I had an email exchange with Brian May of Queen!

Dr. Lo · Post by **Dr. Lo** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:50 pm

I'm a huge Brian May fan, and I recently had the chance to have an email exchange with this hero of mine.

I sometimes visit May's website where he writes a blog and sometimes responds to fan email. Being well-read in astrophysics (he earned a Ph.D. in the field), he had responded to a fan's question of why scientists refer to "space-time" as opposed to just space or just time. His explanation was extremely simple, enabling almost anyone to understand it. I sent him an email telling him how I liked his explanation, which spurred a little email exchange. I've included the exchange below. My initial email is at the bottom (I'm Laurent).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian's Soapbox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 2009-02-02 9:47 AM
To: Lapierre, Laurent
Subject: Re: Your explanation of the link between space and time

Thanks Laurent.

Yes, I have noticed, revisiting Imperial College with my daughter as an undergrad, how poor most of the lecturers are. It's not a skill that is taught. But ... really, I think it's mainly instinctive ... some people definitely have an innate gift. I'm flattered that you think I am one of them ... but I'm probably better in print than in person !

Cheers

Bri

On 2 Feb 2009, at 00:39, Lapierre, Laurent wrote:

Hi Bri,

I'm a university professor myself. I have far too many colleagues who, despite having earned a Ph.D., are complete failures in terms of helping students understand difficult concepts. Having a doctorate is NOT a proxy for good teaching skills. It's incredible that most Ph.D. programs, in North America at least, do not train their students (future professors) how to teach effectively.

Trust me, students would love to have a professor with your teaching skills. When time permits, do try it out. It's extremely rewarding to convey your knowledge such that your students understand you and show great enthusiasm in learning from you.

Cheers,
Laurent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian's Soapbox [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sun 2009-02-01 7:00 PM
To: Lapierre, Laurent
Subject: Re: Your explanation of the link between space and time

Thanks Laurent.

You're most kind.

I did teach for a while at a Comprehensive school and have done a bit of lecturing since getting my PHd. But on the whole, I simply don't have the time. Maybe one day ... but thanks very much ... you have done my confidence good !

Cheers

Bri

On 31 Jan 2009, at 19:03, Laurent M. Lapierre wrote:

Dear Brian,

Your explanation of the connection between space and time was FANTASTIC! My wife and I read it and we agree that your ability to convey complex, abstract concepts in simple terms using simply examples would make you a phenomenal professor. Have you ever guest lectured before? Students would probably have a blast learning from you.

Best regards,
Laurent

Le Chat Noir · Post by **Le Chat Noir** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:53 pm

I like "you have done my confidence good" - I can't imagine that guy doesn't get enough ego boosts from praise about his playing

Sounds like he's a modest guy, which is always a great quality to see in those who have 'made it'.

Cool story though!

Rimnorezn · Post by **Rimnorezn** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:22 am

I kept waiting to read the explanation of space time vs space & time...

blackcloud45 · Post by **blackcloud45** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:24 am

I correspond w/ BrianGT!

pages plexitone · Post by **pages plexitone** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:30 am

Cool man, seriously!!!

Dr. Lo · Post by **Dr. Lo** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:39 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Rimnorezn
 I kept waiting to read the explanation of space time vs space & time...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Here you go:

WHY DO SPACE AND TIME HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS LINKED?

Ã‚Â© brianmay.com

It's not easy to answer your question in a few lines. Although we (especially scientists) give names to things, it's my feeling that this gives a false impression that we know what they are! There are in fact quite a few definitions of Time in Physics ... and I don't think any of them really in qualitative terms tell us what time really is.

However, let me try to illuminate!

The concept of space-time comes about when we try to synchronise events as seen by different observers. It would be nice if everyone agreed on whether two events happened at the same time. That is, after all, how we measure time in our everyday lives. If we want to time a race, we use a stop-watch; and when we compare the length of time that it has taken for someone to run a mile, with the distance a second hand has moved on a watch, we are effectively synchronising our watch to two events; the start time and the stop time. We hope, to be fair to the runner, that anybody, anywhere, would agree with our estimation of the time these events took place. But it is not so.

What have we used to synchronise the runner's start and stop points to our watch ? The best way we know is by light. What we actually did was observe the light coming from the runner, and compare it with the light coming from very close to us - our watch. We know quite well that if we were standing a few hundred yards away and used the sound of the starting pistol to synchronise to, we'd be in trouble. We know this, because, sitting in the stands at a cricket match, we see the batsman hit the ball, and it's quite some time - a quarter of a second, maybe, before we hear the sound of the ball on the bat. So we don't use sound to set our stopwatch, because sound travels quite slowly, and will give us errors in estimating synchronicity.

But light also has a finite speed. It doesn't travel instantaneously from point to point. It's damn fast, so we would have been forgiven for thinking it DID move at infinite speed. But actually the human race has known for a very long time that it's not true. Galileo, way back in the 16th century, is recorded to have tried to measure the speed of light, but was unsuccessful, because the differences he was trying to measure were too small. But he had the right idea. It was a Danish scientist, RÃƒÂ¶mer, in 1676 who worked out from the variation in the apparent movements of the satellites of Jupiter (the Galilean moons of Jupiter, by a nice coincidence) that the speed of light was about 186 thousand miles a second. This indicated that light took about 8 minutes to reach us from our Sun.

OK ... now imagine that I'm trying to time our runner from a nearby star, out there in space (I have a good telescope!). Perhaps I'm on Alpha Centauri, about 4 light years away. The light year as a unit of distance is very convenient. How long would it take for the light from the runner on earth to reach me, the observer on Alpha Centauri? Well .. 4 years ... doh! That's what the unit of measurement means.

So if I'm on Alpha Centauri, and you are standing next to the runner, and we both click our stopwatches when the runner sets off .... well, we will certainly not be in synch. From your point of view, I will be four years late in clicking my watch, because it takes four years for the image of the race to reach me. Actually, it will look even worse, because by the time you SEE me click, the light from me will have had to come all the way back to you, and I will appear to be 8 years late in starting my watch.

But, you say ... we can just compensate for all this, if we know the distances involved. And, you say, cleverly, both the start and the stop times are equally affected, so the duration of the race will be estimated to be the same by both of us. True. But if we look outside this little game, there are glaring anomalies. Suppose there is another star nearby ... the same distance from Earth as from Alpha Centauri - actually half way between you and me - 2 light years away from each of us. Suppose that you, on Earth, start your stopwatch when the runner sets off, and you keep watching what is happening for the next few years. Two years later ... hello! There is a giant flash in the sky - the intermediate star has exploded, producing a supernova, a clear signal to you that it is in trouble (and probably so are you!). When you write your version of History, you will write that there was a running race which you timed, and two years later a nearby star exploded. But what will I write? From where I am standing, I will see nothing until I see the explosion, which has taken two years to reach me. Not until two years after this will I will see that race being run, because this light takes 4 years to reach me. Thus my version of history is entirely different. In my version, there is a big flash of light and then a race was run. In your version, it's the other way round. Who is right? Who is wrong? (And what would be the version of history written by a chap on the star that exploded? I think we should offer a prize for the best story, if anybody thinks they know the answer, and can be bothered. Marcus Chown, you are not allowed to compete !!! ha ha.)

This makes us ask some very serious questions about the nature of time - would you agree? It's evident that, to pinpoint an event in history, we will have to specify not just a time but a position in space too. In other words, the event can be completely defined only by its position in Space-Time. This is where the concept comes from. OK?

OK. I'm going to run this by a learned friend of mine, to make sure I have not made any silly mistakes ...

cheers

Bri

P.S. There will be more to say about this. It's only a very simplistic version of the truth. I'm really not an expert on Relativity - only a 'mature student'! And though I have based this look at Space-Time on Light, there are other approaches. I'll follow up with Marcus Chown's comments.

yaronis1 · Post by **yaronis1** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:43 am

Hi Dr. Lo,

I must say this is one of the best explanation I read, much better than wikipedia section about relativity.

He seems to be a really cool man.

CD9266 · Post by **CD9266** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:34 am

On the note that you had a conversation with him. Awesome man. I've talked to Billy Sheenan on myspace once a while back and he told me to email him at his website email because his myspace gets flooded with so much random stuff from people.

I've also talked to Rudy Sarzo before on myspace about his book Off the Rails. Particularly the section on Randy Rhoads (I'm an avid Rhoads fan). He was a pretty cool guy too.

Of people I've had conversations with in person, I think the only "celebrity" person I've talked to was CC Deville when I got a signature from him when Poison played in my home town like 6 or 7 years ago.

PS: that is one long book of text to read there. I'll have to get back to that when I have more time and interest.

Drdos · Post by **Drdos** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:37 am

Man that was freakin Awesome!:D

enigma · Post by **enigma** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:32 am

That was great. Now, only if he would include Time, Space and Tone !!!

Ohara · Post by **Ohara** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:41 am

That is just cool, it goes to show that people who are thrust, or thrust themselves into mainstreams spotlight are still just normal people with thoughts and ideas. It would be neat if he did do some guest lecturing though, but it does raise the question "would people come to the lecture because of who he is and what he's done, or would they come to hear his thoughts and ideas on the subject at hand?"

Bandeapart · Post by **Bandeapart** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:27 am

That's awesome. Now ask him why the damn solo in "We will rock you" is so off beat.

Neiloler · Post by **Neiloler** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:16 am

Brian May seems like a right down-to-earth kind of guy. Very cool!

Deacon Blues · Post by **Deacon Blues** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:57 am

thats so cool man. i've been lucky enough to meet and talk to some my musical heroes recently. its so surreal. im not star struck by anyone ever, but there is something so cool about connecting with people whose art inspires you

eeyore · Post by **eeyore** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:50 am

Great explanation...Even I could understand:)

I had an email exchange with Brian May of Queen!

Who is online