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

A 9-line summary of textbook physics

motionmountain.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#31

Post by PrettyPebble »

sdoering wrote: post #26
Reventlov wrote: post #6

I opened a volume of the books linked in the page, and found this: « Learning allows us to discover what kind of person we can be. Learning widens knowledge, improves intelligence and provides a sense of achievement. Therefore, learning from a book, especially one about nature, should be efficient and enjoyable. Avoid bad learning methods like the plague! Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underli…

> Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underline text on paper. It is a waste of time, provides false comfort and makes the text unreadable. What a load of elitist BS (pardon my French). When I was at University we were trained early on to cut the notion of a book being sacred. We should mark, note, create meaning on the pages with pens. I would not have been able to learn as much in my life if I ha…

Writing notes and comments is great - the text only says highlight or underline!

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#32

Post by ianbooker »

PrettyPebble wrote: post #21
nayuki wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The nine lines contain physics, chemistry, material science, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, engineering and computer science. I have doubts that these 9 lines describe computer science. As I interpret it, computer science is founded on pure mathematics and is not a physical or empirical science. Computer science deals with perfect abstract mathematical objects like numbers, sets, quantification, recursion,…

Good point - but it needs computers...

Strangely not. You can do CS on paper, no need for a single bit-flipping device. Turing did half the field in his head / a thought experiment.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#34

Post by Tarq0n »

archhn wrote: post #28
Reventlov wrote: post #6

I opened a volume of the books linked in the page, and found this: « Learning allows us to discover what kind of person we can be. Learning widens knowledge, improves intelligence and provides a sense of achievement. Therefore, learning from a book, especially one about nature, should be efficient and enjoyable. Avoid bad learning methods like the plague! Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underli…

I like it. The author is being real. This is what he sincerely thinks. You don't have to agree with everything an author says. I for one appreciate the candor. It's also a proven fact that many smartphone applications are effectively dispensers of dopamine at regular intervals. People check their social media like smokers take a smoke break. The author is right...albeit a bit terse and dramatic.

Sharing one's thoughts candidly is worth less than good epistemology.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#35

Post by la64710 »

Why do the first chapters of all physics textbook ONLY talk about Greek philosophers and scientists and NEVER talk about contribution to Science from eastern civilization like India and China ? These civilizations have a very rich heritage and astounding contribution to many underlying scientific philosophies. Yet generation after generation of writers ignore them and it is sad to see that being true even today. It is time that this is changed.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#36

Post by tvanantwerp »

Reventlov wrote: post #6

I opened a volume of the books linked in the page, and found this: « Learning allows us to discover what kind of person we can be. Learning widens knowledge, improves intelligence and provides a sense of achievement. Therefore, learning from a book, especially one about nature, should be efficient and enjoyable. Avoid bad learning methods like the plague! Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underli…

I can't say what the author's intent was, but I see two ways to parse this: one I disagree with, one I agree with.

The disagreeable interpretation is that the only way to learn is from a pristine book. This is so obviously stupid that I see no reason to discuss it further.

The other interpretation, which I think is more useful but unclear from the text, is that _passive activities are subpar learning activities_. From what I've read of effective studying techniques, things like highlighting text don't help. Active recall techniques like spaced repetition are much more useful for cementing learned knowledge. Likewise, if you're "learning" from a screen by just staring at it, consuming it, then your knowledge-to-inputs ratio is going to be low. I've watched plenty of YouTube videos on how to do numerous things, but I couldn't do any of them on the spot because I've never tried. The knowledge went in one ear and out the other. The material must be engaged with somehow.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#37

Post by ravi-delia »

mhh__ wrote: post #23

The 9 equations aspect is pretty pointless but the chapters on the right hand side could be ok. One of the things that makes physics different to most subjects is that we can make an explicit goal of being smug and rederiving the laws of physics from the simplest possible principles. I think the book seems to do this, but just summarizing like done on this webpage is a bit daft.

I think the way these are phrased do a better job expressing the "vibe", for lack of a better word, of our current understanding. That the particles and constants are declared by fiat, with behavior constrained by simpler laws, is an understanding I didn't come to until I took a QFT course. The physicist's God is as concerned with forbidding seemingly pointless things as the biologist's God is with beetles.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#38

Post by Jyaif »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #17
PrettyPebble wrote: post #2

Fun fact: all physics experiments ever made can be described by 9 lines, without any deviation between theory and observations. The 9 lines are sufficient to describe quantum physics and gravity. It seems that the 9 lines even contain all (update: natural) sciences, not only physics. Finding an exception to the 9 lines will make you famous. So will the discovery of a 10th line. Thousands of researchers work towards t…

This is just straight wrong. There is no computer in the world that can predict the outcome of, say, a drug trial from these equations. If your “science” requires an impossible computer to work then it’s not science it’s faith.

You are saying that we don't have a computer fast enough to simulate a drug trial, but you are not actually disagreeing with the parent.

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#39

Post by ravi-delia »

nayuki wrote: post #12
humanistbot wrote: post #3

Physics maybe, but all sciences? This is is some serious physics determinism --- obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/435/

> The nine lines contain physics, chemistry, material science, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, engineering and computer science. I have doubts that these 9 lines describe computer science. As I interpret it, computer science is founded on pure mathematics and is not a physical or empirical science. Computer science deals with perfect abstract mathematical objects like numbers, sets, quantification, recursion,…

Considering that these lines specify our laws of physics only if you grant that math is a thing, you could argue that all of mathematics gets in for free ;). Sort of like how ZFC can't encode basic logic, but you still need it for axioms to make sense

Re: A 9-line summary of textbook physics

#40

Post by ravi-delia »

sdoering wrote: post #26
Reventlov wrote: post #6

I opened a volume of the books linked in the page, and found this: « Learning allows us to discover what kind of person we can be. Learning widens knowledge, improves intelligence and provides a sense of achievement. Therefore, learning from a book, especially one about nature, should be efficient and enjoyable. Avoid bad learning methods like the plague! Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underli…

> Do not use a marker, a pen or a pencil to highlight or underline text on paper. It is a waste of time, provides false comfort and makes the text unreadable. What a load of elitist BS (pardon my French). When I was at University we were trained early on to cut the notion of a book being sacred. We should mark, note, create meaning on the pages with pens. I would not have been able to learn as much in my life if I ha…

I sort of agree with the book on highlighting and underlining. If you don't jot a note down in the margin, you'll forget your state of mind and have no idea what made some underlined section meaningful. A false comfort.
Post reply on HN