Recommending Griffith to study quantum mechanics is just plain wrong. It's inconsistent, have many gaps in the material. There's a book superior in many regards to Griffith
- the "Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications" by Zettili.
So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
81–90 of 126 posts
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Mass and speed are proportional (are they? For sake of tve argument, mass begets gravity begets accelleration). But the masses don't want massive bulks of data. They want quick information. Like, your new phone can show 4k vids whatever, and some even care that that's due to advances in nano materials and quantum optics, but to most, the physical side is uninteresting and something inherently theoretical like black holes, LIGO or LHC is only really mass compatible if broken down to show the kind of action, i.e. research, that is happens on this very planet - time travel, ripples in the fabric of space, or theosophy (god particle), respectively.
The whole quantum mechanics philosophy crossover is a huge messy confusion as a result of this (many worlds shroedingers cat) - and that even affects even many physicists.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of times you don't know what you need. The point of a good curriculum is to help you avoid those situations as much as possible.
If the goal is to try to understand nature, make your own curriculum. Most people, myself included, initially believe the physics hype and believe that by studying academic physics they will gain new understanding of nature. I believe this is not the right way. It is better to start by asking a specific question. For instance, I am curious about what matter is. So I ask myself What is matter? and try to answer this q…
When you want to learn and use the simple abstractions that are just the other side of complexity that generalize the problem you are working on and its solution, what do you do? Do you hope for one?
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#84Well 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…
> talk about the real physics we know exists
I have some bad news for Susan.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#85Is there a similar list for Mathmatics somewhere?
"How to Become a Pure Mathematician (or Statistician)"
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 disagree. My opinion on whether you might get the impression is that you need to argue with "sexy knowledge" in research proposals.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yeah, the frequency shift "time dialation" of Radar & Lidar for traffic tickets and even Time-of-Flight imaging for your FaceID all involve the constant speed of light or special relativity... but yes, all of magnetism can be derived as a special relativistic case of electro-statics (relativistically moving charges).
For me, the more annoying aspect to this is that the "it's all relative man" has infected even more techincal discussions to the point where engineering and settled science is treated as just more "woo woo" by people who could know better.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#88Well 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…
The holographic universe is another popular one. We have some similar things in mathematics (e.g. anything to do with Godel). I think, though, that if you want to understand physics, it probably makes sense to devote some of your time to understanding what physicists are excited about. I have a feeling (and this is heavy speculation) that a lot of strong physicists were fed on pop physics and science fiction before t…
> Pop physics books may not be the ideal way to do this, but it's probably better than nothing at all.
On the other hand, they are very harmful to serious, but "boring" research proposals.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Like if you drop a heavy object onto the floor, its temperature rises by a minuscule amount lol.
Tidbits like this are not a substitute for a working knowledge of physics. The Feynman Lectures are not a substitute for undergraduate courses. You'll get more out of the Feynman Lectures after completing the main undergraduate courses.
Re: So You Want to Learn Physics (2016)
#90Recommending Griffith to study quantum mechanics is just plain wrong. It's inconsistent, have many gaps in the material. There's a book superior in many regards to Griffith - the "Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications" by Zettili.
While I didn't like her saying that Griffith's is the book, in my experience, there is no the book for QM. Griffiths is good, but should be supplemented with another.