Book review: Why does E=mc^2 (and why should we care) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

[malclocke (Malc)]

Just finished this, and thought I would just capture my impressions here.
Not strictly an astronomy book, but hopefully relevant enough to be of
interest.

First off, I think the authors are probably listed in the incorrect order on
this book. My gut feeling is that the main author is probably the relatively
unknown Forshaw, with the dishy poster boy of particle physics Cox taking his
cut in return for increased sales. But maybe I'm too cynical.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It hit the sweet spot for me in terms of my
existing understanding of the subject matter. The approach of this book is to
keep the mathematics to a bare minimum, but it does not shy away from it
completely. However, the authors mostly live up to their promise of not doing
any more complicated mathematics than Pythagoras' theorem. The price the
authors pay for this is an occasional admission that you'll 'just have to take
their word for it' on the more complicated mathematical issues.

The book is split into 8 chapters. The first, 'Space and Time', deals with how
we have historically come to the realisation that we do not occupy the central
position in the universe, and that in fact it is impossible to define a
universal set of coordinates for charting space. We can only measure the
relative positions of objects, there is no absolute frame of reference.

The second chapter, 'The Speed of Light', deals with the 19th and early 20th
century work of Faraday and Maxwell on the unification of the electricity and
magnetism, and the eventual experimental discovery by Mickelson and Morley,
while attempting to measure tiny changes in the speed of the light as the Earth
orbits the sun, that the speed of light is constant in all directions.

The third chapter, 'Special Relativity', shows that armed with the experimental
evidence of a constant value for the speed of light, that we must except that
time must pass differently for two observers moving at different relative
speeds. This was one of my favourite chapters, and explained this concept
brilliantly.

Chapter four, 'Spacetime', deals with the problem posed to science by having
absolute space or time that all observers can agree on. The authors then go on
to explain how combining space and time into a single entity can solve this
problem. This is one of the more challenging chapters, and deals with what I
find some fairly difficult topics. I'm ashamed to say I had to read this
chapter twice, but did 'get it' on the second read, and it was well worth
persisting with.

Chapter five, 'Why does E=mc^2', is unsurprisingly another difficult chapter,
as it brings together the prior chapters to unveil the meaning of Einstein's
famous equation. Once again, I had to read this chapter twice. I would not
say I felt as enlightened by this chapter as some of the others, but did
definitely gain an understanding of the meaning of the equation in the context
of the topics covered prior.

Chapter six, 'And why should we care?', deals with some of the interesting
consequences of the knowledge gained so far. For example, a bucket of primed
mousetraps weighs more than a bucket of unloaded ones. This chapter also
covers the impact of relativity on the atomic and stellar level.

Chapter seven, 'The Origin of Mass', covers some basics of quantum theory and
the standard model of particle physics. This felt like the sloppiest chapter
of the book, trying to shoehorn too much into too short a space and a little
disconnected from the rest of the book.

The final chapter, 'Warping Spacetime', gives an overview of how gravity fits
into the picture, and the dilemma presented by our inability to align the
force of gravity with the standard model.

Overall, the book has provided me with a deeper insight into what is a fairly
difficult topic than any other work I have read. I'd recommend it to any
layperson reader looking to gain a slightly deeper understanding of relativity.
I would say the book does take a few shortcuts on the mathematics, but it is
refreshing that it does not shy away completely from presenting some equations.
Steven Hawking apparently once said that every equation in a popular science
book will half it sales. It's good that the authors didn't shy away from
including some maths, the book is a lot better for it.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Hi,

Second this, I found it quite readable, and a great insight into the path of reasoning behind all this stuff. Recommended.

Cheers

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Thanks for the recommendation and review. I'll definately put this one on my list to read.

Originally Posted by malclocke

.... My gut feeling is that the main author is probably the relatively
unknown Forshaw, with the dishy poster boy of particle physics Cox taking his
cut in return for increased sales....

You're a brave man

[LAW (Murphy)]

I did enjoy it too, but I found their aversion to maths frustrating. They tried to 'dumb it down' too much by not showing 'scary' formulae, but they proceeded to verbally (textually?) explain the steps of the maths. I found it really hard to keep track of where we were up to and what was going on within the equations because it was too verbose and disjointed. As Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". I think this book tries to go one step to far, and makes it complicated again.

Having said that, it's still very informative and witty, there's traces of Cox's sarcasm and Forshaw's ironic humour to break up the mindbending concepts of Lorentz Contraction and the Twin's Paradox.

[sjastro]

Slightly off topic, but anyone who has command of basic mathematics should be able to understand SR.

It's a rare example of where a knowledge of high school maths allows an insight into a theory that is otherwise counter intuitive.

Don't be frightened off by SR, its quite easy to understand through the mathematics.

Regards

Steven

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Goodie, I have this sitting in the "books to be read shortly" overburden that covers the coffee table in the lounge room. (From there it should eventually get promoted to the burgeoning "about to be read" pile next to the bed, and one day in the distant future it might find itself in the "finally read" box at the local school fair.)

I think I need a Kindle.

Thanks for the review.

[kustard (Simon)]

Wow, talk about coincidence. I grabbed this book on iBooks at about 8pm last night and was fully prepared to do a review hehe

I'll be getting into it after I finish reading some Peter Hamilton Sci-Fi

[CarlJoseph (Carl)]

Thanks for the reviews folks. Shame that they shy away from the maths though. Sometimes, it's just the simplest way to describe things.

Have purchased a copy online. Hopefully it's not too frustrating a read!

[malclocke (Malc)]

I think it's probably very hard when writing a book like this to strike a balance with the right amount of mathematics. If you understand it, it's very easy to underestimate how much of a turn off it can be to anyone who doesn't.

I think the authors should be commended for including any mathematics at all, I would expect there would be a great deal of pressure from the publisher to leave it out entirely.

One thing I did find a little annoying was their failing to name the gamma factor in relativity equations as the 'Lorentz factor'. After explaining it really well, the book subsequently refers to it as 'the amount time slows down relative to a moving observer'. It would have been a lot simpler to just name it, and I doubt it would have confused anyone.

[LAW (Murphy)]

For everyone who's read (or intends to read, or has no intention but is intrigued anyway) the conspirators of "Why does E=mc^2" have another book, called "The Quantum Universe".

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Quan.../9780306819643

In "The Quantum Universe," Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw approach the world of quantum mechanics in the same way they did in "Why Does E=mc2?" and make fundamental scientific principles accessible--and fascinating--to everyone.The subatomic realm has a reputation for weirdness, spawning any number of profound misunderstandings, journeys into Eastern mysticism, and woolly pronouncements on the interconnectedness of all things. Cox and Forshaw's contention? There is no need for quantum mechanics to be viewed this way. There is a lot of mileage in the "weirdness" of the quantum world, and it often leads to confusion and, frankly, bad science. "The Quantum Universe" cuts through the Wu Li and asks what observations of the natural world made it necessary, how it was constructed, and why we are confident that, for all its apparent strangeness, it is a good theory.The quantum mechanics of "The Quantum Universe" provide a concrete model of nature that is comparable in its essence to Newton's laws of motion, Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism, and Einstein's theory of relativity.

[CarlJoseph (Carl)]

So, I finally read the book and quite enjoyed it overall.

The relativity discussion is very easy to understand. I did find some parts a little too wordy, and sloppily written - but that's what you get when you are trying to avoid math.

The part which dealt with the Standard Model was quite good I thought. Although they don't go into much detail on it, they cover all the basics you need to understand what it's all about and how important/impressive that single formula is.

You can almost hear Brian Cox's voice in parts of the book!

Well worth the read me thinks.

Cheers,
Af