Rock-it science: Queen star conquering the universe (Brian May coauthors physics book)

AFP via Yahoo! ^ | Mon Oct 23, 1:22 PM ET | Robin Millard

[dead]

LONDON (AFP) - As the guitar power in the legendary British rock band Queen, Brian May conquered most of the planet -- and now he has his sights set on mastering the universe.

The star musician, who wrote hits like "We Will Rock You", "The Show Must Go On" and "Flash", has switched his plectrum for a pen and co-authored a book with two leading British astronomers, telling the story of the big bang and how the universe has evolved since.

Brian May addresses the media during a photocall to launch a book entitled "Bang! The Complete
History of the Universe" in central London. As the guitar power in the legendary British rock band
Queen, May has conquered most of the planet -- and now he has his sights set on mastering the
universe.(AFP/Shaun Curry)

"Bang! The Complete History of the Universe", was written with Sir Patrick Moore, who has presented BBC television's "The Sky at Night" since 1957, and cosmology expert Chris Lintott, Moore's regular sidekick on the show.

May, 59, earned a degree in physics at Imperial College London but after years of studying interplanetary dust, he abandoned work towards his doctorate when Queen -- fronted by stellar performer Freddie Mercury -- took off.

May said: "When I was seven years old, I got my first guitar. That's about the time when I first saw 'The Sky at Night' and the two passions have stayed with me throughout my life."

Decades of hard rocking later, he is now completing his thesis and hopes the colourful, 192-page book will be as successful as any of his hits.

"This is not a book for scientists, it's a book for everybody," said the world-renowned guitarist.

"We firmly believe this is something which hasn't been achieved before, and that is a proper accounting of the story of the whole history of the universe from the big bang up to the present day and into the unforseeable future -- but in a form which can be understood."

Moore badgered May to write the book with him and the 83-year-old drafted the basic skeleton in two weeks. May and Lintott then spent two and a half years with the eccentric, xylophone-playing astronomy legend fleshing it out.

May's co-authors insist he has the credibility to write about stars as well as be one.

"Brian was an extremely hard task-master, we didn't get away with anything," said Lintott.

"His papers are still leading the field in zodiacal light. He won't say so but it's true: I checked the figures," said the boffin.

"I know people are waiting for his thesis. He's absolutely a top-class researcher."

Moore added: "Brian is a highly qualified, very eminent astronomer who has done fundamental work on his particular subject."

The book explains the history of the universe from the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, through the formation of the first stars, galaxies and planets and on into the evolution of human beings able to contemplate their origins and destiny in space.

"Astronomy should be enjoyed," May insisted.

"I really hope this book will inspire people. We hope that we will inspire a new generation in the way that Sir Patrick inspired us."

May said he had thought about booking a seat on a commercial flight into space.

"It's tempting; I do quite fancy the idea but I'm getting a little old for it now."

Queen first hit came in 1974, a year before Mercury's epic "Bohemian Rhapsody" -- often voted the greatest song ever -- stormed the charts.

The band stole the show at the mammoth 1985 Live Aid concert and Queen have spent more time in the British album charts than any other act.

Mercury died of AIDS in 1991, marking the end proper of the band, but May and drummer Roger Taylor returned to the stage as Queen in 2005 with Free singer Paul Rodgers and rocked arenas across Europe, Japan and the United States.

[mylife]

I was wondering about the mathematical proof of that hair ;-)

[catfish1957]

A member of Queen writes a book called Bang? I figured it alluded to the treatment of groupies in the '70's.

[Rebel_Ace]

This is not surprising to me. I had read back in the late 70's that May had a degree in physics.

In fact, on the album A Night At The Opera there is a track he wrote called '39, which is a folk song about time dilation during extended space travel. Listen to the lyrics carefully, there is no question that the song tells the tale of space travellers returning to meet their great grandchildren, and to mourn the loss of everyone else that they knew. Cool song.

[Physicist]

And no, I wouldn't face the same conceptual crisis.

Then you must be making some sort of mistake, you see? The two are equivalent, so they must be equally ridiculous or reasonable.

[ArmstedFragg]

One of the most amazing solos ever on Brighton Rock during their 1986 Magic Tour Wembley appearance, now out in a remastered version on a two DVD set.

He got a delay going, laid down a series of whole notes, came back and played halfs against it, then quarters, etc. Five minutes plus of pure magic.

[eyespysomething]

Brian may ping - is this the way to Amarillo?

[Jaysun]

Then you must be making some sort of mistake, you see? The two are equivalent, so they must be equally ridiculous or reasonable.

But they aren't equivalent. For something to shrink into itself isn't the same as something expanding into nothingness. Indeed, the former is observable in nature.

[Jaysun]

Then you must be making some sort of mistake, you see? The two are equivalent, so they must be equally ridiculous or reasonable.

Wait - it doesn't make a rat's ass. The assertion is that the universe is expanding into nothing. Impossible.

[Captain Beyond]

bump

[Physicist]

You're making two very simple errors.

First, you seem to be measuring the size of the universe AND the things within it by some sort of external gauge. But there is no such gauge: when we say that the universe is expanding, we mean that it is growing in size compared to our rulers, i.e. the things within the universe.

Alternatively, we can define a length scale by fixing it to the size of the universe, measuring the distance from horizon to horizon. In that case, we would say that our local rulers are shrinking. The two are equivalent because, first, all motion is relative (there's no absolute way to fix two points in space), and second, there is no other distance scale to which these measurements can be compared.

The second error you are making is that the universe has to expand "into" something, like a cake expanding into an oven. Taken to an extreme, the cake will run out of room and fill the oven, at which point it can expand no more. The expansion of the universe isn't like that. It won't "run out of room" to expand. The universe doesn't need room, it is room. As it expands, there is more room, not less. There is no philosophical or mathematical need for the universe to be "contained within" anything else (although it may be, but that's not a problem, either).

But really, it is against mathematics that you inveigh. When you say it's "impossible" that the "universe expands into nothing", you aren't merely saying that the physical universe doesn't conform to this or that geometrical model. You're saying that it isn't mathematically possible to work out consistent geometries that are infinite, self-contained, and ever-expanding. But such simple geometries have in fact been conceived, and they don't require anything to contain them, and into which they might expand. Yet expand they do.

[CarrotAndStick]

I thought the universe expanding into empty space was also simultaneously followed by increasing inter-galactic distances. How could this happen if the universe were shrinking?

[ZX12R]

Then you must be making some sort of mistake, you see? The two are equivalent, so they must be equally ridiculous or reasonable.

Maybe it is both. Depending on how you set up an experiment to look for ridiculous behavior or reasonable behavior. A duality, like a photon or electron being both particle and wave.