Physics book: what's worth reading?
Discussion
With apologies to the OP for not keeping to the last 10 years, but if anyone hasn't read 'Violent Phenomena in the Universe' by Prof J V Narlikar, it's definitely worth a read. Scouting through decent second hand bookshops or a couple of quid via the internet will get a superb and distinctly alternative treatment of high energy processes.
m1dg3 said:
If you're looking for popular science then one of the best I've read is 'Afterglow of Creation' by Marcus Chown about the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. You can't go wrong with Feynman either.
Not from the last ten years but A-level barely gets you into the 20th century physics-wise.
I like Science of Discworld.Not from the last ten years but A-level barely gets you into the 20th century physics-wise.
Very interesting read for me.
andy_s said:
I've read Hawkins, 'Brief History of Time' & 'Grand Design'
Read both and thought them ok. BHOT was interesting but I felt the style of writing didn't make it particularly accesible. GD was also ok, interesting in parts (although its opening line of 'philosophy is dead' was a little off base) but sometimes I found myself drifting off when he talks about the highly theoretical stuff (11 dimensions etc) especially when there is little/no evidence basis.Marcus Chown's 'Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You' is decent, explained well and an entertaining read. Same can be applied to Simon Singh's 'Big Bang'.
I've got Chown's 'We need to talk about Kelvin' - it's on the 'to read' list.
g3org3y said:
andy_s said:
I've read Hawkins, 'Brief History of Time' & 'Grand Design'
Read both and thought them ok. BHOT was interesting but I felt the style of writing didn't make it particularly accesible. GD was also ok, interesting in parts (although its opening line of 'philosophy is dead' was a little off base) but sometimes I found myself drifting off when he talks about the highly theoretical stuff (11 dimensions etc) especially when there is little/no evidence basis.Marcus Chown's 'Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You' is decent, explained well and an entertaining read. Same can be applied to Simon Singh's 'Big Bang'.
I've got Chown's 'We need to talk about Kelvin' - it's on the 'to read' list.
jbudgie said:
g3org3y said:
andy_s said:
I've read Hawkins, 'Brief History of Time' & 'Grand Design'
Read both and thought them ok. BHOT was interesting but I felt the style of writing didn't make it particularly accesible. GD was also ok, interesting in parts (although its opening line of 'philosophy is dead' was a little off base) but sometimes I found myself drifting off when he talks about the highly theoretical stuff (11 dimensions etc) especially when there is little/no evidence basis.Marcus Chown's 'Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You' is decent, explained well and an entertaining read. Same can be applied to Simon Singh's 'Big Bang'.
I've got Chown's 'We need to talk about Kelvin' - it's on the 'to read' list.
If anyone is looking for a whistle-stop tour of science at a more basic level I can heartily recommend Bill Bryson's Short History of Everything.
shoggoth1 said:
A good book, doesn't require a degree in physics (or indeed anything).TheHeretic said:
Not books, per say, but the new iTunes U has been released, and looking earlier they have a great deal of free course material from universities all over. Video of lectures, course notes, transcripts, etc. some folks might find it interesting, and useful.
I quite like the idea of this, shame you need an iPad, iPhone or Touch to view - why can iTunes display it as well? Says iOS5 req'd - I haven't downloaded to check if it works in iTunes but as it doesn't say so I'm guessing not.I'm in astro, rather than quantum physics, but thoroughly enjoyed this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Einstein-Debate-Na...
It's written for the layman really, but has a great treatment of the science and tells some very interesting stories about the personalities involved.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Einstein-Debate-Na...
It's written for the layman really, but has a great treatment of the science and tells some very interesting stories about the personalities involved.
...and instead of a book..... here is how to approach physics ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m37V5bC86Ic&fea...
from 1:40 - 2:50 particularly...... but watch the 11 mins...its a compilation.
the other clips from this series are excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m37V5bC86Ic&fea...
from 1:40 - 2:50 particularly...... but watch the 11 mins...its a compilation.
the other clips from this series are excellent.
MixxyMatosis said:
I'm currently reading "How to teach quantum physics to your dog" by Chad Orzel. I highly recommend it for all the beginners out there. Everything is explained very simply by bunny and squirrel metaphors and is quite an amusing read.
Totally agree. I found understanding topics such as polarisation much easier to understand when a dog and squirrel are involvedBedazzled said:
I'm about half way through Brian Cox's "why does e=mc2". The layman's description of relativity is very good but it's ruined by the explanation of the twins' paradox, where he gives a brief geometric answer and then says "we'll just quote the results because the maths is a bit beyond this book". Riiight.
He keeps appologising for using maths and then embeds all the formulae in the text without showing the step by step substitutions, which actually makes it harder to follow. Here's an example, I still can't get my head around the bit highlighted in yellow...
I hope the second half of the book is better, my brain is feeling a bit frazzled at the moment. It's not a patch on Feynman's lectures, imo.
Ah, the good old 1/sqrt(1-((v^2)/(c^2)))He keeps appologising for using maths and then embeds all the formulae in the text without showing the step by step substitutions, which actually makes it harder to follow. Here's an example, I still can't get my head around the bit highlighted in yellow...
I hope the second half of the book is better, my brain is feeling a bit frazzled at the moment. It's not a patch on Feynman's lectures, imo.
It's a factor that appears again and again in relativity
If you put that formula into excel then draw a graph with v as the speed starting out at 1e7m/s increasing up 3e8m/s and you can see the effect getting closer to the speed of light has.
So the extra energy required to make something move at 0.9 x the speed of light or similar can be found using this.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff