without distorting scientific theory. Similarly, the chapter on weighing the universe tells us what’s in it. Such concerns as What Happened Before the Big Bang raise further questions that drive scientific inquiry. The book holds a strategic place in the scientific repertoire.
  Reviewed By: D. Wayne Dworsky
  Author:
  Brian Cox • Jeff Forshaw
  Star Count:
  5/5
  Format:
  Hard
  Page Count:
  320 pages
  Publisher:
  Da Capo Press
  Publish Date:
  2017-Mar-28
  ISBN:
  9780306822704
  Amazon:
  Buy this Book
  Issue:
  April 2017
  Category:
  Science & Nature
  Share:

  Customer Reviews (0)
  Your Rating
  12345

  CAPTCHA Code *

  Notify me of new posts by email.
  There are no reviews yet.

  Featured Books

  Black Hole Blues and Other Songs from Outer Space

  Bigfoot in Evolutionary Perspective: The Hidden Life of a North American Hominin

  Unified Field Theory

  My Butterfly Collection / On The Wings of the Butterfly

  Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions

  Most Viewed Posts
  Authors: How to Land an Agent (13,623)
  Are you missing out on a crucial component of book marketing? Why Awards Matter. (8,392)
  Writers’ Conferences Put Authors on the Road to Success (7,844)
  Four Ways to Connect with Your Tribe as an Author (5,768)
  The Good Thing About Bad Reviews (3,902)
  Book Categories

  Recent Articles
  What Do You Know? September 27, 2017
  Authors: Want to Open the Non-Bookstore Non-Retail Channel? Forget About Consignments… These Books Stay Sold September 21, 2017
  To Sequel or Not to Sequel September 21, 2017

  Our Brands
  Manhattan Book Review
  San Francisco Book Review
  Seattle Book Review
  Tulsa Book Review
  Kids’ BookBuzz
  Licensees:
  Portland Book Review
  San Diego Book Review
  Partners:
  Local App Development:GoLocalApps
  Websites: Sacramento Website Designer
  Follow Us:
     
  Copyright 2008-2017 City Book Review

  Author? Subscribe to our Monthly Marketing Newsletter
  Join our mailing list to receive articles and news about marketing your book.

Word Count