Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

susanjfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#61

Post by derangedHorse »

ellius wrote: post #44
andrepd wrote: post #23

Well 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…

I have a model with two kinds of knowledge: sexy knowledge and homely knowledge. I think the internet and mass media era in general have massively endorsed and empowered the projects and acquisition of sexy knowledge. If it doesn't garner attention rapidly on a large scale, then it doesn't go on TV. The problem is that most of the real projects of science and industry are about homely knowledge. It's the little borin…

I would argue that most scientists in general pursue their field of study in the pursuit of sexy knowledge itself. If there's no wonder to motivate, what are people working towards?

I also would like to argue that it doesn't have to "garner attention rapidly on a large scale" to be recognized by the masses, but rather just spark their imaginations in general.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#62

Post by derangedHorse »

pge wrote: post #38
fjsolwmv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Feynman lectures were specially designed for creme de la creme undergrads who already did a course in physics in high school. They are a terrible way for a noob to try to learn. Also strange that the author warns against exotic topics and then 3/5 of these recommendations are exotic things 99.9% of readers will never encounter.

I also recall hearing that as an undegrad curriculum, the lectures never worked well (even when feynman himself was teaching them). His way of understanding physics is beautiful but not intuitive for most people. I read them after getting a degree in physics and it was fascinating to see his approach precisely because it was so different (and elegant) than the way it is typically taught, but I could not have understo…

I disagree. As someone who doesn't know much about Physics, certain things I read in the Feynman lectures today still stick with me. Like if you drop a heavy object onto the floor, its temperature rises by a minuscule amount lol.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#63

Post by earthicus »

A few more good pop physics books:

Maxwell - Matter and motion. Written by THE Maxwell, what more do you need to know? long out of copy-write and available on the web for free

Born - The restless universe. discusses atomic theory and describes some of the more down to earth parts of quantum theory, especially how the theory explains quantitative properties of atoms and the periodic table.

Einstein & Infeld - The evolution of physics. pseudo-Historical exposition taking us from the mechanical universe to fields to quanta, and from Galilean relativity to Einstein relativity.

Reichenbach - the philosophy of space and time. technically philosophy of science, not pop science, from the logical positivist school of the Vienna circle. very readable discussion of abstract mathematical geometry and various relativity principles, if you don't mind skipping some of the more bloviating bits.

Pask - Magnificent Principia. Fantastic overview of Newton's Magnum Opus, although it doesn't give enough historical context to what newton was building on. Assumes some knowledge of calculus.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#64

Post by everybodyknows »

twtw wrote: post #54
andrepd wrote: post #23

Well 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?

Conservation of energy and conservation of vector momentum directly explain the phenomenon of coastal rip currents, a mortal danger to beach-goers. Whereas if you go by the usual public sources, they're as mysterious as sun spots.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#65

Post by dboreham »

earthicus wrote: post #63

A few more good pop physics books: Maxwell - Matter and motion. Written by THE Maxwell, what more do you need to know? long out of copy-write and available on the web for free Born - The restless universe. discusses atomic theory and describes some of the more down to earth parts of quantum theory, especially how the theory explains quantitative properties of atoms and the periodic table. Einstein & Infeld - The evol…

Hmm...I think I have (somewhere) a copy of that Born book, signed by Born, courtesy of my Dad who I suppose must have run into him in Edinburgh in the 50's.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#66

Post by everybodyknows »

pvg wrote: post #26
andrepd wrote: post #23

Well 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.

Another is that it dodges the reality check of math. I recall reading a bit of advice to authors of popular science articles: each equation in the text cuts your audience in half.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#67

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

commandlinefan wrote: post #56
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...)

In my experience these problems get solved extremely quickly once you realize where the problem is, so I tend to collect a small list of these and then call one of these tutors offering lessons to university students.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#68

Post by TangoTrotFox »

andrepd wrote: post #23

Well 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…

I'd go the other direction. I think if you taught every single 16 year old a basic class in surface-level understanding of time dilation/length contraction, gravity as a facet of spacetime, the two slit experiment, the twin paradox, relativistic star ships, so forth and so on - you'd see the number of astronomers/physicists skyrocket. They likely would not be able to follow the math and reasons behind, but that's not necessarily the point. Just understanding how absurd our universe really is, is something that I think is really kind of encouraging. It gives perspective as to the wonder and discoveries that await outside of the everyday bickering that people are exposed to 24/7 since the internet became ubiquitous.

Even less exciting things like seeing how the doppler effect led almost directly to the concept of the big bang is something that seems critical. That it's not (or, hopefully was not) a normal part of curricula seems odd. Even things like the mind boggling implications of the various conservation laws are just incredible. That topic is at least covered in lower education, but rarely if ever in such a way as to really elucidate how incredible these rules are, and all that can be derived from them.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#69

Post by abecedarius »

earthicus wrote: post #63

A few more good pop physics books: Maxwell - Matter and motion. Written by THE Maxwell, what more do you need to know? long out of copy-write and available on the web for free Born - The restless universe. discusses atomic theory and describes some of the more down to earth parts of quantum theory, especially how the theory explains quantitative properties of atoms and the periodic table. Einstein & Infeld - The evol…

A bit more on the Maxwell book: it's a real textbook rather than "pop physics" in the usual sense, but written for people with only a high-school level of math (algebra and geometry). Wonderful explanations -- for one, iirc, the derivation of Kepler's conic-section law which Feynman later rediscovered and presented in "The Motion of Planets Around the Sun" -- although the prose style is rather stuffy and Victorian, and Feynman has him beat there.

Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)

#70

Post by abecedarius »

pge wrote: post #38
fjsolwmv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Feynman lectures were specially designed for creme de la creme undergrads who already did a course in physics in high school. They are a terrible way for a noob to try to learn. Also strange that the author warns against exotic topics and then 3/5 of these recommendations are exotic things 99.9% of readers will never encounter.

I also recall hearing that as an undegrad curriculum, the lectures never worked well (even when feynman himself was teaching them). His way of understanding physics is beautiful but not intuitive for most people. I read them after getting a degree in physics and it was fascinating to see his approach precisely because it was so different (and elegant) than the way it is typically taught, but I could not have understo…

Counterpoint: "Memories of Feynman's lectures" at http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_90.html

Every time this topic comes up, someone says they heard nth-hand that the lectures didn't work. I suspect it's folklore that grew out of Feynman's disappointment expressed in his preface. I studied them together with the official text in my undergrad courses, and found them helpful, FWIW.

Post reply on HN