So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
51–60 of 126 posts
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#52 The Mechanical Universe (1986) [video]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17793483
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "11 dimensions", "string theory", or "time dilation" One of these things is not like the others...
To the average pop reader's digest human experience, they are pretty close. Sure, it's interesting to know that GPS is affected by time dilation, but the hours spent on thought experiments on intergalactic travel are a distraction from all the things one can learn about their everyday life.
> all the things one can learn about their everyday life
I'm curious what topics you have in mind? My everyday life is like 90% Newtonian mechanics, 9% thermodynamics, and 1% fluid mechanics (percentages completely made up). Or are you thinking like E&M for phones and stuff?
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#54Well I disagree with many of the book choices, but if there's one thing that's absolutely spot-on is this: >One big problem is that a lot of the popular books written about physics (especially those by famous physicists) are incredibly speculative and tend to present an unrealistic view of what the study of physics is all about. When you're learning physics, it's good to avoid these types of speculative books, and st…
> all this crazy complicated and far-fetched ideas, rather than simple and beautiful principles to understand reality
Would you mind giving some examples of what kind of "simple and beautiful principles" you have in mind?
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#55>Regardless of your learning style, you'll still need to solve the physics problems in each textbook. Solving problems is the only way to really understand how the laws of physics work. There's no way around it. Even though it can feel tedious at times, there's nothing more rewarding than figuring out a really difficult physics problem and realizing that you figured it all out yourself! This is the only way. It's I h…
Calculus, too. I wonder about the author’s implication that she actually worked every problem in all of those textbooks. I suppose it’s possible, but it would take a decade, at least, if you were working full time (and forget having any kind of a social life or, god forbid, a couple of kids).
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#56Books are too low bandwidth. You will get stuck, mostly on trivial stuff. Then what do you do? My advice is to find a teacher. If they are any good they will speed up the process by one or two (or more) orders of magnitude. Even the professionals do this.
What works for me is to combine the two. I can absorb most things from books. Then, when I get stuck, I ask the advice of someone who knows. I was actually surprised how inexpensive this can be these days and how much a passionate teacher can give you these days in terms of inspiration and opening your mind to new perspectives regarding something you (thought you) already knew.
Yeah - I dug out my old caculus textbook a while ago and started trying to work all of the problems in it. But there are a handful I just can’t get, no matter how long I work on them. It would be nice to give in and ask somebody who knows the material better than I do where I’m going wrong (although I’m sure it will probably be something stupid...)
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#57Well I disagree with many of the book choices, but if there's one thing that's absolutely spot-on is this: >One big problem is that a lot of the popular books written about physics (especially those by famous physicists) are incredibly speculative and tend to present an unrealistic view of what the study of physics is all about. When you're learning physics, it's good to avoid these types of speculative books, and st…
Why is it that whenever a lay person wants to talk about physics they talk about Because those things sound exotic and interesting. Just like (statistically) nobody goes to the natural history museum to look at chicken-sized dinosaurs.
Hm. Perhaps you're on to something: our museums tend to present things in their true scale. However, this is not always desirable. For instance, consider the use of macro photography for inspection of the brilliant detailing of small things.
Physically scaling up small things may indeed be problematic, but with the assistance of VR or AR, one might be able to digitally scale it up. [Here I'm remembering my love of The Magic Schoolbus series.]
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#58Well I disagree with many of the book choices, but if there's one thing that's absolutely spot-on is this: >One big problem is that a lot of the popular books written about physics (especially those by famous physicists) are incredibly speculative and tend to present an unrealistic view of what the study of physics is all about. When you're learning physics, it's good to avoid these types of speculative books, and st…
Because the psychological appeal of physics for a wider audience is the same as the appeal for sci-fi: the feeling/emotion of wonder.
So you can get still get the wonder by dropping the rigor, and you end up with What the bleep or The secret
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#59Well I disagree with many of the book choices, but if there's one thing that's absolutely spot-on is this: >One big problem is that a lot of the popular books written about physics (especially those by famous physicists) are incredibly speculative and tend to present an unrealistic view of what the study of physics is all about. When you're learning physics, it's good to avoid these types of speculative books, and st…
> all this crazy complicated and far-fetched ideas, rather than simple and beautiful principles to understand reality Would you mind giving some examples of what kind of "simple and beautiful principles" you have in mind?
Depends on the level (and I am just giving some examples):
- Advanced high school: You can use conservation of energy or other "conservation laws" as a guiding principle. This lets you solve a problem with just a couple of lines of simple algebra. On the other hand, using the "naive" approach of studying the forces that act on the system would require heavy algebra and some calculus.
- College: Instead of calculating the path of a ray of light through some inhomogeneous piece of transparent matter by doing some form of raytracing, you can use Fermat's "minimization principle". They are equivalent, but a rigorous definition of the minimization principle is a single sentence, while the other approach takes a lot of work to express clearly.
- Advanced college: Conservation laws are actually consequences of symmetries. Instead of thinking in terms of a complicated expression for energies and momenta, you can say that they are consequences of the fact that the laws of the universe do not change from today to tomorrow.
Yes, the more simple and beautiful a principle is, the more abstract it is. However, the simplicity and ease of working with it makes the abstraction worth it.
Just like in C you can have your own weird struct that implements objects and higher order functions, but using a functional or object oriented language makes everything safer and easier and more readable.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#60Well I disagree with many of the book choices, but if there's one thing that's absolutely spot-on is this: >One big problem is that a lot of the popular books written about physics (especially those by famous physicists) are incredibly speculative and tend to present an unrealistic view of what the study of physics is all about. When you're learning physics, it's good to avoid these types of speculative books, and st…
What books would you choose?