Best nuclear physics books according to redditors
We found 153 Reddit comments discussing the best nuclear physics books. We ranked the 49 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 153 Reddit comments discussing the best nuclear physics books. We ranked the 49 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
This is a fantastic question. I'm really glad you asked it.
First, we need to correct your formula for energy. It's not, as we are so often told, "E=mc^2 ". That equation only works for things that are stationary. Things that can move obey the following, "E = gamma * mc^2 ". This raises the obvious question, what is gamma?
The term "gamma" is shorthand for (1-(v/c)^2 )^(-1/2) , where v is the velocity of whatever is moving, and c is the speed of light. So "gamma" is a funny term that starts at a value of 1 for things that are stationary, but gets bigger and bigger for things moving faster and faster. The closer something moves to the speed of light, the closer gamma gets to infinity!
So, now that we know about gamma, what energy do we expect photons with zero mass to have?
Well, "E = gamma * mc^2 ". m = 0, just like you said. But gamma = infinity. (!) What a clever trick the universe plays! It says that mass-less objects must have zero energy, except if they move at the speed of light! So, photons are, in some sense, a loophole in relativity. Their existence and their energy and momentum can be seen as a technicality that's only permitted if they move at light-speed.
Note: I lifted this interpretation from David J. Griffiths' excellent text "Introduction to Elementary Particles."
It is exactly the same as normal good old fashioned matter in every respect.... except one. In normal matter, the stuff that makes up an atom has an electric charge. In anti-matter, the charge is the exact opposite of what it is in normal matter.
When matter and anti-matter come into contact with one another, the opposite charges react and they obliterate one another.
Anti-matter is not a theoretical concept and should not be confused with dark energy. Anti-matter is real and it can even be produced at places like CERN. However, by its very nature, when an anti-particle is created it only lasts a fraction of a second because as soon as it interacts with regular matter (ie, pretty much everything in the universe!) it gets obliterated.
There are some great theories about anti-matter and how it started off in the big bang. It is suggested that during the big bang both matter and anti-matter were created in equal quantities, they all interacted together and obliterated everything....which would mean that there should be NOTHING left. But there is. We are here. So the question becomes, how did SOME matter survive. Why did the big bang create a tiny bit more matter than anti-matter. That raises all kinds of questions in the world of physics. It is even theorised that there could be entire regions of space and galaxies out there which are made up of only anti-matter and that we would never know about it as they look and act just like any normal galaxy, its not until they bump into some regular matter that they both go bang! It is a fascinating area.
I HIGHLY recommend picking up this book to learn more. It is written at a level that anyone can understand and it takes you through, step by step, the history of it and what it is and everything we know about it, and at the end of the book you will scratch your head and wonder just how you managed to comprehend all of it! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antimatter-Frank-Close/dp/0199578877
Griffiths > Eisberg > Sakurai > Zee > Peskin
Peres and Ballentine offer a more quantum information oriented approach, read em after Griffiths.
Shankar before Sakurai, after Griffiths.
In that order. Your best bet though, is to find the appropriate section in the nearest university library, spend a day or two looking at books and choose whatever looks most interesting/accessible. Be warned, it seems that everyone and their cat has a book published on quantum mechanics with funky diagrams on the cover these days. A lot of them are legitimate, but make little to no effort to ensure your understanding or pose creative problems.
I like to recommend Simon Blackburn's Think as a primer. I would try reading Descartes' Meditations, Aristotle's 'Posterior Analytics', and perhaps G. E. Moore's Philosophical Papers (particularly his essay 'A Defense of Common Sense') alongside Blackburn's book. The recommendations in the sidebar have a few good suggestions (Williams, Blackburn, etc.) for introductory works on ethics.
Random selection of some of my favorites to help you expand your horizons:
The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a great introduction to scientific skepticism.
Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris is a succinct refutation of Christianity as it's generally practiced in the US employing crystal-clear logic.
Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt is the best biography of one of the most interesting men in history, in my personal opinion.
Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a jaw-dropping book on history, journalism, travel, contemporary events, philosophy.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson is a great tome about... everything. Physics, history, biology, art... Plus he's funny as hell. (Check out his In a Sunburned Country for a side-splitting account of his trip to Australia).
The Annotated Mona Lisa by Carol Strickland is a thorough primer on art history. Get it before going to any major museum (Met, Louvre, Tate Modern, Prado, etc).
Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier is a detailed refutation of the whole 'Christianity could not have survived the early years if it weren't for god's providence' argument.
Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman are six of the easier chapters from his '63 Lectures on Physics delivered at CalTech. If you like it and really want to be mind-fucked with science, his QED is a great book on quantum electrodynamics direct from the master.
Lucy's Legacy by Donald Johanson will give you a really great understanding of our family history (homo, australopithecus, ardipithecus, etc). Equally good are Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade and Mapping Human History by Steve Olson, though I personally enjoyed Before the Dawn slightly more.
Memory and the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel gives you context for all the Bible stories by detailing contemporaneous events from the Levant, Italy, Greece, Egypt, etc.
After the Prophet by Lesley Hazleton is an awesome read if you don't know much about Islam and its early history.
Happy reading!
edit: Also, check out the Reasonable Doubts podcast.
I would recommend Introduction to "Elementary Particle Physics" by David Griffiths
Its generally considered a higher-level undergrad book, but as a PhD student I still look at it from time to time, especially if I want to teach a specific subject. He will review the SR and Quantum for you, but at a level that you'd want to have seen it before. There's calc and a little bit of linear algebra, but at such a level that you could learn them for the first time through this text (assuming you've had SOME Calc before)
From there, the next level is sort of "Quarks and Leptons" by Halzen and Martin, which people are generally less excited about, but I enjoyed it.
After that, the top standard that even theorists seem to love is "High Energy Hadron Physics" by Martin Perl, where there are parts of that text that I still struggle with.
I would highly recommend anyone interested in the details at a level the layman can understand pick up Richard Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759
It is IMO the best physics book aimed at the layman I've ever encountered. It gives a very lucid and detailed explanation of why light behaves the way it does in our everyday world, given the quantum mechanical rules it operates under.
Author of two widely used undergratuate physics texts: one for Electricity and Magnetism and one for Quantum Mechanics. He also authored the somewhat-less-widely used (perhaps mainly because it's a specialist subject in most undergrad programs) Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I think Oxford's Very Short Introduction series is a pretty good place to start as far as books go. You can pick a part of philosophy you are interested in and find the introduction to that, or just read the general Philosophy intro. My personal favourite is the VSI to Philosophy of Science by Samir Okasha.
Another good introductory book is Think by Simon Blackburn.
I have found these good introductions, they are written by experts, and directed to the general reader, but without dumbing it down.
As far as the classics of philosophy go, someone else suggested Plato's dialogues and I would add Descartes' Meditations to that. It is short and a pretty good example of how modern philosophy operates. In it Descartes tries to find out what we can know for sure. It is reasonably easy to read too.
Of course, books can be quite expensive (if you torrent you can usually find downloads of many VSIs, and Meditations is out of copyright), and you shouldn't feel you have to have read any of these if you can find cheap copies.
Anything by Feynmann are great reads. For upper division instrumental analysis, spectroscopy, and quantum I wholly recommend QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman et al. It describes all the concepts in the book in layman's terms in a brilliant narrative of chemistry. I recommend it to anyone that wants to learn about the strangeness of physics and chemistry. It is easy to digest.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, although pricey helped me survive physics (I have the paperbacks). It seems you can read the entirety online at that site.
If you choose to do a lot of organic chemistry laboratory work then Advanced Practical Organic Chemistry is a really great resource. It covers just about everything you need to know to be very competent and safe in the lab. I found a used copy of the second edition that has served me well. I don't know what has been updated in the third edition.
I agree with /u/lmo2th Pauling has written albeit old but definitive books on chemistry. Although it can be very difficult to read and knowledge of differential equations is required, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Chemistry by Linus Pauling et al. was the most succinct book on the nitty gritty math of QM I found.
I recently graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry, it was difficult, but I loved every minute I spent in the lab doing research and can't imagine doing anything else. Edit: QED and Feynmann Lectures are great reads for lower division classes. Save the second two for if you decide on chemistry.
Feynman's QED.
Friend asked for a similar list a while ago and I put this together. Would love to see people thoughts/feedback.
Very High Level Introductions:
Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):
Blending the line between pop-sci and mathematical (these books are not meant to be read and put away but instead read, re-read and pondered):
No. Just use r/askphilosophy if you have any questions.
Or, if you're really interested, get an introduction to philosophy book. As introductions, I think the The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law and Think by Simon Blackburn are quite good. For a bit of a more in-depth introduction, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy is very good.
In addition to the other recommendations that have been made: Halzen and Martin goes through electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism in chapter 14, and the Weinberg-Salam model (this is the real deal) in chapter 15. Depending on how much QFT you're familiar with, you can probably skip lots of the content preceding those chapters.
This is the kind of book that's going to be difficult to work through, but in my experience, it's worth the effort.
Confrontational atheism: Testament: Memoir of the Thoughts and Sentiments of Jean Meslier
>"Know, then, my friends, that everything that is recited and practiced in the world for the cult and adoration of gods is nothing but errors, abuses, illusions, and impostures. All the laws and orders that are issued in the name and authority of God or the gods are really only human inventions…."
>"And what I say here in general about the vanity and falsity of the religions of the world, I don’t say only about the foreign and pagan religions, which you already regard as false, but I say it as well about your Christian religion because, as a matter of fact, it is no less vain or less false than any other.
Softer (much less confrontational) atheism: 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
>This unique approach to skepticism presents fifty commonly heard reasons people often give for believing in a God and then raises legitimate questions regarding these reasons, showing in each case that there is much room for doubt. Whether you're a believer, a complete skeptic, or somewhere in between, you'll find this review of traditional and more recent arguments for the existence of God refreshing, approachable, and enlightening.
Favorites non-fiction (or at least mostly non-fiction as time will tell) and not directly related to atheism: Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension and The Illustrated A Brief History of Time and the Universe in a Nutshell
Favorites fiction (also not directly atheist related): Treasure Island, and Hogfather: A Novel of Discworld
Atheism book I've tried to read and found to be over my head that's supposed to be the end-all-be-all: The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
***
Currently reading and while enjoyable it's a bit tough to get, I've found myself re-reading pages regularly: QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
It was also a book cover before the Strokes album:
The Particle Garden by Gordon Kane:
http://www.amazon.com/Particle-Garden-Universe-Understood-Physicists/dp/0201408260
There have been some excellent responses here and I suspect my own contribution would pale in comparison to what has already been posted, mainly since I'm already trying to figure out what I think about the issue myself.
All I can say is that you could do worse than try reading some Philosophy. I highly recommend Simon Blackburn's introductory philosophy book. It's fascinating and assumes no prior knowledge: http://www.amazon.com/Think-Compelling-Introduction-Simon-Blackburn/dp/0192100246
If you're interested in physics, I'd check out Richard Feynman's QED.
It's a short book adapted from a series of lectures he gave on quantum electrodynamics. It's written and explained in such a way that someone with no physics or math background can get a huge amount out of the book.
The usual notation for a function of more than one variable is
<name>(<arg1>,<arg2>,...)That is, B is a function of two variables, and the expression on the right is (B evaluated at Z and N) minus (B evaluated at Z and N-1).
Usually, function notation is introduced by Algebra II (or midway through the Integrated Mathematics sequence at some high schools), and the book you're reading expression appears on page 6) is for students with about the level of mathematical and physical understanding of a physics major, which includes but is not limited to multi-variable calculus, linear algebra, and ordinary differential equations.
You're way out of your depth here.
I found Thomson's book called modern particle physics a great read
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Particle-Physics-Mark-Thomson/dp/1107034264
The best simple explanation of QM that I've read was Oxford University Press' A Very Short Introduction to Quantum Theory. Written by a student of Dirac's, it traces the intellectual history of QM while presenting all sides in the debates over interpretation as well as presenting the author's own biases up front. The appendixes contain the math, so the main text is readable even for someone with only minimal math background (such as myself).
Thats it for purely skeptic books, but some other science ones are
EDIT: Found this page http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptical_books_for_children_and_young_adults/
Uncle Albert
http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Quantumland-Allegory-Quantum-Physics/dp/0387914951/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381345002&sr=8-1&keywords=alice+in+quantum+land
http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Universe-Not-so-Grimm-cosmology/dp/0387955666/ref=la_B001ILHHJM_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381345017&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Quarks-Fantasy-Particle-Physics/dp/0387950710/ref=la_B001ILHHJM_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381345017&sr=1-2
Quantum electrodynamics explains it using probability amplitudes. Rather than treating light as a particle that bounces off at a point where angle of incidence equals angle of reflection, it approaches it using a quantum mechanical approach incorporating the idea that light is also a wave.
Each point on the mirror acts as an absorption and emission surface, and each point can absorb light from the source and emit light towards the detector (angles don't have to be equal). Taking into wave-like nature of light though, there will be constructive and deconstructive interference between adjacent points. It turns out that there is greatest constructive interference for lights of all wavelength at the point where angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.
Since interference is wavelength dependent, you can selectively choose which colours would be preferred over others at certain angles by modifying the mirror surface - this is how diffraction grating works.
You can read more about it in Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
Most of your questions can be answered by reading a text such as Quarks and Leptons. Chapters 13 and 14 go through the structure of the Standard Model Lagrangian. You can also use a program like MadGraph to compute scattering amplitudes and Feynman diagrams.
I usually think about the last chapter of this that I read. I try to poke holes in whatever logic I've just been studying. It's pretty awesome. But I only do that in between listening to music.
I don't know of any decent online particle physics resources. But there are two good books at the undergraduate level I can think of Griffiths and Halzen and Martin
For superconductivity you want to learn many body quantum mechanics, ie non-relativistic quantum field theory. The most common recommendation is Fetter and Walecka, but I might consider Thouless to be superior on account of it being 1/3rd the length and probably only covers core topics. If you feel like dropping a lot of money, Mahan is very good, but also somewhat exhaustive. Might be worth having as a reference depending on how serious you get. I would get F&W and Thouless simply on account of how cheap they are.
Quantum
Easy: Zettili, Comprehensive reference: Cohen-Tannoudji
or if you want more foundational books
Easy: Schumacher and Westmoreland, Comprehensive: Ballentine
Yes, it's an approximation. This is evidenced by effects like the Lamb shift that cannot be explained with classical electrodynamics (e.g. Coulomb's law). One way of putting quantum electrodynamics (QED) is that two charged particles "communicate" with each other by exchanging photons, "telling" each other whether to come closer or farther apart, and by how much. If you're curious, I suggest reading Feynman's layman explanation.
I know I'm tardy to the party, but I found that it's best to start with general surveys of philosophy, so you're exposed to a wide range of thought, then narrowing down your interests.
Personally, I found the following to be the most helpful:
From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest
Think
What Does It All Mean?
The Problems of Philosophy
I can recommend couple that I have read myself:
Edit: These are popular science books, though. But very well written.
I'd switch out Griffith's 'Elementary Particles' book with Thompson's Particle Physics instead
That the universe is governed by rules does not imply that it is determinate. If you think nature is determinate, I suggest you study some quantum mechanics. This book and these lectures on which it is based are great starting points.
I'm just glad I could help. I would recommend for you the book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, which is a transcription of four lectures by Richard Feynman.
If you don't know who Richard Feynman is, he's one of the people who won a Nobel prize for the formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics (the interaction of photons with charged particles like electrons). But more importantly than that, Feynman was EXCELLENT at talking about science in a manner that laypeople can understand, without actually dumbing down the material. These lectures explain QED in straightforward English. I strongly recommend it, it's definitely worth the $12. Hopefully this book will be a jumping-off point to further learning for you (as it was for me). Enjoy!
> Could you help me understand this without the requirement of consciousness as a factor in the experiment?
Sure. It's not "interfering." You get the same pattern of bands as you would if it were a wave, but that doesn't make it a wave.
You know how probability works? The probability of A or B happening is the sum of the probabilities (roughly) and the probability of both happening is the product of the probabilities? QED works the same way, except the probabilities are two-dimensional. Thus, it looks like wave interference, because waves follow the same math.
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/
It's nothing to do with consciousness. Indeed, since science has not determined precisely and measurably what consciousness is or how it works, why would you think there's anything to do with consciousness in the experiment? That's what Schrodinger's Cat is all about. Is the cat conscious enough to collapse the waveform? Is it your consciousness at the computer what is making the CPU work in your machine? Don't be silly, of course it isn't. Don't you think the computer would run the same way regardless of whether you were "observing" it?
The quantum eraser is about this: Not only can a particle "interfere" with particles that didn't exist at the same time as it did, but it can interfere or not depending on events that happen after you've already measured the particle. What has that to do with "consciousness"?
Instead of asking me to prove or explain why consciousness doesn't have anything to do with QED, why don't you try to explain how we build devices that can photograph individual atoms and their bonds without being able to even clearly define what consciousness is. It should then become obvious that consciousness doesn't come into the theory of quantum mechanics any more than angels are required to run a nuclear reactor.
By the way, even if QED did require some sort of "consciousness", what in the world does that have to do with requiring a deity? That makes even less sense than saying a failure of a prediction of evolution logically implies the existence of a deity.
If you want a fun fictional treatment:
http://www.amazon.com/Quarantine-Greg-Egan/dp/0061054232
If you want a more general introduction into philosophy there's a Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn and the older What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy by Thomas Nagel. A more academic introduction (the last two books are more aimed at a general audience) is Fundamentals of Philosophy edited by John Shand. If you're willing to sit through it there also Russel's classic A History of Western Philosophy, which is a sort of introduction to philosophy through the history of the field (the audiobook is on youtube btw), and there also his Problems of Philosophy
I'm not that familiar with eastern philosophy, but a classic introduction to Existentialism is Walter Kaufmann's Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre and it should go nicely with Existentialism is a Humanism.
Hope this helps :)
I love science books. These are all on my bookshelf/around my apt. They aren't all chemistry, but they appeal to my science senses:
I got a coffee table book once as a gift. It's Theodore Gray's The Elements. It's beautiful, but like I said, more of a coffee table book. It's got a ton of very cool info about each atom though.
I tried The Immortal Life of Henrieta Lacks, which is all about the people and family behind HeLa cells. That was a big hit, but I didn't care for it.
I liked The Emperor of all Maladies which took a long time to read, but was super cool. It's essentially a biography of cancer. (Actually I think that's it's subtitle)
The Wizard of Quarks and Alice in Quantumland are both super cute allegories relating to partical physics and quantum physics respectively. I liked them both, though they felt low-level, tying them to high-level physics resulted in a fun read.
Unscientific America I bought on a whim and didn't really enjoy since it wasn't science enough.
The Ghost Map was a suuuper fun read about Cholera. I love reading about mass-epidemics and plague.
The Bell that Rings Light, In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, Schrödinger's Kittens, The Fabric of the Cosmos and Beyond the God Particle are all pleasure reading books that are really primers on Quantum.
I also tend to like anything by Mary Roach, which isn't necessarily chemistry or science, but is amusing and feels informative. I started with Stiff but she has a few others that I also enjoyed.
Have fun!
Subatomic Physics by Henley and Garcia is a very accessible book. We're using it for our upper div nuclear physics series and it's been very good so far. It's not very rigorous but will teach you nuclear physics very well. I see used copies for about $15 on amazon currently.
http://www.amazon.com/Subatomic-Physics-Ernest-M-Henley/dp/9812700560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301974962&sr=8-1
It's truly a whole new world to explore. I read the book Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn last year as a starting point. Great stuff. I'd recommend it if you'd like to dip your toes into philosophy a bit more. It's pretty cheap on used book sites as well.
> Thank you so much for your answer! I get why there are two terms now, but I still don't get the subtraction & addition of states. I think the problem is I don't fully understand the idea of symmetry of states, I googled it and kept finding symmetry in the geometric definition. Can you give me some pointers for how to understand symmetry of states?
The symmetry in question here is a specific kind of symmetry, not your typical geometric one: it’s exchange symmetry.
There’s a very deep connection between spin and exchange symmetry, known as the spin-statistics theorem, but it’s very difficult to explain in non-mathematical terms. Feynman has a more-or-less successful explanation in the book
Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics:
The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001565AU8/
but it may still be difficult to understand if you haven’t had the training of a professional physicist. You’ll probably understand it better if you first read through and absorb the material here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles#Quantum_mechanical_description_of_identical_particles
Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy I hear this is a good place to start.
Thinking Through Philosophy: An Introduction I know this is good
Not weird at all. When you find out how weird quantum physics is, it's hard not to be interested. I first read about it at around the same age and it's fascinated me ever since.
If you haven't yet, read Feynman's QED, which is a great introduction from a famous physicist. The only math is a little arithmetic.
Maybe Ballentine is what you are looking for:
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-A-Modern-Development/dp/9810241054
Edit: actually, one of my favourite resources is Landau & Lifshitz, Vol. 3. Very dense with information.
My graduate particle physics class used Modern Particle Physics by Thomson (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107034264/ref=pe_385040_30332190_TE_3p_dp_1) which I liked better than the Griffiths book (which I used during the graduate particle physics class I took in undergrad). Good focus on experimental results and how they tied into the development of the field, if I recall correctly.
Get this book, I think you would enjoy it and it would probably answer most (if not all) of your questions.
At a certain point you have to just accept that electricity behaves the way it does, just because it does. A lot of the way we talk about electricity is convention, or it makes general assumptions about the way electricity behaves that in most cases are well-founded, so you can get away with them. If you really start to dig, stuff can get weird.
If you want a glimpse of how strange reality can get, read this. It is not directly about electrons but it talks about light so there are some similarities. Plus Feynman is a great author.
I think the best route is to trick her into being interested in books. I think I just might have a trick for that.
Send her the wikipedia article for "trolley problem", and then send her the wiki article on judith thomson's violinist argument in favor of abortion. Then send her a link to parfit's transporter thought experiment. It's ideal if you can find versions of these online which are easy to read and presented in a cool manner. (blog entries are ideal for this. Here's a blog entry on parfit's teletransporter: http://twophilosoraptors.blogspot.com/2010/07/teletransporter.html)
Then buy her What If...collected thought experiments in philosophy off amazon or ebay. A used one will be cheap, or take it out from the library and renew it online while she uses it. If she got intrigued by the above thought experiments, and is intrigued by strange paradoxes about truth, like the liar paradox, or leibniz's law, then she will absolutely love this book. It's full of one-page, easily consumable versions of thought experiments, and then the page next to that one contains elaboration on the experiment and current work on it. One of my favorites in there is Max Black's two spheres, which seem to violate leibniz's law. A fun alternative to this, with bite sized philosophy things is "plato and a platypus walk into a bar".
If she continues to show interest in these, you can feed her new information about them via blogs like peasoup and thoughts, arguments, and rants, by googling the name of blogs like these next to a particular paradox or thought experiment, e.g. "thoughts arguments and rants moores paradox". This will lead you to new work by contemporary philosophers on the subjects, which may feed her interest into what it is that philosophers actually do. Eventually this may prompt her to want to read a full book on philosophy, to have a more mature understanding of how these paradoxes and TE's work, then you could get her the very interesting Think by simon blackburn, which is a general intro to philosophy, or the shorter very short introduction books. You can work up to more advanced, interesting work from there (like David Lewis' On the plurality of worlds, which opens the trippy possibility that all possibilities are realities).
Hope she enjoys her reading!
> "... they cannot be both at the same time ..." This is so wrong (see: quantum mechanics).
I really hate it when people talk about this stuff without having any actual knowledge regarding what they are talking about. Just go and read an actual book on quantum physics. Aside from that quantum physics averages out on larger scales anyway to give us the kind of physics we know. Furthermore, physics is about measuring and modeling empirical reality etc etc and does not have much to do with logic per se (which is an a priori discipline). But I guess to you things like sets of numbers being either finite or infinite or the question of whether I actually ate breakfast or not at 6 am today are things that can easily be subject to quantum superposition...
Btw and just to make this clear, epistemological issues becoming apparent due to the accuracy of measurement do not imply that there is no actual fact of the matter. See e.g. the relational interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat#Relational_interpretation) of quantum mechanics, or the work of philosopher Wolfgang Smith (https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/1597310077).
>We can speculate though: "... they cannot be both from the same point of view ...".
It was you that just omitted my " it nonetheless seems clear that..." How damn intellectually dishonest can you get? Well, given your Quantum woo reference I guess I should not be surprised.
>This is so wrong
It is funny how people who can not back up their stuff with facts tend to use stronger language to make up for it.
I think S. Blackburn's Think is an excellent introduction to some of the major areas in philosophy. You might also what to look at some of the philosophical books in the "Very Short Introduction" series, for example the Philosophy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Philosophy of Science and Free Will ones, which as you can guess are good places to start.
A book I quite enjoyed as an introduction to the great philosophers was The Philosophy Book, which not only gave clear descriptions of each of the philosophers' views, but also often gave a clear flowchart summary of their arguments.
I quite like
Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00MN96BHW/
I really enjoyed Thomson's Modern Particle Physics, but it's aimed at advanced undergrads who have taken quantum mechanics. It's a great book for understanding modern phenomenology, as it was published in 2013.
All the best stuff I learned from excited grad students who had just learned it themselves. If you can't find one of them, it is in Jackson. But oddly enough, there was this one appendix in Blatt and Weiskopf that really explained it well. IIRC, you could probably digest it after a semester of Griffiths' E&M.
a. Stanford. But a lot of people who work with me did not go to big-name schools. UC Irvine, Iowa State, Oregon state, etc. Where I work, there's lots of UW. Where I used to work before that; lots of RPI and USC.
b. I got great grades in high school, but slipped a little bit in college. (This made my life difficult later. A good GPA makes it easier to be hired, and is practically necessary if you want a Masters, something that many many many engineers have today). Classes: I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you this, but take all the math and physics you can. And try to learn some of this stuff outside of school (it can be more fun that way), pick up some books, try to get through the Feynman Lectures on Physics (or just Six Easy Pieces and QED to start off), some Martin Gardner, books like Euler's Gem, learn HTML, try your hand at programming, build LEGO robots... all that kind of stuff will make it easier to learn the stuff you need to learn to become an engineer.
Fun to Imagine series of videos
The Feynman Series playlist
The World From Another Point of View
Read his book QED. Fantastic book.
These reality branches can add together, or even cancel out. This effects the probability of certain events occurring, which can be tested by repeating experiments.
I would try to explain it further, but I am sure I'll mess it up. I recommend QED, which is surprisingly easy to read.
You remind me a lot of those guys at the party who want to sound smart in areas they have superficial knowledge of.
> Can't light's behavior be solely modeled as a wave?
Only at macroscopic scales can light be "solely" described as a wave. Quantum Electrodynamics has already shown that light can be solely described in terms of particles only. (IMHO,) Q.E.D. is a completed theory.
> Why do we think it even needs to be a particle?
> What behavior of light is solely a property of a particle and not a wave?
Expect the ebst as usual.
His previous book,
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208
is a reference, and by the way readable.
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Link: QED is the one more relevant to this discussion.
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).
> do you mean that they are man-made tools to help picture and calculate and predict?
Yes.
> once we figured out that light is the oscillation of the EM field, that proved to us that fields are actually a real physical... thing.
That's definitely not the case (the second part.) In fact the experiments of Michelson and Morley are usually cited as definitive proof that it's not a real, physical thing.
> If you don't feel confident answering, are there any books you would refer me to?
Check out Feynman's books "6 Not-So-Easy Pieces" and "QED". QED is the one more relevant to this discussion. I would also recommend Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality if you have a lot of spare time and are willing to keep up with it properly.
Are you taking an intro to physics course as an undergraduate? If so, and if you are interested enough to take more coursework on physics, try taking an EMags (Electromagnetic Fields) class in the EE or physics department. 20th century physics (relativity) and a couple of QM (Quantum Mechanics) classes would be helpful as well. After you take a couple of EM and QM courses, you'll really appreciate how god damn hard it is to have any sort of "intuition" about physics, and how important it is to just treat the math like math.
Well if you are willing to delve into a textbook I would recommend Griffiths, it starts by introducing the history of particle physics, which is pretty cool, and the initial chapters aren't tooooo math heavy. You will probably need to have taken a course in quantum mechanics though.
For something less technical than a textbook, I can't give you a solid recommendation, but I've heard good things about The Infinity Puzzle.
Here are some books I would suggest looking at:
Cahn and Goldhaber -- A very low math book that documents the discoveries many of the most important advancements in particle physics of the last fifty or so years.
Halzen and Martin -- One of the best introductions to particle physics out there. It's very readable and timeless. It does have some math though.
I would also suggest looking for information on the following things, but I don't have time to dig up suitable references for you:
The construction of Fermilab basically transformed the area west of Chicago from farmland to a technical corridor. There must be some historical sources on this change.
Partice physicists have produced a huge amount of innovation as a side effect of wanting to do effective research. The most common example is the internet. They also pioneered distributed computing (ie the Grid) which was the predecessor of the "Cloud." For the construction the LHC, junctions that allow current to be continuously passed from regular-conduction to super-conducting circuits were invented. And don't forget that one of the earliest particle accelerators, the cyclotron in Chicago, showed that it was possible to split the atom.
You might consider reading QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by Richard Feynman. It's a short, inexpensive, book based on 4 lectures he gave for the general public on the subject of light. With all due respect to those who have answered you so far, I think Feynman's explanation is clearer.
The 4 lectures themselves are available in streaming video.
Damn, actually I thought he was suggesting this be our holy book.
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321740625&sr=1-1
>To answer I guess it would be an unusual intentional altering of normal physical processes by some agent outside those processes. Or something, kind of hard to come up with one that fits everything.
That sounds like a good definition. I still don’t know how we (a) separate a natural event from one caused by an outside agent, whatever that is, and (b) how we can tell if claims of miracles are true or just made up. Like it would be a miracle if David Copperfield really transported himself, but he merely gives the illusion of doing this.
>To answer I guess it would be an unusual intentional altering of normal physical processes by some agent outside those processes. Or something, kind of hard to come up with one that fits everything.
What is the overwhelming evidence? I mean what is your very best bit of evidence? Or top 3, top 5, top 10...
At the end I know you take me up on some other sources, which I will provide, and a key learning of them is that it’s really hard to actually figure out real truths, to be really sure of things, and it’s very easy to fool yourself along the way. Just think that for many people, for a long time, even with overwhelming evidence of it being the case, it would have appeared that the sun/moon/stars moved around the earth, being at the center. But that would have been wrong. This is how careful you need to be before accepting things as true, because it’s very easy to fool yourself.
>Muhammed was the most obvious false prophet in history. Allah is capricious, even to muslims, arbitrarily allowing believers into heaven or not.
So what? How do we know God (if he exists) is even the “good guy”?
>Whether or not I picked the right one, I would not pick one so obviously wrong
What are you basing your notion of “wrong” on? Some subjective personal feeling about how God must be?
>Not all miracles are equivalent, and not all miracle accounts are equivalent.
I agree, some can be made up on the spot, others talking about for centuries. But which ones can you actually demonstrate to be true?
The link you provide gives no evidence outside of a circular argument based on Biblical accounts. Anyone can write down a claim in a book, that is still just a claim, not evidence of the claim.
>There are no physically possible options
You’re claiming to know. And maybe you’re even right, maybe there are no “physically possible” options whatever that means. Maybe there is a non-physical option. But the simple truth is we don’t know what that is (we can only take faith in some version of it, which again, is a horrible way to figure out truth).
>The appropriate answer is that we do know - no natural options are possible, therefore the origin is supernatural.
there are also a whole hell of a lot of “supernatural” options. Could be the Christian God, could be Allah, could be as George Carlin put it, some supernatural force that brought the universe as we know it into existence but doesn’t care about us at all (I think probably the most likely, to assume otherwise is very hubristic): https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/235413-something-is-wrong-here-war-disease-death-destruction-hunger-filth
>You think that the unscientific musings some people use to explain the origin of the laws of physics are somehow so robust that it becomes a scientific certainty that the laws of physics could not have changed since then? Is that what you're saying?
Just show me the evidence that they’ve changed and we can put this to bed.
>So I guess you prefer circular reasoning, or perhaps an infinite regression? Those are the only three options according to baron von munchhausen, so let me know what you choose before attacking axiomatic reasoning.
I already said it’s UNKNOWN. Maybe it’s an unknown supernatural force that set things in motion but isn’t conscious, doesn’t care. Maybe it’s an infinite regress we can’t understand. You are the one using circular arguments to state it must be a certain way. You even seem certain that Mohammed is a false prophet. Please go take your evidence for that to the Middle East because it would solve a lot of problems.
I see you think the Quran is disproven through contradictions. Maybe that’s one reason to question it, but I think the bigger problem is simply that it has not been proven because evidence hasn’t been provided to confirm it’s truth. It has to be accepted on faith that it is the word of God as given to Mohammed. Same problem with the Bible, it has to be taken on faith that it’s portraying real events (like the resurrection of Jesus).
Now for the information I offered, I would start with a short video and a commencement speech; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
(He talks about pseudosciences and poor approaches to science, and please just realize that religious claims are like another order of magnitude more absurd when it comes to accepting them as true)
These both deal with the pitfalls we can succumb to and “fool ourselves”, and how difficult it is to really figure something out. If this interests you even slightly, I highly highly suggest this book: https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691125759
Because he is able to describe the known (DEMONSTRATED) behavior of light and quantum mechanics, without using any equations, and tells you how it really is. The purpose of reading this (even just the first couple chapters) is to provide an understanding of the level of depth us humans have been able to go to in understanding the world around us, and help you put Biblical claims into context. The fact that Biblical claims come nowhere remotely close to fitting the most bare bones requirements that would be applied to saying a scientific theory is true, I know most theists dismiss as “well that’s because this is outside the realm of science” - but you’ve never demonstrated that! Again it all comes down to faith, and it not the fault of science that we’ve learned how to really learn things, not just take faith in some story.
1984. I can't remember how old I was, but I must have been a young teenager. I'd say of any book I've read, it's the one that comes to mind most often.
Also Think by Simon Blackburn. A basic introduction to western philosophy, it really sparked my interest at a young age and formed the basis for a love of philosophy, metaphysics, and just taking the time to deeply examine concepts and ideas.
For what it's worth, I thought the first 3 (or maybe 4) chapters were pretty decent for an introduction to QM. It was mainly after perturbation theory where it got less good. Lucky for me, the professor who taught the second semester QM used the book mostly for the problems and supplementary reading.
I also have nothing against leaving things as problems in general, but feel that Griffiths takes it too far, the Stark effect problem being the main example that has stuck with me. Ultimately, some things are just too important to gloss over by leaving as a problem to the reader. A good instructor would certainly cover something like the Stark effect, but then it would be nice to have some text on it, too.
As for other books, Shankar is good, as is Bransden and Joachain's book. My all time favorite is this one by Ballentine. It is supposed to be a graduate level text, but I think it is very good in general, especially for undergrads who have already taken an introductory QM course. I used it extensively as a supplementary text in graduate QM and would have used it as an undergrad had I known of it then.
Maybe, there's a possibility the Higgs Boson that was found was a mistake and not a Higgs Boson, if so would mean the Higgs Boson wasn't found and as such hasn't been confirmed.
There's even a book on the idea: https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249
Just google "Higgs Boson imposter".
Ed Storms (as far as I know his organization is "LENRGY, LLC, Santa Fe, NM, USA) On the site dedicated to his latest book "LENR Explained" about his theory, Edmund Storms published this announce with a PROGRESS REPORT #1 and PROGRESS REPORT #2
Hydroton theory validation calorimeter
Edmund Storms will publish soon a 3rd progress report on LENRexplained.com. He observed and corrected a calorimeter drift, caused by "curing". It was observed during a routine recalibration. He also worked on PdAg alloy preparation which is not easy (needs H2-O2 flame), the activation of the surface (needs avoid Cl contamination) and measurement of composition by EDX... To appreciate what he has done, some may want to read this Student guide to cold fusion or his big book
> Leslie Ballentine's book
these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Development-Leslie-Ballentine/dp/9810241054
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/048663518X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542818674&sr=1-1&keywords=linear+algebra+Halmos
https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691125759
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420946331/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
The latter is at gutenberg.org as well. Good idea with some of the simpler and less creative gymnastics.
As far as philosophy's concerned, these two in particular are a bit classic. The less time is spent on dealing with and accepting experiments, the further into lala land of maths you go. None of these newer theories actually offer an answer and are creative proposals that all fall short of a physical description and process. QED by Feynman is entertaining and funny, and you won't find better explanations that doesn't discuss some mathematical idea, which means we've left the realm of philosophy and physics in a classical sense. Because saying the "maths works", so let's justify it with something that sound plausible is really starting to get old.
​
So this is perhaps "basic" and what you were asking for. But it may offer a grounding before exploring all the terms and ideas that can be referenced when calculating and wanting to make a prediction. Or a phenomenological argument that has little to do with experiments and well off into the fringes of physics regions. Phenomenology is not philosophy in this sense, it's an subjective argument based on own work and experience and is largely subjective and hinges on whatever idea it revolves around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(physics)
In HEP, predictions come after preliminary data, where application of theories and calculations are the "phenomena" and the experimental results with high statistical significance is the "horse". So to compete here you need a rumour mill and access to let's say 2-4 sigma results. Experiments are cool, hoping for something truly revealing, theory dealing with results and what it means gets boring with these speculations. Good luck finding an article that argues a problem.
I think what you are looking for is Quantum Enigma by Wolfgang Smith. I haven't read it yet but it looks interesting. While I don't think there's been a ton of work on reconciling Thomsim/Neo-Scholasticism with QM, I think that is because many don't see a clear conflict. As one of your commenters points out, Feser kind of hand waves QM's challenges to causation away with a "well just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean there isn't one." I think that may be an acceptable response but it certainly isn't a satisfying one.
On the subject of QM, I posted this interview yesterday with Stephen Barr, a leading physicist who proposes that if anything QM reinforces classical theism rather than undermines it. You can Google some of his work but I don't know if he's a Thomist or delves too deep into philosophy (which would make him like all other physicists...I kid I kid).
John Polkinghorn
Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192802526
The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee The book starts off by claiming that the greatest physicists such as Einstein, Dirac or Schrödinger would have considered the “discovery” of the Higgs particle ridiculous. The reasons, according to the author, are that: “1) the so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated, 2) none of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved, 3) history suggests that the current model is a dead end, 4) with their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results, 5) scientific convictions in the community are established by blind faith in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and 6) the data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody.” Unzicker gives a historical survey of the field, and concludes that particle physics, as practiced since 1930, is “a futile enterprise in its entirety.”
I'd rather call it premature and lucky by accident. This is how relativity has been actually "proven" by deflection of light of stars during 1919 eclipse. On the left is theoretical prediction of Einstein, on the right the actual observation of it made by Eddington: clearly fake, expectation bias or cherry picking of data from contemporary perspective. What Eddington actually observed was turbulent disk of dark matter around Sun trapped by solar corona (the similar turbulence ruined Gravity B probe "proof" of frame drag around Earth). Both Eddington both Gravity B observations were thus quite physically relevant - but only very vaguely compatible with general relativity.
The actual behavior of Higgs field is also way more complex than Standard Model implies - but its higher order terms were swept under the carpet for not to delay appraisal of Peter Higgs and investments into LHC upgrade. See also:
Is Higgs Boson Acting Weird at LHC?
Well, if you want a concentrated course of study you might consider looking for secondary sources that focus on particular areas of research in philosophy rather than trying to read very few (5-10) authors in real depth. I see Kant has been suggested, for example, and while I would never doubt his importance as a philosopher, if you set out with the intention of reading the bulk of his works as you say you might you would have to tackle a great deal of dry, technical material which I think would prove to be a lot more work than you could expect. Same could be said for Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Descartes, nearly anyone you really might care to list. I don't know if you've read much philosophy, but you might instead look at something like an introduction to philosophy, an intro to ethics, or an intro to the philosophy of mind. These are only some examples, there are books like this for pretty much any area of study that attracts your interest. I'm sure others could provide suggestions as well.
Fair enough. But I think I can confidently say that employing 10's of thousands of physics to "discover" the Higgs boson is unlikely to result in a payoff. Ever. According to some, the whole thing was a boondoggle from the start - an exercise designed to separate foolish governments from some of their extra cash they had that was simply lying around. They've played that trick once. What are they going to try the next time?
This book takes a great deal about this. https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Adventures-Islands-Forgotten-Isotopic/dp/153842617X
Sophie's World is a good recommendation. If you don't want fiction, I'd suggest (and have in other, similar threads) Simon Blackburn's Think as a good, high-level overview of Philosophy. I'd also pick up a text specifically about logic and/or critical thinking that covers basic argument structure and the common fallacies (perhaps The Philosopher's Toolkit ). After reading those, you should have a grasp on both how philosophers do their thing as well as an overview of the various topics in philosophy. From there, you can start reading more about the areas that particularly interest you.
Alan Watts is great - but he's no philosopher. He even claims this himself.
He is more aligned with religion than anything else - maybe best described as a spiritualist. He wasn't exactly going about his work with the same rigor, for example, as St. Aquinas and Anselm.
Though Albert Camus claimed not to be a philosopher as well - but that is the funny thing about continental philosophy - half the time you can't distinguish them from plain authors. :-)
As for recommendations - this is really tough.
Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy would be a good one to read - but maybe not for general purposes.
For epistemology, you can't beat Gettier's Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?. It's more like a one page read, however.
Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is great for the section on the problems of induction.
For general purpose though (and I have to give credit to my SO, who has a PhD in philosophy and has taught it for ages), I think Simon Blackburn's Think might be one of the better surveys and general introductions to philosophy.
Hope this helps. :-)
In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, yes, "most" of the paths involve the particle breaking lightspeed. I've never seen the path-integral formulation worked out for relativistic quantum mechanics... If I had to guess, I'd say that the unphysical speed > c paths don't contribute to the result even if they are included... but that's just a guess. This is a really good question. If you post in /r/AskScience or /r/AskPhysics someone will probably come along with a really complete answer.
A really good place to go from here would be Feynman's book QED, where he explain the path integral formalism without expecting any prerequisites. I'd call it a "semi-populariztion" type of book.
This is a good start
and so is this!
This is, possibly surprisingly, good too.
If you're looking to jump right into a text and think you have a grip on the language, try Foucault's Madness and Civilization It's great and pretty easy to read.
Another good introduction (or at least, MY introduction to philosophy is Slavoj Zizek. He's pretty easy to read and understand, but makes ties to Lacan, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc in a cohesive manner that makes you want to learn more. Of his work, I'd check out The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Parallax View or watch his movie! (Which is extraordinarily entertaining for how dense it is. He's also kind of amazing in a philosophical rock star kind of way.)
Hope that gets you started!
I can only find the Amazon Kindle version. :(
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691125759
'QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter' by Richard Feynman https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BR40XJ6/
Just 180 pages, most of it pretty well understandable by the layperson (like me). Explains all this.
QED: The strange theory of light and matter by Richard P. Feynman
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759
Personally, I think you would get great suggestions on /r/physics. But since you're here...
Since you seem like you're just dipping your toes in the water, you might want to start off with something basic like Hawking (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell).
I highly recommend Feynman's QED, it's short but there's really no other book like it. Anything else by Feynman is great too. I found this on Amazon and though I haven't read it, I can tell you that he was the greatest at explaining complex topics to a mass audience.
You'll probably want to read about relativity too, although my knowledge of books here is limited. Someone else can chime in, maybe. When I was a kid I read Einstein for Beginners and loved it, but that's a comic book so it might not be everyone's cup of tea.
If you really want to understand quantum mechanics and don't mind a little calculus (OK, a lot), try the textbook Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. Don't settle for hokey popular misconceptions of how QM works, this is the real thing and it will blow your mind.
Finally, the most recent popular physics book I read and really enjoyed was The Trouble with Physics by Smolin. It's ostensibly a book about how string theory is likely incorrect, but it also contains really great segments about the current state of particle physics and the standard model.
>Man, I've already told you. That answer to that question isn't compressible by me to you.
No, it is. It really is.
> It's Shadows of the Mind. Not the easiest read, but not the hardest either.
I'll pick it up. However from googling I think you have misinterpreted Penrose's quantum gravity.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/
It's a hypotheses as to why the wave function decoheres. That's a completely different issue than the effects.
I highly recommend Feynman's QED. If you have any desire to understand Quantum Mechanics, you will understand after reading it. It requires no math.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/0691125759/ref=olp_tab_all
The Feynman Lectures are a perfect introduction to physics from high school level all the way up to degree level.
A good understanding of maths is essential to more advanced physics and there is an excellent textbook written by two extremely qualified headmaster's called The Language Of Physics: A Foundation for University Study which is what's recommended to first year University students and poses questions at the end of each chapter.
If you're looking for something a little less intimidating, then the A Very Short Introduction series have a perfect range of short (and cheap!) books on Physics: [Quantum Theory]
(https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0192802526/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9A3MSV2XSQRYF880MYP6), Relativity, Particle Physics, Cosmology, Nuclear Physics, Black Holes, Thermodynamics, Astrophysics, Light and Magnetism. These are great little books that don't blow your head off!
Physics is an extremely interesting subject to read around and I wish you the best with it :)
Antimatter
Richard Feynman's "Strange Theory of Light and Matter" explains why. It's all about probabilities.
I'll recommend QED by Richard P. Feynman. It's not a textbook, and it has no math. Yet it quickly leads to a solid understanding of QM.
​
https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691125759/ref=dp_ob_title_bk