Television Programs Thread

[Beny]

Is'nt basicly all physics theoretical? Well having read the last few posts I imagine so...

Science is great. I personaly love reading and watching programs about it. BTW, what do you know about string theory? Crap or not?

I guess at the end of the day its what you conseider important. I consider the study of humanity to be most important. Not everybody seems to agree with me but I can live with that.

BTW2, were you having a go at my spelling of Nepoleon or do you seriously not know who he is?
BTW3, Thanks for the tip Andy. I'm starting the Russian revolution this semester so I'll keep an eye out for that book. The Russki revolution is a bit annoying because, as you say, most of the different 'theories' about it are fairly poor, especialy since most of the writters have been either Soviet sympathisers, Troskyiests or psycho Americans who have lowerd my oppinion of Harvard University by miles.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Beny

Isn't basicly all physics theoretical?

All areas of physics are both experimental and theoretical, there are more experimentalists, maybe 90% and then the rest (10%) theoretical. A theorist might take an existing theory or develop a completely new one (based on maybe existing experimental evidence or even a yet-to-be-proved assumption) and develop them, with the tool of maths to predict physical phenomena. It is then the job of the experimentalist to test the theorist's theories as much as possible in order to verify the predictions. It is only after loads and loads of testing can we say that the theorist's initial assumptions are correct or not.

I should probably add that physical laws are never going to be 100% foolproof unlike mathematical laws (which once proved, are simply 100% true). Even if we are happy to have a law that is quite correct, there are still an infinite number of ways to test the theory further. e.g. Newton's laws lasted 300ish years or so until experiments got involved enough to find a problem.

A really good example of theorists' work is Black Holes, these were predicted decades before being observed by the experimentalists. You may also have heard of the Higgs Boson, some exotic particle theoretically predicted by a guy named Higgs. It is currently odds on that it will be found and should surely get the Physic's Nobel Prize.

Originally Posted by Beny

Science is great. I personaly love reading and watching programs about it.

There is loads of really good popular science out there. I would always advise people to read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", it is really good and at a good level for the layman (I don't know how advanced you are Beny, you may want to try deeper texts). Hawking manages to describe wierd and wonderful physics in simple terms, so long as you trust him to know what he's going on about (it really is popular) you will learn a lot from his book.

Originally Posted by Beny

what do you know about string theory? Crap or not?

I don't know that much about it to be honest, i've done no formal work or courses on it. The common knowledge that the theory is in 11-or-so dimensions and made up of little strings that are of length approximately one-billion-billion-billionths of a metre long (where 1 billion=1,000,000,000). Under those little strings is hiding extremely detailed and complex mathematics and physics, it would probably take me 10-15 years to get to grips with the whole theory. String theory is an example of the unified theory that theorist's are currently searching for, the aim is to describe the physics of the whole universe in one single equation. I've heard mixed reports about whether it will be successful, it is currently maybe the best chance we have of a unification theory. Obviously at this time, both theorists and experimentalists are searching for weaknesses in the theory as well as others trying to improve it.

Originally Posted by Beny

I guess at the end of the day its what you consider important. I consider the study of humanity to be most important. Not everybody seems to agree with me but I can live with that.

Not everybody seems to agree with me, but I can live with that too. We need a bit of everything from a range of different people. Without scientist, we'd be in deep trouble, without historians and philosophers we'd be in deep trouble too. Science and in particular physics and maths is what I (personally, this is only opinion) consider important. But more importantly to me and my life is that it is what I like doing (we should always try to do something we enjoy as a career if we can), if someone likes history or philosophy, then good for them.

Originally Posted by Beny

...were you having a go at my spelling of Nepoleon or do you seriously not know who he is?

I wasn't having a go. I've heard of him but am a little ignorant of some areas of history, I blame my history education! I'll make it my duty for the day to have a little look at what he did.

[Beny]

Ohh he didd'nt do much... Just became the Imperial ruler of France, Is considered by many to be the greatest millitary leader of his age if not history (I dont subscribe to that theory) and ruled over most of Europe and North Africa in the early to middle 1800's. Fairly boaring character if you ask me .

one-billion-billion-billionths of a metre long

Small huh?

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Lemming

I would always advise people to read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", it is really good and at a good level for the layman.

I bought this book when it was first published. Although I sloped off into the social sciences when I went to university, I had A and S level Pure Mathematics behind me, top grade passes in Physics and Chemistry at what was then O level, a real interest in those subjects and, I thought, a reasonably well developed brain assisted by a broad and generally successful (if I say so myself) general secondary and tertiary education. And I have never managed to get past chapter three of Professor Hawking's "layman's guide to everything" in several attempts over the years! I'm sure he tried hard, but somehow he didn't seem to be able to think down to my level.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Beny

considered by many to be the greatest millitary leader of his [Napolean Bonaparte's] age if not history!

Well there you go! Now I know!

But didn't us British defeat him a few times with that one-handed guy Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar (I saw that on the news this morning) and also in that song by Abba about the battle of Waterloo? Maybe he was just the greatest ever French leader!

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Lemming

Battle of Trafalgar (I saw that on the news this morning)

Crikey! And at £125 a year for the licence fee as well. It was in the papers in 1805!

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

...in several attempts over the years! I'm sure he [Professor Stephen Hawking] tried hard, but somehow he didn't seem to be able to think down to my level.

Maybe your level is just too low. Just kidding!

I read the book after A-levels, before going to university and learned a lot. I suppose these sorts of books maybe need a few "skims" to really sink in, you will find yourself skipping back a few pages to remind yourself. I remember trying to read it during my A-levels and getting nowhere, but afterwards I read it all. Maybe a few more attempts would do the trick OF.

I'm dead against popular science being written by non-scientists, I sort of feel the person writing should have a deep understanding when writing factual, non-opinion stuff, but I'm probably wrong! But, nonetheless - I haven't read it - Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is meant to be good and at the popular level. That could be a nice start for someone interested. (Bryson's a very good, top-class writer but I find it inconcievable he understands quantum theory, the big-bang and seismology (among other things) fully enough to write about the stuff. But it sounds as though he spent a long time researching, with the correct people helping him and the reviews he gets are really good, so who am I to argue with his book?)

[Occasional Fan]

Heh, heh! I'll keep trying to find the time, but I'm already 43, so I may not have much of it left!

Bryson's book is quite entertaining, but I'm not sure it would make it onto many university reading lists. At some point I seem to remember that he mentions the Avagadro constant and, instead of simply presenting it as scientists would, he writes it out with all twenty zeros after the 6023 just to make the point that it is quite a big number. And then he bangs on for a paragraph or so with examples of just how big (how many years that number of seconds would take to elapse, how long it would take to get through that many biscuits, and whether Glenn McGrath would still be able to bowl after eating them, etc.: well, OK, not the last one, but have a look at the sledging thread to see what the heck I am on about here). Nice style for a travelogue - and I hugely enjoy Bryson's travel books - but I'm not convinced that his Short History really works for me.

[Lemming]

Beny, one-billion-billion-billionth of a metre long is pretty small. Approximately this length is known as the "Planck length", it is seen to be the length scale where the ever-looked-for unification theory (such as string theory for example) would need come into play to describe what's going on. If we could find a solid theory to describe these "small" circumstances then it's major application would be to consider what happened at the Big Bang. In some respects (now I may be wrong here, this is only what I understand) the universe was at it's very smallest at the Planck length before "big-banging" into action. Hence the theory (whether it be string theory etc.) would describe the Big-Bang.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Richard whiteley the presenter of Channel 4's Countdown had died aged 61.

Yeah, that was sad news. I used to watch Countdown when I stayed with my Grandparents when I was a kid. I could never get good words, but was pretty good on the number game.

I remember the terrible tie's he used to wear! It's a real shame.