Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines
Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines
Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines
Audiobook10 hours

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines

Written by Richard A. Muller

Narrated by Pete Larkin

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

About this audiobook

We live in complicated, dangerous times. They are also hyper-technical times. As citizens who will elect future presidents of the most powerful and influential world, we need to know-truly understand, not just rely on television's talking heads-if Iran's nascent nuclear capability is a genuine threat to the West, if biochemical weapons are likely to be developed by terrorists, if there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels that should be nurtured and supported by the government, if nuclear power should be encouraged, and if global warming is actually happening.

Written in everyday, nontechnical language, Physics for Future Presidents explains the science behind the concerns that our nation faces in the immediate future. Even active readers of serious journalism will be surprised at the lessons contained herein. It is must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJun 1, 2011
ISBN9781452672724
Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines
Author

Richard A. Muller

The P.J. Zondervan Professor for Doctrinal Studies in Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Related to Physics for Future Presidents

Related audiobooks

Science & Mathematics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Physics for Future Presidents

Rating: 4.076923076923077 out of 5 stars
4/5

13 ratings7 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Easily the best non-scientist's science book I have ever read. Accessible, interesting, thought provoking and relevant. Plus a great conceit that never lets up - the author addresses the President right to the very last page. Highly, highly recommended, especially as a follow up to anyone who's recently read more depressing books like The World Without Us (which I also recommend.) But if I were to own only one single science book, this would be it.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is the book to read to be informed about the scientific issues that confront Obama. From terrorism to environmental disaster Mr. Muller, a physics professor at UC Berkeley, explains the science behind the headlines and the options that a president will have available to choose from. So far Obama has stumbled by closing down the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Now there really is no solution for nuclear waste, but what to do with all those spent fuel rods ...Watch for Ocean Acidification to be the next environmental battle cry to hit the headlines.Richard Muller for Science Advisor!
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    The conceit of this book is, obviously, that it's addressed to whoever would win the Obama-McCain race: here are the bits of physics you need to understand if you're going to make the right decisions on terrorism, energy, nukes (both weapons and reactors), space and global warming. There's plenty of good stuff here as well as lots of fascinating facts that I'm sure I'll find myself tossing oh-so-casually into dinner-party conversations. The text is extremely readable, bouncing along at an exhilarating pace. But there are also some silly mistakes:

    In the Manhattan Project, the scientists initially estimated that the amount needed for a critical mass was about 440 pounds. [. . .:] With a tamper, instead of leaking out, the neutrons are reflected back in, so the critical mass needed for an explosion dropped by about a factor four, down to only 33 pounds. (p129)

    I've tried and I've tried and I've tried to make sense of that "factor of four" calculation, but I still can't get no satisfaction. The "440 pounds" is clearly a euphemism for 200kg, and I assume "33 pounds" is, in plain English, 15kg . . . but even looking at these somewhat easier-to-work-with numbers, hoping for some sort of four-related relationship between them, I can't imagine what he was talking about. Similarly here:

    In 1974, the average refrigerator size in the United States had a volume of 18 cubic feet, and the energy it used was 1800 kilowatt-hours per year. That's 130 kilowatt-hours for each cubic foot. (p315)

    If I divide 1800 by 18, I get 100, not 130. I've checked my calculation every which way, and I still think I'm right on this.

    I have other concerns. In the long chapter on global warming, Muller adopts the position of being, not a climate change denier, but a denier of the need for draconian action . . . and he claims to produce the physics to support this. He obviously has a beef about Al Gore and the movie An Inconvenient Truth, because he loses no opportunity to carp at them, even in instances where quite clearly Gore's "error" was that the science he presented, while perfectly correct as of 2004, has since been amended. Perhaps Gore once farted in front of Muller's wife, or something. Even so, I was prepared to be educated on the subject, but then . . . well, what's this?

    On page 283 we have a couple of diagrams credited to "Pielke & Landsea"? On p294 there's an approving mention of a correction to the climatologists' physics from Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick? The diagrams seem plausible and the correction to the physics may be fine for all I know, but nowhere is there a mention of the fact that Pielke, McIntyre and McKitrick are extremely controversial figures in the climate debate, being champions of the AGW-denialist movement. I for one would trust nothing emanating from any of these three until I had it confirmed in triplicate by independent authorities, and even then I'd be dubious. Yet Muller, who must have known that to much of his audience the names will mean nothing, fails to alert his readers to the fact that the arguments being produced in general on AGW by Pielke, McIntyre and McKitrick (and, again for all I know, Landsea) are, to euphemize, not universally accepted.

    Similarly, on pp104-105 Muller discusses the estimated death toll from long-term cancers in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and tells us that the IAEA/UN best estimate for this number is 4000. I was surprised the figure was so low, since I was sure I'd heard of higher ones, but who was I to argue with the IAEA/UN? It was only by chance, in casual e-conversation with a friend a couple of days later, that I discovered there have been several estimates of this death toll, and the IAEA/UN one is controversial. Many of the other estimates, quick research revealed, have reliability problems of their own -- I mean, I love Greenpeace and have given them money, but they're an advocacy group and everyone knows you take with a pinch of salt the statistics produced by advocacy groups -- and it's quite possible the IAEA/UN estimate may be the best; but, for the sake of honesty, Muller should have indicated the existence of these other, far more pessimistic estimates.

    The laffaloud irony is that, elsewhere, he's really quite strong about people who cherry-pick their information . . .

    All in all, then, having found a few instances where I did not feel Muller was dealing fairly with his readers, I became uncertain as to how much of the rest of his text I could trust. And that's a pity, because I very much enjoyed the actual process of reading the book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Provocative. Almost wish I had taken notes so I could remember all his arguments. Seemed like a balanced approach to the issues, but I'd like to see some responses from people like Al Gore. Also, he strayed from science, I felt, when he used words like "propaganda" to describe how Gore presented climate-related information in "An Inconvenient Truth." I can buy that maybe Gore did not use good judgment in the inclusion and presentation of the information, but to suggest that there was political motivation behind it requires more evidence.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Sometimes I see a book title that is so brilliant that I can't help feel (as a writer) 'I wish I'd thought of that.' This is just such a title. It's a brilliant concept - the physics any decent US president really ought to know to be able to make the decisions that face him or her.What's more, the contents live up to the title. Physics professor Richard A. Muller delivers some real surprises, separating what many of us think we know from reality. In five sections, handling terrorism, energy, 'nukes', space and global warming he delivers some devastating truths, putting across information that it's hard to believe any president has really grasped - yet it's so important that they do.I don't want to go into too much detail - read the book - but, for example, in the terrorism section he points out that petrol (and aviation fuel) has more energy per tonne than TNT. This was why the Twin Towers came down on 9/11 - not because of the impact of the planes, but the energy released by the burning fuel. Each section uses the main theme as a starting point, but then pulls in other ideas. So, for example, while the space theme has plenty about the fact that manned spaceflight is not undertaken for scientific reasons (he argues strongly against it, encouraging much more unmanned space work), he also covers the use of gravity for remote detection, and the use of non-visible light (infra-red, radar etc.) in intelligence gathering.One small gripe and one big one. The small gripe is that it's a shame there isn't a European edition of the book. Muller has used US units throughout, rather than scientific units (Fahrenheit temperatures instead of Celsius, for instance), which is ideal for the target audience of would-be US presidents, but less helpful over here. The big one is I think there is one big section missing - pure physics. It doesn't really come through that there's any need to do physics without an immediate application. In the past this has meant passing the crown for nuclear physics from the US, with the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, to Europe with the Large Hadron Collider (due to go live days after this review was written) - future presidents should understand the implications of not putting money into such valuable research.All in all, without doubt, both the best concept I've seen in ages and an excellent fulfilment of the promise of the title.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This book covers a variety of topics that include physics and are relevant to politics. Topics included global warming, nuclear power, atomic weapons, conservation, and spying technology. The author appear scientifically knowledgeable and also insightful into the issues. I found the book interesting.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    What information does a president of the United States really need to know to make informed decisions about some of the most important issues we are facing as a nation and as a global community? Richard Muller believes that some of this knowledge should be an understanding of the basic principles of physics. I loved the format of this book. Muller writes this book as though the reader was the next president of the United States. The book applies basic physics to a better understanding of five key areas: terrorism, energy, nukes, space, and global warming. I found this book to be truly enlightening. Almost daily I am bombarded by news stories featuring the challenges we are facing in at least one of these areas. Muller presents the facts, in a fair and balanced manner (honestly, I really can't tell which political party he favors) , allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. For example, Muller explores why the greatest threats we face from terrorists are not "dirty bombs" or stolen nuclear weapons, and why solar powered cars are not really feasible, at least with our current technology. Personally, I was especially intrigued by the section on global warming, and I felt that this section alone would have justified the purchase price of the book. In each section he also presents a brief historical perspective with an emphasis on the physics involved in each situation. I was totally fascinated by his exploration of the facts surrounding the anthrax attacks which followed the 911 attacks. Muller's writing style is pleasantly conversational, almost as though you were having a discussion with your own personal science advisor. He also strikes the right balance between simplifying the physics to the level of easy understanding without insulting the intelligence of the reader. I enjoyed this book so much that I lent the copy I borrowed from our local library to my husband, who promptly purchased a copy midway through reading the book. This was a great read, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend, even to our current president.