Not to mention all the work he does for CERN on the LHC.
And writing books, presenting TV shows, doing talks at conferences. He did an excellent and interesting talk for the BBC last year about science and how it is portrayed in the media Brian Cox - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy
Brian Cox is a very good communicator. Yes "Wonders of the Universe" was dumbed down but not everything he does is - it depends on his particular target audience. I would refer you to his excellent book "Why does e=mc2" (co-written by Jeff Forshaw) as an example of his work that is not dumbed down.
He bores me rigid. I turn over after about five mins. His programs ascribe to the fact the public does not have an attention span of more than five minutes without having to see pretty pictures. However his programs ARE aimed at people with little science background and that is a good thing. I thought 'Beyond The Speed of Light' was great, because they assumed some pre understanding there of the Special Theory of Relativity.
I know why E=mc(squared). I had to derive it from first principles in my exam.
I think BC is starting to believe his own publicity too much.
He has the strange ability to be extremely intelligent but sound extremely thick. When he's on something for the weekend with Dim Lovejoy I feel like I'm watching Beavis and Butthead.
He has the strange ability to be extremely intelligent but sound extremely thick. When he's on something for the weekend with Dim Lovejoy I feel like I'm watching Beavis and Butthead.
its part of his "ill pretend to be thick so the sheeple will like this" act all the while thinkinghe is intelligant because he can count how many rocks are floating past us
What was the misunderstanding? Did the neutrino move faster than the speed of light or not??
Tombstone was questioning E=mc2 and saying the modern way of thinking was that it didn't. This is not the case and I was wondering why he said this, my guess (and I made it clear I was asking the question) was that he misunderstood the consequences of the neutrino experiment.
We don't know whether the neutrino time measurement was correct but even if it was that does not in itself invalidate e=mc2 which so far has stood up to everything thrown at it.
his stupid haircut
his god awful grin
his self righteous left wing agenda against religion
his skinny frame
his rubbish taste in fassion
his holier than thou attitude
Tombstone was questioning E=mc2 and saying the modern way of thinking was that it didn't. This is not the case and I was wondering why he said this, my guess (and I made it clear I was asking the question) was that he misunderstood the consequences of the neutrino experiment.
We don't know whether the neutrino time measurement was correct but even if it was that does not in itself invalidate e=mc2 which so far has stood up to everything thrown at it.
Thanks for that reply.. My grasp of physics is basic but there was a programme the other day saying there is proof that scientists at the CERN accelerated neutrino's to faster than the zpeed of light.. But there is dispute that it had been correctly measured or an abnormality had occured.. I thought you may shed some Light on that...
Personally me I think the speed of light is instant it's just the time it takes to be measured is the speed we 'think we are measuring' I know that makes no sense but I can't explain myself without confusing my mind...
Haven't read the whole thread but I wonder if this has been posted already - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhn8j7S4uKU If you've got that view of Brian Cox you'll love watching this video which is perfectly done!
I quite like his style but if you're being particularly ungenerous you could say it was oversimplifying things and even being condescending to the audience, Cox sort of explains the fascinating subject of the physics of our Earth, Solar System, Galaxy & Universe as if it were in a pop up book for Primary School and yet when I watch even though it doesn't take the hardline science approach that makes other programmes about space such as The History Channel Universe series and Horizon programmes, it does make it quite endearing to watch, which is why I can't dislike the programme.
The whole thing could be summed up as, Isn't this amazing guys?
I quite like Brian. Those of a scientific mind should be glad that he's bringing it to the masses in a style that's easier to understand. That can only be good in the long run. A similar thing happened with Historians putting down Lucy Worsley's style of programme making, but I think her shows are just as interesting to watch. J K Rowling gets a drumming too, yet, she introduced a lot of kids to reading who might otherwise have not done so, particularly boys, so you would think people would be grateful instead of finding ways to continually put them down.
I like Brian too. It struck me that he isn't as "cool" as the other guests on QI and I occasionally felt embarrassed on his behalf by his sheer enthusiasm.
Having said that I'd have absolutely loved to have him as a physics lecturer at Uni.
Thanks for that reply.. My grasp of physics is basic but there was a programme the other day saying there is proof that scientists at the CERN accelerated neutrino's to faster than the zpeed of light.. But there is dispute that it had been correctly measured or an abnormality had occured.. I thought you may shed some Light on that...
Personally me I think the speed of light is instant it's just the time it takes to be measured is the speed we 'think we are measuring' I know that makes no sense but I can't explain myself without confusing my mind...
Ever watched a TV interview via satellite where the signal delays due to the distances involved result in embarrassing gaps between a question being asked and the reply ?
I loved the explanation at the end of string theory. The suggestion was that the neutrino left our dimension, flipped into the bulk and then flipped back into our dimensions making it APPEAR that the neutrino had travelled faster than the speed of light. The neutrino, does in fact have a small mass so would still need infinite energy to reach the speed of light. So in our three dimensions (fourth counting time also) the neutrino cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but needs string theory and another dimension.
Thanks for that reply.. My grasp of physics is basic but there was a programme the other day saying there is proof that scientists at the CERN accelerated neutrino's to faster than the zpeed of light.. But there is dispute that it had been correctly measured or an abnormality had occured.. I thought you may shed some Light on that...
As you said even the scientists don't know the answer to whether it is genuine or an error. However even if the measurement is correct it probably doesn't invalidate e=mc2. Relativity has been measured to incredible accuracy and the likelihood is that if these neutrinos did arrive faster they likely left our universe to do so.
Incidentally CERN didn't accelerate neutrinos (it couldn't do that because they aren't charged particles plus a host of other practical reasons), what they do is accelerate charged particles to fantastic speeds and then collide them with other particles - neutrinos are produced as a result.
Personally me I think the speed of light is instant it's just the time it takes to be measured is the speed we 'think we are measuring' I know that makes no sense but I can't explain myself without confusing my mind...
The time passed for anything travelling at the speed of light will be zero so photon's generation and absorption are the same time as far as the photon is concerned. It's only an observer that sees a non zero time and the speed so if that's what you mean then that is correct.
Ever watched a TV interview via satellite where the signal delays due to the distances involved result in embarrassing gaps between a question being asked and the reply ?
I think he maybe means the time as far as the light itself is concerned which is zero. Or maybe not.:)
I like Brian Cox. He says things to me I didn't know, which makes me go off and look up more stuff, and, if you're not a vacuous eejit with a penchant for tangoed roidheads, I think he's sexy.
Comments
And writing books, presenting TV shows, doing talks at conferences. He did an excellent and interesting talk for the BBC last year about science and how it is portrayed in the media Brian Cox - Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy
He bores me rigid. I turn over after about five mins. His programs ascribe to the fact the public does not have an attention span of more than five minutes without having to see pretty pictures. However his programs ARE aimed at people with little science background and that is a good thing. I thought 'Beyond The Speed of Light' was great, because they assumed some pre understanding there of the Special Theory of Relativity.
I know why E=mc(squared). I had to derive it from first principles in my exam.
I think BC is starting to believe his own publicity too much.
labels.. its all the same thing
oh and his grinning at that awful band he used to be apart of
howd that work out coxxy?:rolleyes:
wonder what st brian will do next, take up knitting:D
Wonders of the Stoner System
love the guy.
its part of his "ill pretend to be thick so the sheeple will like this" act all the while thinkinghe is intelligant because he can count how many rocks are floating past us
How's that arrogant? It's no different to saying pink spotted flying elephants don't exist - there's as much evidence for either of them!
Tombstone was questioning E=mc2 and saying the modern way of thinking was that it didn't. This is not the case and I was wondering why he said this, my guess (and I made it clear I was asking the question) was that he misunderstood the consequences of the neutrino experiment.
We don't know whether the neutrino time measurement was correct but even if it was that does not in itself invalidate e=mc2 which so far has stood up to everything thrown at it.
Though relatively few people claim to have experience of pink spotted flying elephants.
Thanks for that reply.. My grasp of physics is basic but there was a programme the other day saying there is proof that scientists at the CERN accelerated neutrino's to faster than the zpeed of light.. But there is dispute that it had been correctly measured or an abnormality had occured.. I thought you may shed some Light on that...
Personally me I think the speed of light is instant it's just the time it takes to be measured is the speed we 'think we are measuring' I know that makes no sense but I can't explain myself without confusing my mind...
More have definitely experienced a burning bush. Veet has a lot to answer for...
I've seen a few of them back in my younger days... Nowadays the room just spins instead
I quite like his style but if you're being particularly ungenerous you could say it was oversimplifying things and even being condescending to the audience, Cox sort of explains the fascinating subject of the physics of our Earth, Solar System, Galaxy & Universe as if it were in a pop up book for Primary School and yet when I watch even though it doesn't take the hardline science approach that makes other programmes about space such as The History Channel Universe series and Horizon programmes, it does make it quite endearing to watch, which is why I can't dislike the programme.
The whole thing could be summed up as, Isn't this amazing guys?
He's good looking.
He's got a youthful look for his age.
He's got a good head of hair.
He's a scientist working for C.E.R.N.
No wonder people are getting irate about him. He's pretty much ticked the majority of people's aspirations! :rolleyes:
I like Brian too. It struck me that he isn't as "cool" as the other guests on QI and I occasionally felt embarrassed on his behalf by his sheer enthusiasm.
Having said that I'd have absolutely loved to have him as a physics lecturer at Uni.
Ever watched a TV interview via satellite where the signal delays due to the distances involved result in embarrassing gaps between a question being asked and the reply ?
He has a job. One that's better than yours.
As you said even the scientists don't know the answer to whether it is genuine or an error. However even if the measurement is correct it probably doesn't invalidate e=mc2. Relativity has been measured to incredible accuracy and the likelihood is that if these neutrinos did arrive faster they likely left our universe to do so.
Incidentally CERN didn't accelerate neutrinos (it couldn't do that because they aren't charged particles plus a host of other practical reasons), what they do is accelerate charged particles to fantastic speeds and then collide them with other particles - neutrinos are produced as a result.
The time passed for anything travelling at the speed of light will be zero so photon's generation and absorption are the same time as far as the photon is concerned. It's only an observer that sees a non zero time and the speed so if that's what you mean then that is correct.
I think he maybe means the time as far as the light itself is concerned which is zero. Or maybe not.:)