The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.
Broadcasts:
1. Mon 21 Mar 2011 21:00 BBC Four
2. Tue 22 Mar 2011 02:30 BBC Four
3. Thu 24 Mar 2011 23:20 BBC Four
4. Sun 27 Mar 2011 20:00 BBC HD
Arrrgh!! looks interesting but I won't be able to see it all and my life would not be worth living if I overrode my teenage daughter's 21:00 recording of the show 'Glee'. Will have to catch the repeat, or iPlayer.
Cheers,
--
Neale
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
Dear David
Thanks for the pointer to the new programmes. I knew nothing about them before.
However, I cann't decide if I would be best to watch the progs or not.
I have a horrible feeling watching them might only frustrate me. I think everything and nothing may be meaningless issues that trying to understand them or not doesn't really matter.
I cann't help thinking about a TV discussion this morning about the desirability, or lack of it, for having a no fly zone over Libiya.
One lady said she felt sorry about the plight of the rebels but enforcing a no-flight zone required a lot more discussion.
All well and good of course in an ideal world but by the time she was happy with the results of her discussions I suspect a lot of rebels would have disappeared. By then any agreement coming out of the discussion would probably have no real signifcance.
Mildly interested though I might be in a TV prog about "Everyting and Nothing" there are many more aspects of science I find of more pressing interest to me.
Even so I don't rule out watching the progs completely. But I doubt anything the prog tells me will make me feel happier, than I am languishing in my ignorance.
Best wishes from Cliff
I watched the first part of "Everything and Nothing" yesterday evening and found it absorbing to watch. It had a maturity of content and presentation that the "Wonders" somehow lacks.
Dear David and Brian
I have to say ; Yes, a great programme.
In my opinion one of the best science programmes I've watched.
A nice surprise because I didn't expect it to be good.
That said, I was inclined to start a new topic- "Mistakes in Everything....." but decided it would be a bit mean and better to keep David's topic going.
HOWEVER, I was niggled that the prog Presenter, Jim Kahli (apologies if I spelt his name wrong) several times referred to M31 as "Andromeda" although to be fair the very first time he mentioned the galaxy I think he called it the Anromeda Nebula - so perhaps I'm nit picking.
My other complaint is (nit picking again) was when talking about Hubbles work in the 1920s about M31 the presenter implied Hubble established M31's distance to be 2.5 million light years away. Of course Hubble established M31 was a huge distance away and outside the Milky way but I think Hubble's original estimates were only a few hundred thousand light years (450 thousand comes to mind) my longest owned astro book circa 1945 - 1950 ish gives M31's distance as 680 thousand light years.
I now own some older historical astro books but that 1945-50 book I have is longest I kept in my possesion (ie when I was a youngster I thought M31 was 680 thousand light years away).When I first "discovered" M31 when I was boy I was over the moon seeing a galaxy outside the Milky Way - but I wish I'd known then it was 2.5 million light years which was much more than I the thought.....................!!!!!
Best wishes from Cliff
Last edited by Cliff on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Cliff wrote:HOWEVER, I was niggled that the prog Presenter, Jim Kahli (apologies if I spelt his name wrong) several times referred to M31 as "Andromeda"
I don't know where to find the official line on what you call M31 but might there not be an argument to say that Andromeda - on its own - is an acceptable name for the Galaxy? APOD uses it.
Dear Joe
Course there is !
But I don't like these Whipper-snappers getting away with these things.
Cann't a grumpy old codger have his little gripes now and again.
Modern society is going to pot ! Grrrrr........
Best wishes from Cliff
PS Funny thing is I hate the Messier Catalogue as well - however, I approve of the "the Great Andromeda Nebula" it sounds graceful and mysterious like astronomy should be !
I was blown away by the program. The thought had never even crossed my mind about the 'visible universe' and how the light from stars would be 'outrun' by the expansion of the universe (older than 16 Billion years or whatever). Then to realise that this is the reason we cant 'see the light from the big bang' which would make the night light up all over.
Nice to hear about the history trail of how we got from 'believing the Earth was at the centre of the solar system' right through to 'Einsteins theory of general relativity'
joe wrote:I don't know where to find the official line on what you call M31 but might there not be an argument to say that Andromeda - on its own - is an acceptable name for the Galaxy? APOD uses it.
Stay tuned for Al-Kahili's sequel, dealing with inner space. Jim Al-Kahili is Iraqi-born Professor of Theoretical Physics at Surrey University.
I take back what I said in previous threads that physicists shouldn't be narrating and presenting astronomy programmes - only some physicists .
The final programme last night was as good as the first one. This is the way to present popular science on TV, with mature commentary and good graphics.
Surprisingly and refreshingly, there were no American scientists involved in the programme. I'm not being "anti-American" in saying this, but the British media does tend to show a heavy dependency on American science, as if to imply that Europe is a scientific backwater .
Perhaps a couple of criticisms that could be made of the final programme were in saying that virtual particles and also antimatter ( outside of the laboratory ) exist in nature. The evidence for virtual particles and antimatter is still circumstantial.
A further criticism was showing the Big Bang occuring inside an already existing void.
Dear Brian, Joe et al
I wonder if the reason that American scientists have figured strongly in UK TV cocumentaries is to encourage sales of our dcumentaries in the USA (?).
I personally think Top Gear and other J Clarkson programmes are rubbish but an excuse I've heard for making them is that Clarckson's progs make a lot of money for the BBC who sell the progs abroad.
With regards my concerns about "the Andromeda" thing, arguably it is'nt very important. Apart from anything else, it won't affect most of the millions of viewers who I suspect will never get seriously interested in astronomy. However, I personally do not recall any amateur astronomers I know referring to M31 as simply "Andromeda". I can imagine some high powered specialist cosmologists saying that, and it wouldn't surprise me since I suspect many of them live in their own little world of computer simulations and rarely (if ever observe the real sky).
I reckon that Andromeda is a constellation as far as I'm concerned in which I've seen several galaxies myself eg NGC891 immediately comes to mind.
Best wishes from "Nasty" Cliff
PS - I should have mentioned that I thoroughly enjoyed part 2 of "Everything & Nothing".
.