Best physics books according to redditors

We found 1,984 Reddit comments discussing the best physics books. We ranked the 687 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

Astrophysics & space science books
Cosmology books
Biophysics books
Chaos theory books
Geophysics books
Electron microscopes & microscopy books
Microscopes & microscopy books
Acoustics & sound books
Dynamics physics books
Physics of gravity books
Physics of light books
Mathematical physics books
Physics of mechanics books
Molecular physics books
Nanostructures in physics books
Nuclear physics books
Quantum theory books
Solid-state physics books
Optical physics books
Relativity physics books
System theory books
Time physics books
Waves & wave mechanics books
Electromagnetism books
Physics of entropy books
Chemical physics books
Applied physics books
Quantum chemistry books
Engineering in physics books

Top Reddit comments about Physics:

u/palish · 256 pointsr/pics

Oh? Really? Refraction is easy peasy, eh?

You may have heard that the speed of light slows down depending on the density of the material through which it passes.

But in reality, light sniffs out every possible path, then chooses the least resistant.

Every photon, trillions upon trillions upon trillions of them, considers every possible path through space! When you start to think about "how could such a thing even be possible?" then you get really mindblown.

Check out QED by Feynman for some mindbending. I'd recommend reading the book, but you could watch the lectures.

EDIT: For the truly curious, you can read Chapter 2 of the book here. It's the most accurate refraction ELI5 that exists (or probably will ever exist). It's probably impossible to simplify the explanation any further.

u/lectrick · 96 pointsr/todayilearned

Well here's how it went down.

  1. Got a 5 on the AP test and 100% on the New York State Regents, earning me the privilege of having the high school physics lab named after me (no shit, the head of the science department was the AP Physics teacher and had promised that) Bizzarrely, I already knew I was going to get it when he announced it. (In fact, even in 9th grade I had a strange feeling when I passed that lab... I knew it would be awesome.) My name stayed on it for 10 years.

  2. Went to Cornell as a Physics major (cue "I went to Cornell, ever hear of it?" references), proceeded to get anally butt-raped by "weed-out" engineering calculus classes that I did not remotely have the work discipline for (6 hour problem sets twice a week?) In high school I had my mom yelling at me to get shit done; in college I had people pulling me away to party all the time. (Here's a hint, pre-college kids: study in the goddamn library, not in the dorms.) Things did not go well, and fucking up engineering calc locked me out of both Physics and CS as possible majors (my top two options). I sank into a major depression, proactively asked Cornell if I could leave for a few years before they asked me to leave for good (they said yes, you can return within 5 years without having to reapply), and joined the USAF in California, where I proceeded to proverbially "grow the fuck up". (I could not move back home; I was getting into physical fights with my parents, so the military, an option which I had not considered before at the time, suddenly seemed like the best option for how to kill a little time productively while I considered my life options.)

  3. But it all worked out in the end more or less. I went back and ended up a Psych major with CS electives (and basically any other electives it pleased me to take), kicked ass and took names, and now I'm a web developer at a fairly cool startup. Turns out that not being able to pull off a hardcore engineering major ended up making me a very well-rounded guy.

    But I still love physics. I read QED for fun. I just can't handle anything beyond Taylor and Maclaurin series without someone at my back yelling at me I guess. Also I hated memorizing integrals.

    On the tests I would get all the bonus questions right (which tested actual understanding of the concepts) and I'd fail on the actual test due to lack of time (because that part of the test really tested how often you had seen that problem or one similar before).
u/bobotheking · 62 pointsr/IAmA

Three minor corrections:

  1. Measuring the position of an electron does not cause the path to be determined. The interference of all the paths is crucial for the observations we make.
  2. The electron (or any particle) has an equal probability amplitude to take all paths, not an equal probability. You had it backward. It is the complex phase of the probability amplitude that leads to interference patterns and the large-scale cancellation that gives rise to the appearance of classical behavior.
  3. You mostly have the right idea about the electron taking paths to the moon or Andromeda, but I think you glossed over the essential point. It does have a probability amplitude of equal magnitude to take one of those ridiculous paths, but those probability amplitudes will almost completely cancel with its nearest neighbors. That means we need to consider the path where the electron takes several days to reach the moon and then goes back in time to return to the detector! We also need to consider paths where it first goes back in time, then to the moon, paths where it goes to the moon and back faster than c, and paths where it circles the Andromeda galaxy three times and returns. What is important about each of these paths is not the specific path followed, but rather the endpoints. It must have left the source at the same time and reached the detector at the same time.

    If anyone is interested in an accessible introduction to this material, read Richard Feynman's QED.
u/VoodooSteve · 44 pointsr/Physics

My undergraduate courses in quantum mechanics used Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths and is a really good introduction with enough details.

u/TheNicestMonkey · 31 pointsr/Bitcoin

>Can you describe quantum mechanics

Intro to Quantum Mechanics


This is effectively what you have done...

u/bearp · 24 pointsr/science

If you're looking for a very simple intro, try Isaac Asimov's Understanding Physics.

If you want something more in-depth and you're comfortable learning some math as well, try Richard Feynman's Lectures on Physics.

u/nobodyspecial · 18 pointsr/askscience

The lectures are $2 on the used market. Well worth the price.

He also covers the dual slit experiment and provides a framework in which the results make sense.

u/[deleted] · 18 pointsr/math
u/Astrokiwi · 17 pointsr/askscience

Quantum mechanics is quite difficult to grasp without a formal mathematical course. General Relativity is also tricky, because it involves a lot of differential geometry.

Special Relativity on the other hand is actually quite straightforward. You don't need any mathematics beyond what you do in high school, and not even all of that - it doesn't require calculus. This was my undergraduate textbook, and it's quite readable. They offer the first chapter of the older edition on their website if you want to take a look. As an example of the readability, here is the opening of the book:

>Once upon a time there was a Daytime surveyor who measured off the king's lands. He took his directions of north and east from a magnetic compass needle. Eastward directions from the center of town he measured in metres (x in meters). Northward directions were sacred and measured in miles (y in miles). His records were complete and accurate and were often consulted by the Daytimers.

And carries on in that tone. Even if you don't read everything, it's worth reading the whole "parable" in that pdf to get a good intuitive grasp of what special relativity is really about.

u/awpvnw · 17 pointsr/Physics

Nice books but i think it could be more fruitful to learn the real physics behind that (if you haven't done that already). See f.e. http://www.amazon.com/The-Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed/dp/0465023827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374676343&sr=8-1&keywords=feynman+lectures+on+physics

u/redditor62 · 16 pointsr/math

The two "classic" intro physics texts are Kleppner and Kolenkow for mechanics and Purcell for E/M. These are pretty standard for honors intro physics classes across the US.

Both are good books which are considerably more theoretical and rigorous than the typical "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" that I'm guessing you're using (and will not leave results like the ones you give unjustified, for example).

Nevertheless, I don't think you're going to find many physics textbooks written with the strict, precise logic of a proper math book (at the undergraduate level, at least). Physicists are simply interested in different things than mathematicians.

Also, remember that physics is a science, and it is informed by both logical deductions AND experiments.

u/tikael · 14 pointsr/AskPhysics

Don't bother, just pick up a GR textbook like Hartle or Schutz. Those books teach the math as they go.

u/nikofeyn · 14 pointsr/Physics

electricity and magnetism by purcell and morin

edit: as a counter to the griffiths suggestion, i have read good things about modern electrodynamics by zangwill, but i have no personal experience with the book.

u/rusticanus · 13 pointsr/Physics

Here it is on the Cambridge site and here on Amazon

The copyright date is 2017 so maybe they are still rolling it out. But it looks like it is still the 2nd edition with the same content as the 2004 Pearson one.

£42 is almost a reasonable price for a hardcover textbook. Good for Griffiths/CUP; screw Pearson.

u/rcochrane · 12 pointsr/math

When I've got a clear aim in view for where I want to get to with a self-study project, I tend to work backwards.

Now, I don't know quantum mechanics, but here's how I might approach it if I decided I was going to learn (which, BTW, I'd love to get to one day):

First choose the book you'd like to read. For the sake of argument, say you've picked Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.

Now have a look at the preface / introduction and see if the author says what they assume of their readers. This often happens in university-level maths books. Griffiths says this:

> The reader must be familiar with the rudiments of linear algebra (as summarized in the Appendix), complex numbers, and calculus up to partial derivatives; some acquaintance with Fourier analysis and the Dirac delta function would help. Elementary classical mechanics is essential, of course, and a little electrodynamics would be useful in places.

So now you have a list of things you need to know. Assuming you don't know any of them, the next step would be to find out what are the standard "first course" textbooks on these subjects: examples might be Poole's Linear Algebra: A Modern Introduction and Stewart's Calculus: Early Transcendentals (though Griffiths tells us we don't need all of it, just "up to partial derivatives"). There are lots of books on classical mechanics; for self-study I would pick a modern textbook with lots of examples, pictures and exercises with solutions.

We also need something on "complex numbers", but Griffiths is a bit vague on what's required; if I didn't know what a complex number is than I'd be inclined to look at some basic material on them in the web rather than diving into a 500-page complex analysis book right away.

There's a lot to work on here, but it fits together into a "programme" that you can probably carry through in about 6 months with a bit of determination, maybe even less. Then take a run at Griffiths and see how tough it is; probably you'll get into difficulties and have to go away and read something else, but probably by this stage you'll be able to figure out what to read for yourself (or come back here and ask!).

With some projects you may have to do "another level" of background reading (e.g., you might need to read a precalculus book if the opening chapters of Stewart were incomprehensible). That's OK, just organise everything in dependency order and you should be fine.

I'll repeat my caveat: I don't know QM, and don't know whether Griffiths is a good book to use. This is just intended as an example of one way of working.

[EDIT: A trap for the unwary: authors don't always mention everything you need to know to read their book. For example, on p.2 Griffiths talks about the Schrodinger wave equation as a probability distribution. If you'd literally never seen continuous probability before, that's where you'd run aground even though he doesn't mention that in the preface.

But like I say, once you've taken care of the definite prerequisites you take a run at it, fall somewhere, pick yourself up and go away to fill in whatever caused a problem. Also, having more than one book on the subject is often valuable, because one author's explanation might be completely baffling to you whereas another puts it a different way that "clicks".]

u/Kaputaffe · 11 pointsr/askscience

The answer to this is much, much deeper than any of the comments so far. The answer to "How does" is not "4%". The answer is in Quantum Electrodynamics.

I have to run to work, and Richard Feynman is much better at explaining things than me, so I'll point you to his book QED which is dedicated to answering this question as a way to explain QED.

Sorry to have to run because this is fascinating, but to give an accurate answer that really hits on the principles behind it, takes about 20 pages from one of the smartest men who ever lived. I couldn't recommend the book more - it is accessible to anyone of reasonable intelligence willing to read it carefully, and unlocks one of the great mysteries of nature in an entertaining and exciting way.

u/dogdiarrhea · 11 pointsr/Physics

Carroll

Carroll, course notes (free, I think it may be a preprint of the book)

Schutz

Wald

MTW (Some call it the GR bible)

They're all great books, Schutz I think is the most novice friendly but I believe they all cover tensor calculus and differential geometry in some detail.

u/Ak-01 · 10 pointsr/askscience

I don't want to be rude but before diving into special or general relativity and astronomy you should probably start from very beginning. I suggest you to get more familiar with the definition of mass, force, motion and energy, Newton's laws and laws of conservation. Don't just try to memorize formulas, try to understand meaning behind them.

This is one of the best books to start in my oppinion https://www.amazon.com/dp/0880292512/

u/conquerer7 · 10 pointsr/Physics

Take a charge just sitting there, and suddenly whack it. A moving charge has a different electric field than a stationary one, it's strongest in the plane perpendicular to the motion. The field lines for this moving charge will be straight, but squished towards that plane.

But if you're a light year away, you can't know that instantly. You'll still see the same field that the stationary charge made. The information that the charge is now moving propagates out at the speed of light, so you get a shell moving outward in which the field suddenly shifts, from the stationary charge field to the moving charge field. That is a light wave.

You can also see from this description how the intensity depends on what angle you're at, and why it depends on acceleration (the faster you accelerate, the thinner the shell/wave and the bigger the change in E, so the big E in the shell is even bigger).

Why do you need acceleration? If the charge has been uniformly moving forever, the field will be "correct" everywhere. Of course, if you suddenly stop it, you'll launch another wave. If you move the charge sinusoidally, you'd get pretty much what you'd expect.

I can't draw a nice picture, but this is basically what's on the cover of the latest edition of Morin/Purcell E&M. That book is where I heard about this nice intuitive picture, which is great for people like me who can't do advanced math. :D

http://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Magnetism-Edward-M-Purcell/dp/1107014026

u/quantum_guy · 10 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Why hello there... How much math do you know?

It would be best if you understood basic differential and integral calculus, and can then learn the basics of linear algebra. From there, you could pick up a book such as Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and start learning at the undergraduate level.

u/BugeyeContinuum · 10 pointsr/askscience

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.

u/iamiamwhoami · 10 pointsr/Physics

This was a pleasure to read.

u/Weed_O_Whirler · 9 pointsr/Physics

First, the study of QM is really going to hinge on you grasping the fundamentals of linear algebra. Knowing calculus and differential equations would be very helpful, but without linear algebra, nothing will make sense. Particularly, you need to understand eigenvectors and eigenvalues as the Schrodinger Equation is an equation of that type. Here is a link to the MIT OpenCourseWare Linear Algebra Class complete with video lectures, etc. Completion of this class shouldn't require much more than a 16 year old's math understanding.

From there, if you are actually serious about pursuing this, get this book by David Griffiths, which is an into to QM that doesn't require too much calculus and it really good at explaining the concepts. With that book in hand, and actually trying to work through some of the problems, find another MIT OpenCourseWare class on the topic.

Secondly, please, please, please don't whine about downvotes. Every submission that gets popular at all gets some downvotes. Why? Who knows why, but it really isn't worth complaining about, and you will find there is a large portion of people who will downvote you simply because you complain about it.

u/Banach-Tarski · 9 pointsr/math

> There's a book that I cannot find now (hopefully someone else can come along and provide the reference) which is also "physics for mathematician".

Spivak! I have a copy and it's really good.

u/relax_its_fine · 8 pointsr/AskPhysics

Read the QED lectures by Feynman, you won't get a better, more accessible explanation than that

u/djimbob · 8 pointsr/askscience

Eh, first you have to read up on quantum mechanics and get a decent understanding of quantum mechanical spin and quantum numbers in general. Something like Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics, though there are tons of textbooks on it. You won't really get into particle physics, but should read at least to the point of understanding addition of angular momentum and spin (typically in context of hydrogen atom).

Then a text on particle physics like Griffiths' Intro To Elementary Particle Physics. (You could also start Griffiths' Intro to QM).

You could also consult free resources like the particle data group, but their reviews will be largely gibberish if you don't understand the basics of QM / particle physics / group theory. (Articles like Quark Model, or Naming Scheme for Hadrons).

If you are looking at hobby-level interest without getting into any math/textbooks, the best I can suggest is Feynman's QED but it won't talk about isospin or hadrons or particle naming conventions but is a great layman introduction to quantum electrodynamics.

u/LRE · 8 pointsr/exjw

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.

u/professorpan · 8 pointsr/self

I'm always so late to the game.

TL;DR: Seventh Grade science project with basic relativity, caused some fiasco

Around seventh grade I got a hold of Issac Asimov's Understanding Physics. I got really into it especially in relativity. I was a few years ahead in math but nowhere near understanding any calculus or even trigonometry, but I owned algebra and geometry and understood basic physics equations. I started reading Six Easy Pieces, A Brief History of Time, all the books I can find on the topic at the local library. No I wasn't a genius, I was (and still is) just a curious cat. I enjoyed them, though I only understood as much as someone with high school algebra/geometry could. Anywhoo, fast forward to science project -

I decided to do my science project on space-time dilation. It was a subject very few peers knew about at my age but I myself was fascinated by it, so why not!? I mostly covered black holes, light cone, and Lorentz transformation, mostly conceptual discussions. Only the latter two topics contained any math, and that was just the very simple algebraic expressions and some simple geometry. Lacking calculus and a deep understanding, I had very little "Why", and instead had mostly "this is what happens when you do this and here's a drawing and there's an equation". Everything I could understand about relativity without knowing calculus was on that poster.

We got graded before the science fair, and I got a nice fat 0. I was really surprised and talked to the teacher. She said something along the lines of "This isn't science, you made it up." Apparently she hadn't heard of that stuff. I was surprised and I talked to her and the vice principle about it. He suggested I participate in the fair while they look for someone knowledgeable about this area of science, and my science teacher still didn't believe it had any merit.

A week or so later, the VP got some other teacher's professor friend from the local McMaster University to grade it, and I got called to the VP's office. I got an A! My 12-year-old ego exploded.

EDIT: Come to think of it, that VP really liked me or something. Once a bully was shoving me around and I punched him in the chin and left a nice bruise. I didn't get in any trouble, not even a stern talking-to. We were both brought into his office and the whole time he yelled at the other kid, Trevor. A month or so later we got into another scuffle and Trevor got suspended and again I didn't even get a stern talking-to.

u/williamfbuckleysfist · 8 pointsr/IAmA

I mean the classical mechanics of orbits described in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

The body that is orbiting slows down and speeds up during elliptical orbit, so the total energy of the system or think of the point of maximum kinetic energy is in essence what keeps it from colliding with the main body. There are also cases where this does happen and cases where other things happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_equation

u/omgzpplz · 8 pointsr/Physics

David J. Griffiths: E+M book, QM book.

Chances are you recognize him now?

u/Nexusty · 8 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

A great introductory read would be "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths"

Great Author and great textbook. Pretty much most intro QM courses use this text.

Amazon Link

u/Araraguy · 8 pointsr/askphilosophy

The domain of physics is very narrow and the modern state of the field is highly specialized, so keep that in mind. If you have classical mechanics, multivariable calc, and preferably linear algebra (if not, MIT has tons of lectures online), you can start with quantum mechanics or statistical/thermal physics:

Griffith's Quantum Mechanics

Schroeder's Thermal Physics

Electromagnetism

I can't remember which physical chemistry text we used, but if you're concerned with atoms and molecules, you'll need that too. If you're concerned with nature at smaller scales, you'll need particle physics (and lots more math). Until you have a solid foundation in classical, thermal, and quantum, it's not a good idea to move on. You can't, for example, do much with quantum field theory if you don't have quantum mechanics. Both Shankar's and Susskind's lectures (and corresponding texts) go very quickly through classical and quantum, but skip much of the necessary examples that one requires when learning how to do physics. Just looking through these books will give you a general idea of what physics does concern itself with. If you want to skim through something more advanced (and not understand much of it) you could pick up Zee's QFT. This is also a good guide.



u/Bleulightning · 8 pointsr/Physics

I have personally enjoyed Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. It requires a reasonably basis in undergraduate level physics, but is definitely not a text for doctorate students.

u/armour_de · 8 pointsr/askscience

These rules arise from the solutions of the Schroedinger equation for a central potential.

The nucleus of the atom provides an attractive potential in which electrons can be bound. As the mass of even a single proton is roughly 1800 times that of an electron the nuclei can be treated as stationary charged points that the electrons orbit around. The resulting coulomb potential is a central potential, that is it only depends on the distance from the nucleus, not the direction from the nucleus.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom for some of the derivation, but if you don't know differential equations and quantum mechanics at least at an introductory level it will not make much sense. Griffiths does a good introductory quantum text if you are interested in reading more. Link on amazon.com.

As it is a bound system in quantum mechanics only certain values of energy and momentum can be taken. The allowed energy levels are denoted by the quantum number n. The energy of a level is given is proportional to -1/n^2 in the simple hydrogenic atom model where the energy is negative that gives a bound state, and energies above zero are unbound, so as the energy increase the electrons in the higher n orbitals require less energy to become unbound.

For a given n there are certain values of angular momentum that can occur, and these are designated l and range from 0 to n. For a given l there are then the m_l magnetic quantum numbers ranging from +l to -l in integer steps. In the simple atom models the m_l do not effect the energy level.

Higher angular momentum of the electron implies a higher energy So 2s (n=1,l=0, m_l=0) has lower energy than 2p (n=2, l=1, m_l= 1,0,-1)

Each letter corresponds to an l value and arose from the way the lines looked in spectrographs and the meaning of the letter abbreviation is pretty much ignored these days with the current understanding of the the underlying quantum numbers.

s-> l=0 (sharp lines)

p->l=1 (principle lines)

d->l=2 (diffuse lines)

f->l=3 (fundamental lines)

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-iii/atomic-structure/electronic-configuration.php

Shows some of the simpler rules for determining the order of filling of the orbitals based on the energy level of the combined n and l values.

Two show how oxygen needs an octet to be stable we can do:

Oxygen has 8 protons and will be neutral with 8 electrons.

2 go into the 1s orbital, and it it is designated 1s^2, the superscript giving the number of electrons present in the n=1 l=0 m_l=0 and m_s =+1/2,-1/2. m_s is the magnetic quantum number for the electrons own internal angular momentum which has s=1/2 so can take m_s=+1/2 or m_s=-1/2.

The next higher energy orbital (look at the squiggly line diagram giving the filling order for electrons into orbitals, this is essentially filling in order of lowest energy orbitals first) is the 2s and it can have two electrons like the 1s, so we write 2s^2 for the full orbital.

There are now 4 more electrons to take care of, and they can go into the 2p orbital and that can hold up to 6 electrons, but we only fill in 4 for 2p^4 .

We can fully write the electron configuration as 1s^2 2s^2 2p^4 . If the oxygen borrows two more electrons (say one each from two hydrogens) they can move into the remaining 2p orbitals that are not full.

In the n=2 orbitals that then gives a total of 8 electrons.

Going into the higher orbitals requires more energy than the lower orbitals so it would not be a stable ground state. To put it differently if two hydrogen atoms are going bond to an oxygen it needs to go into a lower energy state than the separate atoms. If a bound state does occur with the lower energy atoms this is then an excited state that will decay into the grounds state by emission of a photon (light).

u/sinnnnner · 8 pointsr/philosophy

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.

u/Tobiasuru · 8 pointsr/AskPhysics

An Introduction to Thermal Physics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201380277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_s6BfAbNNZABF5

This is the standard undergraduate text. It's the one I used. Super easy to read and the problems are fun. Best of luck!

u/c_is_4_cookie · 8 pointsr/Physics

Griffith's quantum is OK. Not bad, but all in all it lacks a bit of depth. I recommend Shankar's book. It covers a lot more of the basic formalism that lays the foundation for quantum mechanics. I would say it falls into an odd area in that it cover more material than is needed for an undergrad class, but not quite enough for a grad class. Nonetheless, it is an excellent introduction, especially for self-study.

u/derezzed19 · 8 pointsr/askscience

Yep, many physicists subscribe to the "shut-up-and-calculate" school of thought.

OP - although physics can't really address some of your specific questions, the mathematical link between the quantum and classical regimes is quite clear: if one considers the limit of a quantum system with a very large number of particles (e.g., every single atom in a rock), then the properties of the set of particles will be more clustered around their average values. These average values (expectation values) exactly match the classical predictions for that set of particles.

There's a great chapter that goes through all the math pretty clearly in R. Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics.

u/orangepotion · 8 pointsr/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

Get the Feynman lectures, and the Schaum physics series.

On the Schaum one, write ALL the exercises, so you actually get it.

u/BlackBrane · 7 pointsr/quantum

This sub can be pretty good, but you're sure to find much more activity over on /r/physics. We usually like to direct questions to /r/AskPhysics but it's definitely not as well trafficked.

The main introductory textbook for physics undergrads is Griffiths, and for good reason. It's widely agreed to be the best book to begin a proper undertaking of QM if you have the key prerequisites down. You definitely need to be comfortable with linear algebra (the most important) as well as multivariable calculus and basic concepts of partial differential equations.

Im sure you can find some good free resources as well. One promising free book I've found is A Course in Quantum Computing (pdf). It actually teaches you the basics of linear algebra and complex numbers that you need, so if you feel weak on those this might be a good choice. I haven't really used it myself but it certainly looks like a good resource.

Finally, another well-regarded resource are Susskind's lectures at his website The Theoretical Minimum. He also has a book by the same name. They tend to be rather laid back and very gentle, while introducing you to the basic substance of the field. If you wanted, I'm sure you could find some more proper university-style lectures on Youtube as well.

u/ianmgull · 7 pointsr/quantum

This is the standard textbook that undergraduates first encounter. It assumes you already have a pretty firm grasp of calculus and linear algebra however.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927

I know it's not a site, but if you want to REALLY learn QM, this is how to start.

u/professorboat · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

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.

u/jmcqk6 · 7 pointsr/WTF

I guess I'm frustrated because you're completely wrong and people are agreeing with you. The level of scientific illiteracy in these comments is disturbing. It's good that you recognize that you could be wrong and that you've actively tried to find out. I would recommend Why e=mc^2? (and why should we care?) as an excellent and accessible book exploring these topics.

One helpful way of learning is discussing our understanding of the ideas after we read about them. That's one thing that really helped me.

When it comes to the big bang, it is primarily about the expansion of space. The existence of matter is kind of a happy-accident that still needs explaining. Basically, during the big bang, there were particles and their anti-particles being created and colliding with one another and turning into pure energy. These should have annihilated each other completely, canceling them out. Instead, matter seems to have won out. Finding out the answer to that is one of the big questions facing physics these days.

I can admit that your ideas sounds good and seem consistent. The problem is that they aren't at all reflective of reality.

u/dargscisyhp · 7 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I'd like to give you my two cents as well on how to proceed here. If nothing else, this will be a second opinion. If I could redo my physics education, this is how I'd want it done.

If you are truly wanting to learn these fields in depth I cannot stress how important it is to actually work problems out of these books, not just read them. There is a certain understanding that comes from struggling with problems that you just can't get by reading the material. On that note, I would recommend getting the Schaum's outline to whatever subject you are studying if you can find one. They are great books with hundreds of solved problems and sample problems for you to try with the answers in the back. When you get to the point you can't find Schaums anymore, I would recommend getting as many solutions manuals as possible. The problems will get very tough, and it's nice to verify that you did the problem correctly or are on the right track, or even just look over solutions to problems you decide not to try.

Basics

I second Stewart's Calculus cover to cover (except the final chapter on differential equations) and Halliday, Resnick and Walker's Fundamentals of Physics. Not all sections from HRW are necessary, but be sure you have the fundamentals of mechanics, electromagnetism, optics, and thermal physics down at the level of HRW.

Once you're done with this move on to studying differential equations. Many physics theorems are stated in terms of differential equations so really getting the hang of these is key to moving on. Differential equations are often taught as two separate classes, one covering ordinary differential equations and one covering partial differential equations. In my opinion, a good introductory textbook to ODEs is one by Morris Tenenbaum and Harry Pollard. That said, there is another book by V. I. Arnold that I would recommend you get as well. The Arnold book may be a bit more mathematical than you are looking for, but it was written as an introductory text to ODEs and you will have a deeper understanding of ODEs after reading it than your typical introductory textbook. This deeper understanding will be useful if you delve into the nitty-gritty parts of classical mechanics. For partial differential equations I recommend the book by Haberman. It will give you a good understanding of different methods you can use to solve PDEs, and is very much geared towards problem-solving.

From there, I would get a decent book on Linear Algebra. I used the one by Leon. I can't guarantee that it's the best book out there, but I think it will get the job done.

This should cover most of the mathematical training you need to move onto the intermediate level physics textbooks. There will be some things that are missing, but those are usually covered explicitly in the intermediate texts that use them (i.e. the Delta function). Still, if you're looking for a good mathematical reference, my recommendation is Lua. It may be a good idea to go over some basic complex analysis from this book, though it is not necessary to move on.

Intermediate

At this stage you need to do intermediate level classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and thermal physics at the very least. For electromagnetism, Griffiths hands down. In my opinion, the best pedagogical book for intermediate classical mechanics is Fowles and Cassidy. Once you've read these two books you will have a much deeper understanding of the stuff you learned in HRW. When you're going through the mechanics book pay particular attention to generalized coordinates and Lagrangians. Those become pretty central later on. There is also a very old book by Robert Becker that I think is great. It's problems are tough, and it goes into concepts that aren't typically covered much in depth in other intermediate mechanics books such as statics. I don't think you'll find a torrent for this, but it is 5 bucks on Amazon. That said, I don't think Becker is necessary. For quantum, I cannot recommend Zettili highly enough. Get this book. Tons of worked out examples. In my opinion, Zettili is the best quantum book out there at this level. Finally for thermal physics I would use Mandl. This book is merely sufficient, but I don't know of a book that I liked better.

This is the bare minimum. However, if you find a particular subject interesting, delve into it at this point. If you want to learn Solid State physics there's Kittel. Want to do more Optics? How about Hecht. General relativity? Even that should be accessible with Schutz. Play around here before moving on. A lot of very fascinating things should be accessible to you, at least to a degree, at this point.

Advanced

Before moving on to physics, it is once again time to take up the mathematics. Pick up Arfken and Weber. It covers a great many topics. However, at times it is not the best pedagogical book so you may need some supplemental material on whatever it is you are studying. I would at least read the sections on coordinate transformations, vector analysis, tensors, complex analysis, Green's functions, and the various special functions. Some of this may be a bit of a review, but there are some things Arfken and Weber go into that I didn't see during my undergraduate education even with the topics that I was reviewing. Hell, it may be a good idea to go through the differential equations material in there as well. Again, you may need some supplemental material while doing this. For special functions, a great little book to go along with this is Lebedev.

Beyond this, I think every physicist at the bare minimum needs to take graduate level quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and statistical mechanics. For quantum, I recommend Cohen-Tannoudji. This is a great book. It's easy to understand, has many supplemental sections to help further your understanding, is pretty comprehensive, and has more worked examples than a vast majority of graduate text-books. That said, the problems in this book are LONG. Not horrendously hard, mind you, but they do take a long time.

Unfortunately, Cohen-Tannoudji is the only great graduate-level text I can think of. The textbooks in other subjects just don't measure up in my opinion. When you take Classical mechanics I would get Goldstein as a reference but a better book in my opinion is Jose/Saletan as it takes a geometrical approach to the subject from the very beginning. At some point I also think it's worth going through Arnold's treatise on Classical. It's very mathematical and very difficult, but I think once you make it through you will have as deep an understanding as you could hope for in the subject.

u/Fizil · 7 pointsr/askscience

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.

u/Prayden · 7 pointsr/chemistry

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.

u/rantonels · 7 pointsr/Physics

ok, the thing is you cannot expect to be able to tackle relativistic quantum field theory without a very solid knowledge of relativity (among other things). A very good introductory textbook to special relativity is Taylor's and Wheeler's, and also Rindler's spends more time explaining tensors and indices.

u/InfanticideAquifer · 7 pointsr/math

Anti-disclaimer: I do have personal experience with all the below books.

I really enjoyed Lee for Riemannian geometry, which is highly related to the Lorentzian geometry of GR. I've also heard good things about Do Carmo.

It might be advantageous to look at differential topology before differential geometry (though for your goal, it is probably not necessary). I really really liked Guillemin and Pollack. Another book by Lee is also very good.

If you really want to dig into the fundamentals, it might be worthwhile to look at a topology textbook too. Munkres is the standard. I also enjoyed Gamelin and Greene, a Dover book (cheap!). I though that the introduction to the topology of R^n in the beginning of Bartle was good to have gone through first.

I'm concerned that I don't see linear algebra in your course list. There's a saying "Linear algebra is what separates Mathematicians from everyone else" or something like that. Differential geometry is, in large part, about tensor fields on manifolds, and these are studied by looking at them as elements of a vector space, so I'd say that linear algebra is something you should get comfortable with before proceeding. (It's also great to study it before taking quantum.) I can't really recommend a great book from personal experience here; I learned from poor ones :( .

Also, there are physics GR books that contain semi-rigorous introductions to differential geometry, even if these sections are skipped over in the actual class. Carroll is such a book. If you read the introductory chapter and appendices, you'll know a lot. On the differential topology side of things, there's Schutz, which is a great book for breadth but is pretty material dense. Schwarz and Schwarz is a really good higher level intro to special relativity that introduces the mathematical machinery of GR, but sticks to flat spaces.

Finally, once you have reached the mountain top, there's Hawking and Ellis, the ultimate pinnacle of gravity textbooks. This one doesn't really fall under the anti-disclaimer from above; it sits on my shelf to impress people.

u/HungLikeSaddam69 · 7 pointsr/AskMen

Barton Zwiebach's First Course in String Theory provides a good overview of quite a complex topic. Unfortunately, even though it is meant as an introductory textbook, it is likely to be entirely incomprehensible to the average reader.

 

To make it through this book, knowledge of quite a few preliminary topics is needed:

  1. Previous knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is incredibly important. MIT OpenCourseware has some useful video lectures for the beginner, as well as textbook recommendations.

  2. It is necessary to be fully comfortable with the principles of Special Relativity, as well as at least familiar with the mathematics of General Relativity. Unfortunately, since I learned relativity entirely from the homemade class notes of a professor at my university, I have no textbook recommendations.

  3. Even though string theory is a theory of quantum gravity, some techniques and principles from classical physics are useful. In particular, ideas from the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics come up fairly often. John Taylor's book is useful here. Knowledge of Electricity and Magnetism is also useful; for that, I recommend Griffiths.

  4. It doesn't come up quite as often in this particular book, but Group Theory and Lie Algebras are ubiquitous in string theory. I liked Gilmore's book on this subject.
u/DarkDjin · 6 pointsr/IWantToLearn

For both subjects you'll need a solid mathematical background. You'll need calculus and linear algebra. I recommend starting with it if you haven't learned yet. I really can't stress enough the importance of mathematics in both fields.

For basic quantum mechanics: Quantum Mechanics - David Griffiths (https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/1107179866) or Fundamentals of Modern Physics - Robert Eisberg, the later being just an introduction to Q.M.

For general relativity: Bernard Schutz's A First Course in General Relativity (https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-General-Relativity/dp/0521887054).

u/SingleMonad · 6 pointsr/Physics

For this whole discussion, I'm going to stipulate to the Copenhagen Interpretation and wavefunction collapse. There are alternatives, but you asked specifically about this one.

It depends on the measurement. Say you go to observe a particle in the infinite square well, and you've arranged your observation so that when you look, you only look in the 'right' half of the well (the region L/2 < x < L). Imagine further that the state Ψ0 before measurement is a general superposition of energy eigenstates, with non-zero probability amplitude in both halves. And then you look in the right half, and you don't see the particle. What is the wavefunction now? It can't be a delta function. If it were, where would the delta function peak be?

The answer is contained in an axiom (see chapter III of of Claude Cohen-Tannoudji's Quantum Mechanics, or chapter 4 of Shankar's):
Immediately after measurement, the new wavefunction is Ψ1 = ℙ Ψ0, where ℙ is the projector onto the eigenspace corresponding to the result of your measurement (and in the non-delta function cases, suitably renormalized to unit probability, i.e., so that < Ψ1 | Ψ1 > = 1).

So how does that work for the half-a-box measurement? The operator A for that measurement is something like

A = a ℙL + b ℙR.

A is a sum of two projectors, ℙL for the 'left' side (0<x<L/2), and ℙR for the 'right' (L/2<x<L). The coefficients a and b are the measurement eigenvalues corresponding to the different measurement outcomes. We don't need them, but I included them for completeness. Notice that ℙL+ ℙR is the identity operator. The particle is either in the left or right side, no other possibilities exist. This is in accord with another postulate: that the eigenvectors of any observable form a complete basis of the state space.

This just looks awful right? But don't worry, we're almost there. Because, by the postulate, the new (post-measurement) wave function is

1> = ℙL| Ψ0 >.

How did I get that? We measured that the particle wasn't in the right well. Therefore it must be in the left. Our measurement outcome was "it's in the left well." The projector onto the corresponding eigenspace is ℙL.

Now, what does it look like in position representation? Well first we need the projector
L = ∫0L/2 dx |x> <x|.

Then we need the new wavefunction Ψ1:

| Ψ1 > = ℙL | Ψ0 > = integral dx' from 0 to L/2 of | x' > < x' | Ψ0 >, or

| Ψ1 > = integral dx' from 0 to L/2 of Ψ0(x') |x'>.

Then we need the position representation of Ψ1, which is

Ψ1(x) = < x | Ψ1 > = integral dx' from 0 to L/2 of Ψ0(x') <x|x'>.

Now, <x|x'> is δ(x-x'), i.e. infinite (that special infinity that integrates to 1) when x=x' and 0 otherwise. So we can do this integral! We just get the integrand when the δ function is infinite, and 0 otherwise.

So Ψ1(x) is equal to our starting wavefunction Ψ0(x), so long as x is within range of the integral (0,L/2). If x is outside that range, Ψ1(x) = 0.

Finally(!), let's interpret this. We measured that the particle wasn't in the right side. The post-measurement (collapsed) wavefunction is zero in the right side, but unchanged (except for a renormalization) in the left!

TL;DR: Find the projector corresponding to your measurement outcome. Apply it to your pre-measurement wave function (and maybe do some normalization). That's the post-measurement wave function.

edit: getting thesubscripts right, and maybe the ∫0L/2 dx too.

u/shavera · 6 pointsr/askscience

Hartle's Gravity was my undergrad text and I find it both very useful and easily readable. As for tensors, if you've done matrix algebra you've done tensors. (tensors are just a more generic concept, but most of the tensors in GR are still matrices, often 4x4 matrices)

u/fermion72 · 6 pointsr/geek

And some of greatest RealSci, too. I wish he had written a similar tome on fundamental chemistry.

u/_zen_calm_ · 6 pointsr/Physics

If I were you, I would study from Purcell (Berkeley physics course volume number 2). https://www.amazon.com/Electricity-Magnetism-Edward-M-Purcell/dp/1107014026 This is the best to begin with. And DO all the problems! After that if you still want better understanding, Griffiths - Introduction to electrodynamics is very good. Do not touch Feynman or Landau until you complete those 2, they are very bad for beginers but after you are familiar with the subject they are true gems.

u/atfyfe · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Not a paper but a short-ish book: For my graduate philosophy of quantum mechanics course we used David Z. Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience' book. It was great.

(Amazon link: http://amzn.com/0674741137 )

u/stewartr · 5 pointsr/science

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Richard P. Feynman (Princeton Science Library)
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
To start, you need to you learn that eveything is made from complex waves of probability and that is the only way the math works. This short and inexpensive book is a work of art, accessible by the "intelligent layman". Then google the amazing Feynman!

u/creaothceann · 5 pointsr/science

Recently I've read Feynman's The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It's a nice "introduction" to the world of quantum physics. ((Also available online on certain sites.))

u/iamhove · 5 pointsr/science

His primary point is sound. The light speed limit isn't a limit in the frame of the traveler.
The Taylor and Wheeler classic: http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271 is relevant here.
You can get around where you will in as short a time as you like given the ability to scoot. I recall programming a solver for this just outta high school and being astounded that most places in the universe are reachable even at a modest 1g. But you'd need mountains of fuel to with ungodly conversion ratios and nevermind the shielding to make it. ... And then, if you went too far, in what kind of place would you be arriving? It looks like a big crunch is out, so you just might run yourself early into a big rip?

u/xrelaht · 5 pointsr/AskPhysics

This should keep you busy, but I can suggest books in other areas if you want.

Math books:
Algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-I-M-Gelfand/dp/0817636773/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251516690&sr=8
Calc: http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-4th-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098918/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356152827&sr=1-1&keywords=spivak+calculus
Calc: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/048663518X
Linear algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Modern-Introduction-CD-ROM/dp/0534998453/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255703167&sr=8-4
Linear algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B00A73IXRC/ref=zg_bs_158739011_2

Beginning physics:
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827

Advanced stuff, if you make it through the beginning books:
E&M: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-Edition-David-Griffiths/dp/0321856562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653392&sr=8-1&keywords=griffiths+electrodynamics
Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Dynamics-Particles-Systems-Thornton/dp/0534408966/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653415&sr=8-1&keywords=marion+thornton
Quantum: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0306447908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653438&sr=8-1&keywords=shankar

Cosmology -- these are both low level and low math, and you can probably handle them now:
http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356155850&sr=8-1&keywords=the+first+three+minutes

u/themeaningofhaste · 5 pointsr/AskAcademia

Griffiths is the go-to for advanced undergraduate level texts, so you might consider his Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Introduction to Particle Physics. I used Townsend's A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics to teach myself and I thought that was a pretty good book.

I'm not sure if you mean special or general relativity. For special, /u/Ragall's suggestion of Taylor is good but is aimed an more of an intermediate undergraduate; still worth checking out I think. I've heard Taylor (different Taylor) and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics is good but I don't know much more about it. For general relativity, I think Hartle's Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity and Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity are what you want to look for. Hartle is slightly lower level but both are close. Carroll is probably better if you want one book and want a bit more of the math.

Online resources are improving, and you might find luck in opencourseware type websites. I'm not too knowledgeable in these, and I think books, while expensive, are a great investment if you are planning to spend a long time in the field.

One note: teaching yourself is great, but a grad program will be concerned if it doesn't show up on a transcript. This being said, the big four in US institutions are Classical Mechanics, E&M, Thermodynamics/Stat Mech, and QM. You should have all four but you can sometimes get away with three. Expectations of other courses vary by school, which is why programs don't always expect things like GR, fluid mechanics, etc.

I hope that helps!

u/diazona · 5 pointsr/Physics

This one by James Hartle is my favorite, if you've never studied the subject before.

u/jacobolus · 5 pointsr/math

You could try Spivak’s book, Physics for Mathematicians, https://amzn.com/0914098322

u/hes_a_dick · 5 pointsr/Physics

For freshman/ sophmore honors EM in the US, I think that's A-level in Britain or something? Anyways, Purcell and Morin's Electricity and Magnetism is absolutely great.

Basically it was written by Purcell, Nobel Prize winner in 1952, and uses special relativity and a few other assumptions to derive all of electricity and magnetism, rather than the other way around. Morin came along in the third edition, added a bunch of problems and changed the units from Gaussian to MKS. If your mechanics course covers some special relativity, I strongly recommend this book.

Warning, vector calculus is necessary, Purcell gives an overview, but it's not a full treatment.

Third edition with Morin's extra problems

u/ShanksLeftArm · 5 pointsr/Physics

For Calculus:

Calculus Early Transcendentals by James Stewart

^ Link to Amazon

Khan Academy Calculus Youtube Playlist

For Physics:

Introductory Physics by Giancoli

^ Link to Amazon

Crash Course Physics Youtube Playlist

Here are additional reading materials when you're a bit farther along:

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas

Modern Physics by Randy Harris

Classical Mechanics by John Taylor

Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths

Introduction to Particle Physics by Griffiths

The Feynman Lectures

With most of these you will be able to find PDFs of the book and the solutions. Otherwise if you prefer hardcopies you can get them on Amazon. I used to be adigital guy but have switched to physical copies because they are easier to reference in my opinion. Let me know if this helps and if you need more.

u/2_7182818 · 5 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

The analogous book for me was Townsend's Quantum Physics: A Fundamental Approach to Modern Physics. It spends a good deal of time on introducing you to quantum mechanics, as it should, but there are also discussions of solid state, nuclear, and particle physics, in addition to relativity.

Honestly, if you are looking for an in-depth treatment of special relativity it might be worth finding a book on that specifically, because it's generally not treated in a lot of depth in classes, since such depth isn't needed (it's relatively simple, if potentially unintuitive at first). Chapter 15 of Taylor, for example, has a good treatment of special relativity, and it's regarded as one of the canonical texts for classical mechanics (edit: at the introductory/intermediate level, that is).

u/IveGotAHadron · 5 pointsr/math

John Taylor's Classical Mechanics and David Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics might be more your speed. They've been the texts for my Classical Mechanics and E&M courses.

u/lejaylejay · 5 pointsr/quantum

What's your background? I'd probably start with math (sorry). Calculus and linear algebra.

Then Griffiths is probably to go-to intro text book. Though I never really got it until I read Sakurai. I'm not sure where to go for calculus and linear algebra self-study. Perhaps others can suggest.


http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927


http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0805382917

u/swimmer91 · 5 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Yeah quantum sucks. If you're not already using it, Griffiths's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics is pretty good:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927

And this guy has posted solutions with thorough explanations to most (maybe all?) of the practice problems:
http://physicspages.com/index-physics-quantum-mechanics/griffiths-introduction-to-quantum-mechanics-problems/

u/oh_jonas · 5 pointsr/math

I strongly agree with these choices. Additionally, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths.

u/simism66 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

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.

u/Smartassperson · 5 pointsr/EngineeringStudents

I would recommend Feynman's lectures. From your description, it seems like your foundation in physics are weak, therefore reading the lectures will really help you.

u/SegaTape · 4 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

David Griffiths' textbooks on E&M and quantum mechanics were easily the best textbooks I had as an undergrad. Clear, concise, refreshingly informal, and even a dash of humor.

u/thepastry · 4 pointsr/Physics

I just want to point out one thing that everyone seems to be glossing over: when people say that you'll need to review classical mechanics, they aren't talking only about Newtonian Mechanics. The standard treatment of Quantum Mechanics draws heavily from an alternative formulation of classical mechanics known as Hamiltonian Mechanics that I'm willing to bet you didn't cover in your physics education. This field is a bit of a beast in its own right (one of those that can pretty much get as complicated/mathematically taxing as you let it) and it certainly isn't necessary to become an expert in order to understand quantum mechanics. I'm at a bit of a loss to recommend a good textbook for an introduction to this subject, though. I used Taylor in my first course on the subject, but I don't really like that book. Goldstein is a wonderful book and widely considered to be the bible of classical mechanics, but can be a bit of a struggle.

Also, your math education may stand you in better stead than you think. Quantum mechanics done (IMHO) right is a very algebraic beast with all the nasty integrals saved for the end. You're certainly better off than someone with a background only in calculus. If you know calculus in 3 dimensions along with linear algebra, I'd say find a place to get a feel for Hamiltonian mechanics and dive right in to Griffiths or Shankar. (I've never read Shankar, so I can't speak to its quality directly, but I've heard only good things. Griffiths is quite understandable, though, and not at all terse.) If you find that you want a bit more detail on some of the topics in math that are glossed over in those treatments (like properties of Hilbert Space) I'd recommend asking r/math for a recommendation for a functional analysis textbook. (Warning:functional analysis is a bit of a mindfuck. I'd recommend taking these results on faith unless you're really curious.) You might also look into Eisberg and Resnick if you want a more historical/experimentally motivated treatment.

All in all, I think its doable. It is my firm belief that anyone can understand quantum mechanics (at least to the extent that anyone understands quantum mechanics) provided they put in the effort. It will be a fair amount of effort though. Above all, DO THE PROBLEMS! You can't actually learn physics without applying it. Also, you should be warned that no matter how deep you delve into the subject, there's always farther to go. That's the wonderful thing about physics: you can never know it all. There just comes a point where the questions you ask are current research questions.

Good Luck!

u/wyzaard · 4 pointsr/IWantToLearn

That you start and that you continue is more import than where you start.

For math, a good book to start with is Understanding Engineering Mathematics by John bird. It's available for free download on gen.lib.rus.ec. It has tons and tons of fully worked examples and covers just about everything from 1+1 to Fourier Series.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics are highly praised, but I've not read them.

I also highly recommend you get familiar with the history of any subject you wish to study. Here are just two examples of histories of math and physics.

u/Alekanekelo · 4 pointsr/math

> I was reading my Thermodynamics textbook, and the first line was "temperature is defined as that thing that is the same for two objects that have been touching for a long time" and then introduced more concepts such as relaxation time, etc.. the first chapter was 100% a layman's description of temperature.

It wouldn't happen to be Daniel V. Schroeder's An Introduction to Thermal Physics, would it? The simple definitions in the beginning and the following chapters that build upon that foundation really makes it one of the better physics textbooks. It helped me immensely to get a conceptual understanding of something that is quite complex. I can hardly imagine it being taught in another way now.

I can't say I have watched many of Khans videos. But the few I have watched, did to some extent leave some of the more rigorous 'nit-picking' for later. I see his videos as a good supplement to ones lectures and textbooks.

u/MetalMagnum · 4 pointsr/AskPhysics

Hiya! I'm a recent physics/computer science graduate and although I can't think of any super cool handmade options off the top of my head, there are some physics books that I find interesting that your boyfriend may enjoy. One solid idea would be just about anything written by Richard Feynman. Reading through the Feynman Lectures is pretty standard for all physicists, though there are free versions online as well. There are a few others, such as The Pleasure of Finding things Out and Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. There's also a cool graphic novel that recounts the events of his life called Feynman by Ottaviani. If you're not familiar with who this guy is, he is a colorful and concise orator who won a nobel prize in physics. His biggest contributions were in nuclear physics and quantum computation, and his quirks make his explanations of these topics very interesting. The Feynman Lectures are more formal, while his personal books are a mixture of personal experience and explanation.

 
Something else that I typically gift all of my friends who are problem solvers interested in physics is the book Thinking Physics. This book is great for developing some high level intuition in every field of physics (mechanics, optics, thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, etc.). This book is great because it's broken into small digestible sections that build your knowledge as you solve more of the questions (solutions are given).

 
Good luck!

u/PhysicsVanAwesome · 4 pointsr/learnmath

This may not be what you are looking for, but Feynman was a master of explanations. He wrote a wonderful book on quantum electrodynamics that you should absolutely check out called QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. It will give you a pretty intuitive look at some of the ideas in QED.

u/zzambot · 4 pointsr/italy

oltre ai link sotto che sono istituzionali dell'INFN
direi tutte le cose di quark (soprattutto ci sono dei vecchi cartoni di bruno bozzetto sulla fisica magnifici, chissa' se stanno su youtube)

questo di Asimov non e' male come libro

in italiano qui

e in generale tutto quello scritto da lui. e' un po' datato ma ancora valido

anche i primi tre minuti di weinberg e' molto bello

u/Aeschylus_ · 4 pointsr/Physics

You're English is great.

I'd like to reemphasize /u/Plaetean's great suggestion of learning the math. That's so important and will make your later career much easier. Khan Academy seems to go all through differential equations. All of the more advanced topics they have differential and integral calculus of the single variable, multivariable calculus, ordinary differential equations, and linear algebra are very useful in physics.

As to textbooks that cover that material I've heard Div, Grad, Curl for multivariable/vector calculus is good, as is Strang for linear algebra. Purcell an introductory E&M text also has an excellent discussion of the curl.

As for introductory physics I love Purcell's E&M. I'd recommend the third edition to you as although it uses SI units, which personally I dislike, it has far more problems than the second, and crucially has many solutions to them included, which makes it much better for self study. As for Mechanics there are a million possible textbooks, and online sources. I'll let someone else recommend that.

u/nick91700 · 4 pointsr/Physics
u/Monsieurcaca · 4 pointsr/Physics

Yes, this book is a good introduction to general mechanics with applied integrale/differential calculus : http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

u/kendawg_69 · 4 pointsr/Physics

It was my favorite book in undergrad and from what I remember it's really well written. I recall that if I was confused about a topic in lecture I could go to the relevant chapter and end up with a clear understanding.

Admittedly it's been a while since I last read it but hopefully there may be some more helpful reviews here https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

Cheers!

u/bosonsforlife · 3 pointsr/Physics

The first thing that popped in my mind while reading your post was: 'woah dude, slow down a bit!'. No, honestly, take things slowly, that's the best advice someone could have given me a few years ago. Physics is a field of study where you need a lot of time to really understand the subjects. Often times, when revisiting my graduate and even my undergraduate quantum mechanics courses, I catch myself realizing that I just began understanding yet another part of the subject. Physics is a field, where you have many things that simply need time to wrap your head around. I am kind of troubled that a lot of students simply learn their stuff for the exam at the end of the semester and then think they can put that subject aside completely. That's not how understanding in physics works - you need to revisit your stuff from time to time in order to really wrap your head around the fundamental concepts. Being able to solve some problems in a textbook is good, but not sufficient IMHO.

That being said, I will try to answer your question. Quantum mechanics is extremely fascinating. It is also extremely weird at first, but you'll get used to it. Don't confuse getting used to it with really understanding and grasping the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Those are two very different animals. Also, quantum mechanics needs a lot of math, simply have a look at the references of the quantum mechanics wikipedia page and open one of those references to convince yourself that this is the case.

Now, I don't know what your knowledge is in mathematics, hence all I can give you is some general advice. In most physics programs, you will have introductory courses in linear algebra, analysis and calculus. My first three semesters looked like this in terms of the math courses:

  1. Sets and functions; mathematical induction; groups, fields and vector spaces; real and complex numbers, series and sequences, power series; matrices, linear systems of equations; determinants and eigenvalue problems

  2. More on linear systems of equations, eigenvectors, eigenvalues and determinants; canonical forms; self-adjoint matrices and unitary matrices; some analysis (topological basics, continuity)

  3. More on topology; hilbert spaces; differentiation and integration

    These were, very roughly, the subjects we covered. I think that should give you some basic idea where to start. Usually quantum mechanics isn't discussed until the second year of undergrad, such that the students have the necessary mathematic tools to grasp it.

    A book I haven't worked with but know that some students really like is Mathematics for Physics by Paul Goldbart. This essentially gives you a full introduction to most of the subjects you'll need. Maybe that's a good point to start?

    Concerning introductory texts for quantum mechanics, I can recommend the Feynman lectures and the book by David Griffiths. I know a ton of students who have used the book by Griffiths for their introductory course. It isn't nearly as rigorous as the traditional works (e.g. Dirac), but it's great for an introduction to the concepts and mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Feynman lectures are just classic - it's absolutely worth reading all three volumes, even more than once!

    EDIT: added some literature, words.
u/woodne · 3 pointsr/Physics

I used Griffiths for my upper level Electro & Magnetostatics class.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314035153&sr=8-1

Also I know the university I'm at uses the Griffiths book for Quantum Mechanics, however I have not taken the class.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1314035153&sr=8-2

Disclaimer: I am a math major.

u/erdaron · 3 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths is indeed an excellent textbook, and a standard in many undergrad courses. I would also recommend brushing up on vector calculus and linear algebra before diving into QM.

Honestly, Wikipedia articles often do a good job of explaining the fundamentals in a clear, accessible way. And its scientific accuracy is quite good.

There are also free courses online, such as through Coursera and MIT's OpenCourseWare.

u/ELS · 3 pointsr/Physics

I think the most widely-used textbook for a junior level introductory quantum mechanics class (at least in US universities) is this book by David Griffiths.

u/BitRex · 3 pointsr/askscience

Here's the second edition.

u/destiny_functional · 3 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

No, but here is a devastating critique of it

http://physics.ucsc.edu/~michael/qefoundations.pdf

See the abstract

>Abstract The central claim that understanding quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer, which is made by B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner in their book “Quantum Enigma: Physics encounters consciousness”, is shown to be based on various
misunderstandings and distortions of the foundations of quantum mechanics.

and for a quicker read jump to chapter 2 to see what's wrong with it.

>2 Critique of Selected Quotations from QE

Stay away from it. It isn't going teach you anything, and will probably give you so many misconceptions that it's going to make it difficult to actually learn quantum theory at a later time. If you want to learn quantum theory, read a textbook ( probably the easiest English book on it https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927 you can find pdfs on google).

General rule: if a book on quantum theory mentions the word consciousness prominently (say in the title), then that's a red flag and be careful.

u/BeautyAndGlamour · 3 pointsr/Documentaries

Griffiths is excellent.

u/NoSmallCaterpillar · 3 pointsr/Physics

Because Griffiths is infamous amongst those in the know, but not really to a wider audience, I'll leave this here:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927

He also has an excellent book on Electromagnetism that is a staple in the undergraduate curriculum.

u/CurvatureTensor · 3 pointsr/Physics

Math, math and more math. If you don't feel comfortable with differential equations, or if you're like I was after freshman year you don't know what a differential equation really is, then that's where you should start. Quantum Mechanics basically starts with an awesome differential equation and then goes from there.

Learning the math of this level of Physics on your own would be challenging to say the least, but if you want to dive in I'd suggest Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Boas. Pairing that with Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths might be fun.

Nuclear theory goes into statistical mechanics, classical mechanics is multivariable calc/linear algebra, quantum field theory combines those two with differential equations and sprinkles in a bunch of "whoa that's weird" just to keep you on your toes. But it's really important that you know the math (or more likely you fake your way through the math enough to gain some insight to the Physics).

u/naery · 3 pointsr/C25K

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.

u/skimitar · 3 pointsr/Physics

You simply can't go past the Feynman Lectures on Physics for an approachable and enjoyable comprehensive introduction. Also available via bittorrent if you are poor (Feynman would approve).

There's also a support site (http://www.feynmanlectures.info/).

u/HungOnGravity · 3 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

Take Physics Thermodynamics, it'll open your eyes. We use Schroeder 20 miles north of you. I had a Nuclear Energy Conversion course that was essentially our Thermo from our department and finally had the chance to see all of the theoretical physics applied to real world (well, 1970s reactors ;D) applications.

I'm up at SPSU finishing a Physics BS and just completed our Nuclear Engineering minor. I liked the similarities in curriculum because I had seen it before, but there were some ME/EE majors that weren't too thrilled with Physics Thermodynamics showing up in a Nuclear course.

Is your advanced lab course Modern, Electronics, or Adv Measurements?

By classical physics do you mean something similar to Intermediate Mechanics?

You should be able to relate Optics to Nuclear pretty well comparing it to what you've studied with neutrons passing through matter and moderators.

Sorry about the wall of text, I don't get to talk about both subjects much in either department.

u/blalien · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

I can't stand Brian Greene. This is the book I got the idea from, I just added the bits about infinite and negative temperature.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201380277/

u/SnOrfys · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This scenario is written about in the book Why does e=mc^2 and why should we care?

Good book; a bit heady at times.

u/Dre_J · 3 pointsr/IBO

I know the university I'm headed to is using University Physics. I have a PDF of it, if you want it. It basically covers all the fundamental physics using calculus, so I would definitely regard it as a post-IB book.

I've heard many say that Resnick and Halliday's books are the best out there. They are perhaps a bit old, but seem to be the favorite among undergraduates.

If you want a more intuitive understanding of physics, then The Feynman Lectures are a must. He covers some material that requires knowledge of undergraduate level physics, but a lot of it I've found to still be enlightening. The intuition you'll get is invaluable.

u/GapingNewb · 3 pointsr/askscience

For introductory physics, I think it's also well worth mentioning The Feynman Lectures on Physics which I think are widely regarded as great reading for any physicist, for example.

u/hashb · 3 pointsr/chemistry
u/thebenson · 3 pointsr/AskPhysics

I think you posted something similar in the math thread right? Introductory physics is really just math and being able to plug into formulas. I'd say it'd be best to get a good math foundation before tackling physics (especially calculus). As far as book recommendations ... I Googled and found a very comprehensive list ( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html).

There should be tons of stuff on Khan Academy or on YouTube for particular subjects. Sometimes this may be even more useful than just studying a book as both math and physics books can be dense. I guess I should just list the books I have. Maybe you'll find them useful. I'll list my physics and math books separately.

In general, the Feynmann lectures are considered to be like the physics bible. You can buy a hardcover boxed set of these lectures here: http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/ref=asap_B000AQ47U8_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413342403&sr=1-1. Be forewarned that the lectures were intended for physics students, so it may be best to read a general physics textbook first.

Math (in no particular order):

-Advanced Engineering Mathematics by Greenberg

-Calculus: Early Transcendentals Multivariable by James and Stewart

-Thomas' Calculus Early Transcendentals (Single Variable) by Weir and Hass

-Linear Algebra and its Applications by Lay

-Differential Equations: Computing and Modeling by Edwards and Penney

-Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics by Chartrand, Polimeni and Zhang

-A First Course in Partial Differential Equations with Complex Variables and Transform Methods by Weinberger




Physics (in no particular order):

-Intro to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths

-University Physics by Young and Freedman (prob a good starting place)

-Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler

-Analytical Mechanics by Fowles and Cassiday

-Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker

-Intro to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

-Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman

-Statistical and Thermal Physics by Gould and Tobochnik

I hope this was helpful! If not, the physics subreddit has a dedicated thread each week to learning materials and I'm sure someone over there would be glad to help you.




u/nodayzero · 3 pointsr/AskPhysics

I got the new millennium edition. While I was researching which one to get , a lot of people mentioned that millenium edition was glossy and had smaller print which made it harder to read. I must say it looks fine. I don't have any problems so far. The reason i picked the latest is because it was relatively cheaper (140ish vs 300+) and had over 900 erratas fixed with respect to older editions.

Bonus: Another book I started reading in tandem is Road to Reality by Penrose which is equivalent in excitement, inspiration and quality of material and gives a nice overview of math required for physics and relation between math and physics. Highly recommend.

u/nitrogentriiodide · 3 pointsr/askscience

I know this isn't what you requested, but as a high schooler, I enjoyed In Search of Schödinger's Cat.

The top level presentations on QM are very light on math, and anything below that brings out heavy linear algebra, differential equations, calculus, etc. So you've probably got that top level covered, and now you need to start solving problems. You could get credit for your efforts by picking one of the undergrad versions of QM from the Chemistry and/or the Physics depts.

I took the chemistry route, so we used Atkins, Cohen-Tanoudji, etc. For all the classes that I took and TA'd, the professor might recommend a book, but rarely reference it.

u/mathwanker · 3 pointsr/Physics

Try Baym's book or Cohen-Tannoudji's two-volume set.

u/QuentinDave · 3 pointsr/Astronomy
  1. I found this article trying to answer the same question. I was looking at the stars the other night, and wondering if I was seeing photons directly from the star, or if I was really seeing photons emitted from the atoms in the air directly above my eyes. Maybe they pass between the atoms in the air, because atoms in gasses are distant compared to massless photons, I thought.

    I have been googling for the past hour and I think they are absorbed, but they are emitted with more-or-less the same wavelength, resulting in more-or-less the same image.

    Photons travel at c between the atoms, but the absorption and emission causes an average slower speed, and thus a bend in its path. From the linked article:

    > By "absorption" I mean that the energy of the photon causes an electron of
    the atom to be kicked to a higher energy level, and the photon ceases to
    exist. Then, after a very small time delay, the electron goes back to its
    original (usually ground state) energy and "emits" a photon of the same
    energy (and thus same frequency and thus same wavelength) as the original
    "absorbed" photon.

    So to answer your question, yes, refraction is absorption->emission. The article in OP sorta glosses over this, ("This is not due to gravity, but refraction as the lens of our air slants its path before its final plummet to the nighttime country-side below.") perhaps to keep the theme of following one photon on its journey. From what I've read online, a good resource for more info on this is QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman.

    I think my original question is more of philosophical identity (is it really the "same" photon?) than of physics.

  2. The author used "burn" in the less literal definition: use (a type of fuel) as a source of heat or energy.

  3. The video in this article shows what an observer might see while traveling at near the speed of light. So basically, nothing--your whole field of view collapses into a single point. Also, this game made with/by MIT shows how you might experience the world as you artificially lower c. And it's actually pretty fun. This doesn't answer the frozen in time bit, however...

  4. This r/askscience post's answers generally seem to say that no time passes for a photon. However, they also stress that a "photon's reference frame" isn't a valid concept. I wanted to know why and I think the answer is in this wikipedia article about time dilation. It shows the formula for calculating the time elapsed for an observer moving at very high speed relative to a "stationary" observer. Basically, you divide the stationary time by the square root of 1-(velocity^2 / speedoflight^2 ).However if v=c, then v^2 / c^2 = 1, 1-1=0, the square root of 0=0, and you're now dividing by 0... which is probably why it's said that photons have no reference frame.

    Thanks for asking these questions, because I learned a lot in researching the answers lol. All this info made the original article seem even less science-based, but I still think it illustrates the awesome forces at work in this stellar hobby.
u/agate_ · 3 pointsr/askscience

I think the best answer is: since photons don't come with nametags, there's no way to tell, but in most cases, the light behaves as if it's the same photon. There are however some properties of light (diffraction, for instance) where thinking of each point in space as a source of new photons is useful.

For extra credit: the same is true of matter.

Not 100% related, but for more on this sort of thing check out Richard Feynman's short book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". It's intended for ordinary laypeople, which says a lot about Feynman's confidence in laypeople, but it's great for the dedicated reader.

u/ajslater · 3 pointsr/askscience

Indeed yes, there isn't so much absorbtion and reemission of quanta as i understand it as does the substance act like a matrix or diffraction grating. Then within the substance you have lots of little broken up waves all interacting with each other, canceling each other out in parts and bolstering each other in others. The 'super wave' made up of all these interactions propagates at slower than light speed, and potentially at an angle. Come out the other side (into a vaccum again) and there's no diffraction, no 'super wave' but back to light propagating at 'light speed again'.

There's probably a good quantum analogy too, but I don't recall it.

The thing to always remember is that these forces aren't quantum particles or idealized waves, those are just the best models we have for something we don't fully understand.

Read Feynman's QED, its short, written for the layman and completely awesome. It will also blow your freaking mind.

u/leoboiko · 3 pointsr/science

> If you want to involve photons in this picture, you can, but it won't help you very much.

I beg to differ. I only really understood what “electricity” is, including said guitar-amp phenomenon, when I got photons in the picture , thus creating a very different model than the one presented by most textbooks on transistor electronics. The stuff that moves at the speed of light when you turn a switch on? Photons. The stuff that actually transfers electromagnetic energy, including wire “electricity”, from a battery/source to charge? Photons. Stuff that binds electrons to protons? Photons. Stuff that get stored in capacitors? Photons. Hell the photon↔electron interaction goes well beyond “light” or “electricity” and do most things in the universe! (except gravity and nuclear phenomena). I don’t feel qualified to explain it all in quantum terms but I got the better picture from Richard Feynman’s QED, which I heartily recommend to any curious layman. (Also, this page).

u/redsledletters · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

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

u/AwkwardTurtle · 3 pointsr/askscience

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.

u/rupert1920 · 3 pointsr/askscience

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.

u/oro_boris · 3 pointsr/Physics

> Why is a photon massless and still has momentum?

Because momentum isn’t actually p = mv, as in Newtonian mechanics, but it’s really

p = ( E/c^2 ) v

For objects with a non-zero mass m, moving non-relativistically, E is approximately equal to mc^2 and then p is approximately equal to mv, the Newtonian value.

However, photons are intrinsically relativistic. They have energy even though they don’t have mass (their energy is proportional to their frequency, E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant) and, so, they also carry momentum. In fact, since their speed (in vacuum) is always c, the magnitude of their momentum, using the above results, is always p = E/c = h f/c = h/wavelength.

> Why can't anything go beyond the speed of light? (Cliché but I never really understood why despite of many videos floating on YouTube)

Please take a read at this post I wrote here some time ago, where I address that question. Please ignore the first two paragraphs as those were part of a rant.

> How does a magnetic field originate?

A magnetic field is created by electric charges in motion. Since, however, motion is relative (you’re not moving with respect to your chair but you are moving with respect to, say, the Sun), so is a magnetic field. In a reference frame where an electric charge is at rest, you’ll only measure the electric field generated by the charge. In a reference frame where the charge is in motion, you’ll observe both an electric field and a magnetic field.



Excellent introductory books on special relativity, in my opinion, are (in increasing order of difficulty):

Special Relativity: For the Enthusiastic Beginner

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1542323517/

Special Relativity (Mit Introductory Physics Series)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B079SB3MWS/

and

Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0716723271/

Einstein’s own books are pretty great too, and are now in the public domain. Search the Gutenberg project for them.

u/craftyzombie · 3 pointsr/math
u/bilabrin · 3 pointsr/books

It is a little known fact that Isaac Asimov wrote more science books than novels. I have read one or two of them and can tell you that the writing is clear and straightforward. He is credited with authoring around 500 books.

Here are a few examples:

Understanding Physics

Asimov's Chronoloy of the World

Atom: Journey Across the Sub-Atomic Cosmos(I Read this in the 90's and due to the speed of advances in this field it's a bit dated but it gave me a solid foundation and taught me the difference between a letpon and a baryon)

u/farmerje · 3 pointsr/math

Er, sorry, I'm conflating a few things.

  1. What would be a good recommendation for the OP
  2. My thoughts on mathematical pedagogy and curriculum

    WRT (1), Spivak is fastidiously rigorous. It's not as dry as the standard higher-level textbooks like Baby Rudin, Munkres, and so on, but it's every bit as rigorous. A high-school student who has read through Spivak on his own is a pretty unusual character.

    For example, although Spivak doesn't use the jargon, there are several examples and exercises that ask students to prove various facts about vector spaces (finite and infinite-dimensional), linear transformations, and so on. The last chapter of Spivak is identical to the first chapter of Baby Rudin, after all — the construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers using Dedekind cuts and proving that the real numbers are the unique Archimedian complete totally ordered field up to isomorphism.

    That's the situation the OP is coming from, so "linear algebra" might be fun, but as a recommendation I think the OP will enjoy a more foundational approach to what they study next. It's good that he can see all the choices in front of him, of course.

    And I have no opinion about your specific recommendation, either, since I've never heard of that book.

    WRT (2), well, I love linear algebra. I'm generally frustrated with how it's taught. I feel the same way about probability and statistics, too.

    I admit I'm a bit of an odd duck when it comes to a typical math undergrad. I found physics, especially Newtonian mechanics and classic E&M, incredibly frustrating. That is, until we got to relativity and QM — smooth sailing from there! Later, I bought and read Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics by (wait for it!) Michael Spivak and was finally able to understand WTF was going on with mechanics.

    Most of (undergrad) physics, linear algebra, ODEs, and so on always felt like a grab bag of manipulations and techniques that were justified "because they worked." This is exactly what I hated about math in HS and it wasn't until I had Spivak's Calculus in my first-year calculus course that I realized that high-school math wasn't really "math."

    Like I said, this is unusual, although I suspect the OP is more like me than the folks shouting "linear algebra! ODEs! multi-variable calculus!" I believe that there's a way to teach these subjects without such a strong divide between what folks call "practice" and "theory." I love Axler's Linear Algebra Without Determinants, for example, and this PDF about the relationship between differential equations and linear algebra.

    So, I'm not sure we're disagreeing about anything, really, although it seems like you think we are? I'm not advocating for anything in particular so much as expressing my thoughts and experiences from my math undergrad and how they relate to the OP's current situation.
u/bulletninja · 3 pointsr/MachineLearning

Yes. I remember reading one of michael spivak's books where he says something like what you said, he then said he was attempting to make books titled "* for mathematicians" (mathematician here). This is the only one i know he actually made: physics for mathematicians

I did hope he did the series, but have lost it since. It would be amazing if there was a similar thing for ML

u/kohatsootsich · 3 pointsr/math

Those notes eventually became this beautiful book.

I have spent many hours with it since it came out a couple of years ago. I can highly recommend it to anyone who, like myself, picked a lot of modern physics here and there, but never bothered to go back to thinking about classical mechanics.

u/Curates · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

>If 99% of all possible observers are in worlds without property X, then being in a world with property X is fairly strong evidence that modal realism is false.

Yes, assuming omniscience, but this presumption cannot ever be justified. Setting aside the objection that 1% is not altogether unlikely on the scale of cosmological fine tunings, the modal realist can always say:

"Though you may think that property X should only appear in the universe to 10^-10^10 % of conscious observers, much more likely is that you are simply mistaken as to what demands must be met in order for physical laws to be compatible with conscious observers in any particular universe."

>So either there's something special about consciousness that only allows it to arise in universes which have lots of structure everywhere, we need some less naive way to quantify over possible worlds that massively increases the density of worlds with sensible physical laws, or modal realism is almost certainly false.

It seems like you've slipped in a commitment to non-haeccitism about personal identity. If you are capable of experiencing multiple worlds at once, the existence of Boltzmann brains should pose no problem for you. While the majority of "worlds" containing mathematical substructures isomorphic to particular brain states corresponding to the course of your own life will not be stable, what you experience must be (says the modal realist) an emergent quasi-classical universe, for whatever reason to do with how the large scale structure of the mathematical universe tracks personal identity over isomorphic substructures.

This is a greatly underserved area of philosophy, but there is some work broaching the edge. Here are some good resources.

u/soowonlee · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Here are some examples:

The Metaphysics Within Physics by Tim Maudlin

Combining Science and Metaphysics by Matteo Morganti

Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert

Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality by Patricia S. Churchland

God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism edited by Thomas Jay Oord, William Hasker, and Dean Zimmerman

u/CallMeMaestro · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

That's a terrible video. There's a huge amount of misinformation about quantum physics on the internet.

You could try starting with this SEP article

Or check out David Albert or Tim Maudlin. This book is good.

u/JimmyBob15 · 2 pointsr/askscience

Looking on their website it seems as if they do not let outside people borrow from their library, sorry :(.

I know many libraries have "partnerships" for the lack of a better word, where if you try to borrow a book from the library, and they don't have it, they will request it from somewhere else they are partnered with and get it for you.

Some ideas of books:

For my undergraduate astrophysics class I used - Foundations of Astrophysics by Ryden and Peterson, ISBN13: 978-0-321-59558-4

I have also used (more advanced, graduate level) - An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie, ISBN13: 978-0-805-30402-2

There are plenty of other undergraduate text books for astrophysics, but those are the only two I have experience with.

Some other books that may be just fun reads and aren't text books:

A Brief History of Time - Hawking

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter - Feynman

Random popular science books:

Parallel Worlds - Kaku (or anything else by him Michio Kaku)

Cosmos - Sagan

Dark Cosmos - Hooper

or anything by Green, Krauss, Tyson, etc.

Videos to watch:

I would also suggest, if you have an hour to burn, watching this video by Lawrence Krauss. I watched it early on in my physics career and loved it, check it out:

Lawrence Krauss - A Universe From Nothing

Also this video is some what related:

Sean Carroll - Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time

Hope you enjoy!

Edit: Formatting.

u/bukojuice · 2 pointsr/pics
u/Morophin3 · 2 pointsr/askscience

Also, someone else mentioned Feynman's book, called QED. It's a great read.

u/aphysics · 2 pointsr/askscience

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.

u/curien · 2 pointsr/atheism

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.

u/bkanber · 2 pointsr/askscience

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!

u/GuitarGreg · 2 pointsr/electricians

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.

u/airshowfan · 2 pointsr/AskEngineers

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.

u/mccoyn · 2 pointsr/science

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.

u/ebneter · 2 pointsr/scifi

Any decent introduction to special relativity should cover it. I don't know how technical you are, though. If you're mathematically inclined, Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics is an awesome book. A lot cheaper and pretty accessible would be Relativity: A Very Short Introduction

u/MahatmaGandalf · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

You sound like a great audience for the series I recommend to everyone in your position: Lenny Susskind's Theoretical Minimum. He's got free lectures and accompanying books which are designed with the sole purpose of getting you from zero to sixty as fast as possible. I'm sure others will have valuable suggestions, but that's mine.

The series is designed for people who took some math classes in college, and maybe an intro physics class, but never had the chance to go further. However, it does assume that you are comfortable with calculus, and more doesn't hurt. What's your math background like?

As to the LHC and other bleeding-edge physics: unfortunately, this stuff takes a lot of investment to really get at, if you want to be at the level where you can do the actual derivations—well beyond where an undergrad quantum course would land you. If you're okay with a more heuristic picture, you could read popular-science books on particle physics and combine that with a more quantitative experience from other sources.

But if you are thinking of doing this over a very long period of time, I would suggest that you could pretty easily attain an advanced-undergraduate understanding of particle physics through self-study—enough to do some calculations, though the actual how and why may not be apparent. If you're willing to put in a little cash and more than a little time for this project, here's what I suggest:

  • Pick up a book on introductory physics (with calculus). It doesn't really matter which. Make sure you're good with the basic concepts—force, momentum, energy, work, etc.

  • Learn special relativity. It does not take too long, and is not math-intensive, but it can be very confusing. There are lots of ways to do it—lots of online sources too. My favorite book for introductory SR is this one.

  • Use a book or online resources to become familiar with the basics (just the basics) of differential equations and linear algebra. It sounds more scary than it is.

  • Get a copy of Griffiths' books on quantum mechanics and particle physics. These are undergrad-level textbooks, but pretty accessible! Read the quantum book first—and do at least a few exercises—and then you should be able to get a whole lot out of reading the particle physics book.

    Note that this is sort of the fastest way to get into particle physics. If you want to take this route, you should still be prepared to spread it out over a couple years—and it will leave a whole smattering of gaps in your knowledge. But hey, if you enjoy it, you could legitimately come to understand a lot about the universe through self-study!
u/Animastryfe · 2 pointsr/Physics

If you want to learn more about special relativity, I suggest you read this textbook. My half semester special relativity class used this book, and I think a highschool student with a good background in classical mechanics should be able to go through most of it.

u/nonpareilpearl · 2 pointsr/reddit.com

I just want to start by saying that in order to fully understand how Relativity, and Special Relativity, work that you will need to be able to understand the physics and mathematical concepts behind the theory. If you would like to do this, I recommend a book that we used when I studied this on the undergraduate level: Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.

You should be able to understand most of this book with minimal understanding of calculus.

That said, I'll endeavor to explain this without confusing the issue. I did mention previously (you may want to look at the other post and my response there) that yes, an object's velocity does affect how it experiences time. That said, the difference between how two frames of reference experience time is typically insignificant. I mentioned somewhere (this thread or the other one) that if you traveled in an airplane you'd be younger than someone standing on the surface of Earth. You won't be days or even full seconds younger - you'd have to be in the airplane a "long time" and be going decently fast to even be a full second younger than the Earth observer.

I mention this because you must remember that GPS systems must be extremely precise. This is the same with your computer. Your computer does not have a little atomic clock in it, but there are other clocks that your computer periodically synchronizes with. Your computer and GPS systems do not have little atomic clocks in them, but it is very important to keep these devices in sync with other devices - even more so if the the devices are on a network (and both computers, if you are connected to the internet, and GPS systems are on networks). As an anecdote, when I was working in IT at my University there were some services that would kick a fit if the host computer's system time did not match the synchronized time (i.e. if the host computer was a few minutes, or more, different from the synchronized/network time).

I would like to say that the major cause for the need for periodic synchronization has very, very little to do with relativity and much, much more to do with "lost time" (i.e. increasing error). Every measurement has a margin of error. For an atomic clock this margin of error is 10^-9 seconds. For most of the clocks you purchase at at a store, or the components in a GPS or host computer, the margin of error is several orders of magnitude higher than that. These clocks therefore "lose time" more quickly and need to be synchronized.

Also, you could say that Earth travels around Sun at a given speed and that Sun travels around the galactic core at a given speed. But you must also remember that if Sun is traveling around the galactic center, so is Earth. Think of this as being similar to swinging a ball around on a string and then walking around in a circle in your living room. The ball would have two directions of motion - one around you and the other around the room.

This means that both Earth and Sun, for the purposes of this discussion, can be considered the same frame of reference as the Earth-Sun system travels around the galactic core. This means, again for the purposes of this discussion, that the Earth-Sun system experience time in the same way (since they are both in the same frame of reference).

In a similar way, when you talk about the the galaxy moving through the universe, it is the Earth-Sun-Milky Way system you must consider. Just like we considered both Earth and Sun to be in the same frame of reference, the Earth, Sun, and Milky Way would be in the same frame of reference (at least for the purposes of this discussion).

So although there is no absolute time, remember that some objects are in the same frame of reference with respect to other objects - it depends on what your frame of reference is and what systems you are looking at/your margin of error.

Now there is more to relativity than just speed. There is gravity as well. Time dilation occurs both when an object is in a strong gravitational field and also when it is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a vacuum (remember that the observed speed of light is not constant in all media). This has actually been observed with the planet Mercury. There was a time when it was theorized that an extra planet, nicknamed Vulcan, had to exist in order for Mercury's orbit to be the way it appeared. This would only have been required with Newtonian motion (an approximation of relativity when applied to slow moving objects, or what we observe here on Earth), but was resolved by relativity. For some more information about this I direct you to Wikipedia's article about Mercury. The section named "Advance of perihelion" includes information about Mercury's orbit and Vulcan. Note that other planets, such as Venus, Earth, and etc. are far enough from Sun that this is not observable in the same way it is with Mercury.

u/lohborn · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

I think you are getting it.

If you want to understand all the cool, weird stuff including about the order of events, time changing, space shrinking and momentum changing read Spacetime Physics. It is easy to understand and comprehensive.

u/MattAmoroso · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

I'm pretty sure you have to use Tensors... and I can't do that. :)

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

u/Cronecker · 2 pointsr/physicsbooks

Have you had a look at Carroll's general relativity notes? Chapters 2 and 3 are predominantly about developing the mathematics behind GR, and are very good introductions to this. I have a copy of Carroll's book and I can promise you that those chapters are almost unchanged in the book as compared to the lecture notes. This is my main suggestion really, as the notes are freely available, written by an absolute expert and a joy to read. I can't recommend them (and the book really) enough.

Most undergraduate books on general relativity start with a "physics first" type approach, where the underlying material about manifolds and curvature is developed as it is needed. The only problem with this is that it makes seeing the underlying picture for how the material works more difficult. I wouldn't neccessarily say avoid these sort of books (my favourite two of this kind would be Cheng's book and Hartle's.) but be aware that they are probably not what you are looking for if you want a consistent description of the mathematics.

I would also say avoid the harder end of the scale (Wald) till you've at least done your course. Wald is a tough book, and certainly not aimed at people seeing the material for the first time.

Another useful idea would be looking for lecture notes from other universities. As an example, there are some useful notes here from cambridge university. Generally I find doing searches like "general relativity site:.ac.uk filetype:pdf" in google is a good way to get started searching for decent lecture notes from other universities.

If you're willing to dive in a bit more to the mathematics, the riemannian geometry book by DoCarmo is supposed to be excellent, although I've only seen his differential geometry book (which was very good). As a word of warning, this book might assume knowledge of differential geometry from his earlier book. The book you linked by Bishop also looks fine, and there is also the book by Schutz which is supposed to be great and this book by Sternberg which looks pretty good, although quite tough.

Finally, if you would like I have a dropbox folder of collected together material for GR which I could share with you. It's not much, but I've got some decent stuff collected together which could be very helpful. As a qualifier, I had to teach myself GR for my undergrad project, so I know how it feels being on your own with it. Good luck!

u/m_awesomeness · 2 pointsr/askscience

Actually we can calculate the bending of photon using newtonian mechanics assuming it has a mass given by

m = E/c^2 = h \nu/c^2

The answer we get is exactly half of what GR predicts. You can find the this problem done in this book

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

u/shrubberni · 2 pointsr/physicsbooks
u/MellowArtichoke · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Yes, he proved it, which is the entire reason why Einstein is so famous in the first place. Here's an excellent introductory textbook on the subject if you're not afraid of the math.

General relativity is the most iron-clad, battle-tested theory in all of science, along with quantum mechanics. None of its predictions have been proven false yet. Just last fall, one of the Einstein's predictions, gravitational waves, was proven to be true by an experiment called LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory).

u/duetosymmetry · 2 pointsr/askscience

It sounds like you want to understand both GR and the standard model of particle physics. For an intro to GR, try Sean Carroll's book or lecture notes. For the standard model, try Srednicki's book (there is a preprint PDF available from the author).

You should have a solid understanding of both GR and the standard model if you want to try to explain the weakness of gravity through beyond-SM or beyond-GR theories. There are no compact extra dimensions in the SM or GR, so what you're talking about is already beyond-SM / beyond-GR. The type of model which tries to combine gravity and standard model forces via compact extra dimensions is called a Kaluza-Klein model and it's been around for a long time (1921!). The more modern ideas about explaining the weakness of gravity through extra dimensions are e.g. DGP models or RS models or cascading gravity ... they seem kind of contrived to me, but there's no accounting for taste.

u/Kaliss_Darktide · 2 pointsr/atheism

What's your previous science background? Most of this stuff is built upon layers of knowledge like knowing calculus requires an understanding of algebra which requires an understanding of multiplication which requires an understanding of addition.


For example Hubble's observation of a red shift everywhere in the universe is based on an understanding of the doppler effect which requires an understanding of light as a wave. You don't need to know anything about light or doppler to understand what his observation means, it's the first major clue we had about the big bang theory. However without this knowledge it can seem to someone unfamiliar that it's all "based on faith" when in fact it is based on evidence.


>Does one need to know physics to understand astrophysics or cosmology? Or would one be better served learning astronomy? Or Both?

In a very broad sense astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology are all the same thing. Unfortunately astrology became associated with predicting the future based on your birth date when it's literal translation should mean science of the stars like geology means science of the earth and biology means science of life. So scientists had to look for another name so as not to be associated with the psuedo-science that is astrology today.

Are you familiar with the crash course series on youtube? They have series on both physics and astronomy I would recommend.

Astronomy episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rHUDWjR5gg&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPAJr1ysd5yGIyiSFuh0mIL

If you are really new to science I'd recommend the newer cosmos series with Neil Degrasse Tyson as a good starting point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey

edit if you want a substantial read

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Physics-Magnetism-Electricity-Electron/dp/0880292512

I read this a while ago it's very good but not an "easy" read.

u/xtracto · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Well, I am not Dr. Kaku but I know a really good book called Understanding Physics by the late Isaac Asimov. If you like Asimov's non-fiction writing style (which I like a lot) then it may be for you.

u/WeAreAllBroken · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Asimov points out in Understanding Physics that the Greeks valued reason over experimentation.

For example, reason led them to affirm that equal masses must fall at equal rates. But a simple experiment could show that two equally massive pieces of paper fall at different rates if one is crumpled into a ball and the other is not. Such a simple experiment would have led them to the discovery of air resistance, etc. Unfortunately, their scientific framework didn't move them to test their conclusions.

u/1337Lulz · 2 pointsr/books

If you want to start to learn how to actually do physics and not just novelty facts, [This may be the best introduction on physics you will find.] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Physics-Volumes-One-Electricity/dp/0880292512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348642325&sr=1-1&keywords=understanding+physics)
It covers all the basic topics from gravitation, optics, relativity, electromagnetism to particle physics. What they are and how they work and how they came to be known. It goes real light on the math and is very easy to grasp. You can buy a used copy dirt cheap on Amazon. I highly recommend it.

u/TezlaKoil · 2 pointsr/math

Also, let's not forget about Michael Spivak's^1 Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics 1.


^1 you may have heard about his books on Calculus and Differential Geometry

u/rnally · 2 pointsr/physicsbooks

If you want to start with mechanics, Spivak of all people [wrote a mechanics text.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0914098322) I've personally never read it, but I've suffered more than enough at his hands read enough of his other works to expect good things.

In more advanced physics, there's general relativity, which is built on manifold theory, and gauge theory, which has lots of interesting math happening behind the scenes (and sometimes very prevalently, as with the gauge groups, usually taken to be SU(n)). Most physics texts will treat the mathier topics as of secondary interest and importance, and focus on the actual physics, so you might have some trouble finding an appropriately rigorous text, but there certainly exist such entities.

u/treeses · 2 pointsr/Physics

Now that the 3rd edition has been published, used copies of the 2nd edition of The Art of Electronics is super cheap. I think this is the best intro circuits book for self study. Alternatively, I've really enjoyed Practical Electronics for Inventors too, and it covers more modern stuff (like it has a chapter on arduino). Both of these start with the basics, though Practical Electronics written for a more general audience so it is easier on the math.

For electromagnetics, I've heard Electricity and Magnetism is pretty good. It does cover some circuits stuff, but so much of circuits is about electronic components that you really need a dedicated circuits book to understand them.

u/internationaltester · 2 pointsr/Sat

The subject tests are never released and so there are no past papers to be had. The College Board has 1 large book that contains 1 example of each type of SAT subject test.

SAT Subject Tests Book

Last year the College Board started publishing individual guides. The guides have 2-4 practice tests. There is not a guide for every type of test, but these are the most common ones.

SAT Chemistry

SAT Biology

SAT Math II

SAT Physics

SAT US History

SAT World History

u/arrowoftime · 2 pointsr/funny
u/773333 · 2 pointsr/Sat

Good luck tmrw! You've got this!

Just to clarify bc you listed 3 CB scores I thought you had the CB Math 2 book with 4 exams. It's PT 1 and 2 in the 4 exam Math 2 book that are the most recently released exams. If you have the older 2 exam CB Math 1 and 2 book, PT 1 is still pretty accurate but PT 2 is not (it's from 1995 despite being republished in a book with a more recent copyright). Hope that's clear.

u/saints400 · 2 pointsr/Physics

Im currently in a mechanics physics course and this is the main text book we use

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

I'd say it's pretty good and an easy read as well

We have also been using a math text book to complement some of the material

https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269

Hope this helps

u/Onjrew · 2 pointsr/Physics

This is what my university uses for first year:
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,4096,0805386858,00.html

And this is second year:
http://www.amazon.ca/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

Both are great. Very conversational style.

u/DrRoger1960 · 2 pointsr/Sat

Best: https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Mathematics-Level-Study/dp/1457309327/ref=pd_sim_14_3/136-3126641-7578327?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1457309327&pd_rd_r=1410dd1f-7ca8-11e9-a045-19daa5a404f5&pd_rd_w=CYbaY&pd_rd_wg=gM4vA&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=NVTAD8TW5HX8ZC6JQ8M9&psc=1&refRID=NVTAD8TW5HX8ZC6JQ8M9 College Board has four real tests in their book, and they are the real thing.

​

Second best: https://www.amazon.com/Barrons-SAT-Subject-Test-Online/dp/1438011148/ref=dp_ob_title_bk Barron's is (I think 5 tests; I don't have mine with me), and they are decent.

​

Third best: None of the remaining options has impressed me. I hope someone will have a suggestion for third place.

u/The_MPC · 2 pointsr/Physics

That's perfect then, don't let me stop you :). When you're ready for the real stuff, the standard books on quantum mechanics are (in roughly increasing order of sophistication)

  • Griffiths (the standard first course, and maybe the best one)
  • Cohen-Tannoudji (another good one, similar to Griffiths and a bit more thorough)
  • Shankar (sometimes used as a first course, sometimes used as graduate text; unless you are really good at linear algebra, you'd get more out of starting with the first two books instead of Shankar)

    By the time you get to Shankar, you'll also need some classical mechanics. The best text, especially for self-learning, is [Taylor's Classical Mechanics.] (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372650839&sr=1-1&keywords=classical+mechanics)


    Those books will technically have all the math you need to solve the end-of-chapter problems, but a proper source will make your life easier and your understanding better. It's enough to use any one of

  • Paul's Free Online Notes (the stuff after calculus, but without some of the specialized ways physicists use the material)
  • Boas (the standard, focuses on problem-solving recipes)
  • Nearing (very similar to Boas, but free and online!)
  • Little Hassani (Boas done right, with all the recipes plus real explanations of the math behind them; after my math methods class taught from Boas, I immediately sold Boas and bought this with no regrets)

    When you have a good handle on that, and you really want to learn the language used by researchers like Dr. Greene, check out

  • Sakurai (the standard graduate QM book; any of the other three QM texts will prepare you for this one, and this one will prepare you for your PhD qualifying exams)
  • Big Hassani(this isn't just the tools used in theoretical physics, it's the content of mathematical physics. This is one of two math-for-physics books that I keep at my desk when I do my research, and the other is Little Hassani)
  • Peskin and Schroeder (the standard book on quantum field theory, the relativistic quantum theory of particles and fields; either Sakurai or Shankar will prepare you for this)

    Aside from the above, the most relevant free online sources at this level are

  • Khan Academy
  • Leonard Susskind's Modern Physics lectures
  • MIT's Open CourseWare
u/DeeperThanNight · 2 pointsr/Physics

Sure no problem. These are the texts I used as an undergrad:

Classical Mechanics: Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems, Thornton and Marion

Electrodynamics: Introduction to Electrodynamics, Griffiths

Statistical Mechanics: An Introduction to Thermal Physics, Schroeder

Quantum Mechanics: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Griffiths

For special relativity I never used a book strictly devoted to the subject. Thornton and Marion will cover it at the end, and so will Griffiths E&M. However my favorite source on special relativity is Landau's Classical Theory of Fields, the first few chapters.

u/snipatomic · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I would personally recommend picking up a good quantum mechanics hook like Griffiths. Honestly, the edition shouldn't matter.

Such books have brief reviews of the important mathematics. As you go through it, if you come across things you don't fully understand, you'll at least know what to search for.

u/HQuez · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

For math you're going to need to know calculus, differential equations (partial and ordinary), and linear algebra.

For calculus, you're going to start with learning about differentiating and limits and whatnot. Then you're going to learn about integrating and series. Series is going to seem a little useless at first, but make sure you don't just skim it, because it becomes very important for physics. Once you learn integration, and integration techniques, you're going to want to go learn multi-variable calculus and vector calculus. Personally, this was the hardest thing for me to learn and I still have problems with it.

While you're learning calculus you can do some lower level physics. I personally liked Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, but I've also heard Giancoli is good. These will give you the basic, idealized world physics understandings, and not too much calculus is involved. You will go through mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and "modern physics". You're going to go through these subjects again, but don't skip this part of the process, as you will need the grounding for later.

So, now you have the first two years of a physics degree done, it's time for the big boy stuff (that is the thing that separates the physicists from the engineers). You could get a differential equations and linear algebra books, and I highly suggest you do, but you could skip that and learn it from a physics reference book. Boaz will teach you the linear and the diffe q's you will need to know, along with almost every other post-calculus class math concept you will need for physics. I've also heard that Arfken, Weber, and Harris is a good reference book, but I have personally never used it, and I dont' know if it teaches linear and diffe q's. These are pretty much must-haves though, as they go through things like fourier series and calculus of variations (and a lot of other techniques), which are extremely important to know for what is about to come to you in the next paragraph.

Now that you have a solid mathematical basis, you can get deeper into what you learned in Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, or Giancoli, or whatever you used to get you basis down. You're going to do mechanics, E&M, Thermodynamis/Statistical Analysis, and quantum mechanics again! (yippee). These books will go way deeper into theses subjects, and need a lot more rigorous math. They take that you already know the lower-division stuff for granted, so they don't really teach those all that much. They're tough, very tough. Obvioulsy there are other texts you can go to, but these are the one I am most familiar with.

A few notes. These are just the core classes, anybody going through a physics program will also do labs, research, programming, astro, chemistry, biology, engineering, advanced math, and/or a variety of different things to supplement their degree. There a very few physicists that I know who took the exact same route/class.

These books all have practice problems. Do them. You don't learn physics by reading, you learn by doing. You don't have to do every problem, but you should do a fair amount. This means the theory questions and the math heavy questions. Your theory means nothing without the math to back it up.

Lastly, physics is very demanding. In my experience, most physics students have to pretty much dedicate almost all their time to the craft. This is with instructors, ta's, and tutors helping us along the way. When I say all their time, I mean up until at least midnight (often later) studying/doing work. I commend you on wanting to self-teach yourself, but if you want to learn physics, get into a classroom at your local junior college and start there (I think you'll need a half year of calculus though before you can start doing physics). Some of the concepts are hard (very hard) to understand properly, and the internet stops being very useful very quickly. Having an expert to guide you helps a lot.

Good luck on your journey!

u/Adam_Ewing · 2 pointsr/Physics

I agree, however for a first year physics student a bit more depth is required too. Something like Classical Mechanics by Taylor would work well as a supplement, especially to introduce and to familiarize the student with the mathematical side.

u/i_am_cat · 2 pointsr/LearnJapanese

4000 yen on amazon.jp or $50 on amazon.com is not even close to insanely expensive. Many physics books and similar subjects are closer to the $100-200 range. The cheap ones are $50.

u/kentaro86 · 2 pointsr/UCSantaBarbara

I don't have any old problem sets off hand, but I could point you towards all the topics you should know and be familiar with. It's basically the first 3 chapters of Griffiths -- by the end of the quarter you should know everything from these chapters extremely well.
As for an explicit list of things to do, I would recommend (in this order, more or less)

  • get familiar with using probability distributions, complex numbers (i.e. integrating probability densities to find probabilities, means, standard deviations, complex conjugates, norm squared, normalization, etc.)

  • try to grasp the idea of operators (e.g. position, momentum), observables/hermitian operators, commutation relations, and what is means when two observables commute or not (thing about eigenstates, sequential measurements, uncertainty principle,...)

  • derive solution to infinite square well (0 < x < a ; -a < x < a)

  • derive solution to harmonic oscillator (focus on algebraic derivation, raising and lowering operators are extremely
    important later on)

  • calculate expectation values of x, x^2 for the oscillator using ladder operators (this is to highlight orthogonality of eigenstates)

  • derive free particle, examine scattering (E > 0) and bound (E < 0) states

  • derive delta well, finite square well and calculate transmission/reflection coefficients (and bound states for delta well)

  • read up on and use Dirac notation until it is second nature. redo first bullet point with this notation (this could be useful to do first so that you can practice it)

  • understand the level of abstraction for a ket and what it means to "multiply" by a bra and express an equation in the basis (as described by the bra)

  • revisit the idea of operators in a specific basis

  • derive generalized uncertainty principle, revisit non-commuting operators

    Hopefully, that gets you started off, but for 110A it may be worth the time to learn Einstein summation notation -- it'll come in handy.

    Good luck!

    Edit: formatting
u/drakeonaplane · 2 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Griffiths Quantum Mechanics book features a live cat on front and a dead cat on back.

u/susySquark · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

This is THE book for that

Multivar calculus understanding more or less necessary, and familiarity with classical mechanics is pretty handy for tackling QM. Linear algebra is absolutely critical to understand everything well, mathematically speaking.

I personally liked Griffiths' book. The concepts are explained well and the examples are cleanly worked out. It's a decently accessible book and an easy read, which is always a plus.

u/GroundhogExpert · 2 pointsr/cringepics

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927

Just flipping through the first pages should make it obvious how much previous knowledge is required just to begin understanding quantum mechanics.

Maybe this one is better: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steve-Holzner/dp/1118460820/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408628463&sr=1-1&keywords=quantum+mechanics+for+dummies

I just went through the first chapter in the dummies book, it's not much better.

u/ngroot · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

> Can you, or anyone else, link to some information that accurately defines quantum mechanics?

There's always the relevant Wikipedia article; Griffiths' book on introductory QM is also very clear.

If you want a brief, fairly non-technical summary, though, it's what I said before: in QM, the state of an object is contained in a wavefunction. That function evolves over time (following the Schrödinger equation). For a given wavefunction, you can find the probability of measuring a classical property (e.g,. position, momentum, energy) as having a particular value or falling within a range of values by applying an appropriate operator.

The uncertainty principle follows from this. A wave function which will result in most measurements of position being in a tight clump (i.e., an object with a well-defined position) will result in measurements of momentum that will vary widely, and vice-versa.

The usual analogy (which is actually very close to the mathematics in QM) that I've encountered is a rope under tension. If you give it a sharp jerk and induce a single peak that travels down the wave, the question "where is the wave" makes sense, but "what's its frequency" does not. The converse is true if you induce a standing wave: you can talk easily about the frequency, but the wave is everywhere along the rope.

> What I always end up with is this idea of perception=reality. That since we cannot measure where the electron is, it simply isn't. I don't buy this for a second.

Close, but let's be more precise: it's not that the electron doesn't exist, it's that classic properties that we think of as fundamental (position, momentum, etc.) aren't. In QM, a particle always has a wavefunction; that wavefunction determines the distribution of values you'll get if you try to measure a classical property. This means that generally you can't say that a particle "has" a particular position/momentum/whatever; you can only talk about the probabilities of finding it with such-and-such a position or momentum.

If you don't like the fact that this implies that classical properties are fundamentally random, you're in good company; that's what prompted Einstein's "God does not play dice" quip. Unfortunately, Bell's theorem and subsequent tests and confirmations of it essentially eliminate the possibility of local "hidden variables" which contain the "real" position/momentum/whatever of a particle. This leaves us stuck between accepting a stochastic universe and non-local interactions (which thanks to relativity, introduce causal paradoxes.)

u/Devook · 2 pointsr/battlestations

>I love reading quantum mechanics.

cringe
Reading the pop-sci layman's guide to physics is not the same as "reading quantum mechanics." You wanna "read quantum mechanics" you're going to have to start with two years of calculus, a year of linear algebra, a year of statistics, a year of number theory, and this book.

u/Ninja_of_Physics · 2 pointsr/math

I'm assuming this is an undergrad QM class so what you have will be more than enough. If you're in the states odds are the book they will be using is Giffiths Amazon link, PDF of the first edition. If you can Taylor expand and find eigenstates you'll be fine.

First semester undergrad quantum is mostly focused on learning how to solve the Schrodinger equation for a variety of Potentials. Expect it to be like first semester calculus, you gloss over the deeper mathematical rigor, and focus on being able to take limits and derivatives. First semester quantum is the same, learn how to solve the Schrodinger equation, and learn what physical meaning you can get from it.

u/Dank_Hamiltonian · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

First and foremost, you're going to need to get very comfortable with special relativity and quantum mechanics. QFT is heavily rooted in both subjects since it's essentially a way of reconciling the two, so you're going to need to get familiar with the formalism. For quantum mechanics, I recommend starting off with Griffiths if you haven't taken a class on the subject at an undergraduate level. It's pretty much the gold standard in undergraduate physics curricula. But that alone is not enough to fulfill the necessary background in quantum. After that you'll want to go through a graduate text such as Sakurai. You need to get very familiar with the Dirac formalism since it plays a large role in formulating quantum fields.

Special relativity isn't usually offered as a course on its own in most universities (as far as I know). Typically, it's part of a course on classical dynamics or electrodynamics. You could look for the relevant chapters in textbooks on those two subjects (such as Griffiths electrodynamics) or just go with the introduction that pretty much every QFT textbook has at the beginning. The main thing here is that you'll have to get used to working with tensors since they show up in Lagrangian densities, which are principal objects of study in QFT. This is also where classical field theory comes in, as classical fields are also described by Lagrangians.

Those are the main areas of physics that you need to know coming into the subject. As others have mentioned, you'll want to understand Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics as well as classical E&M since a lot of the formalism involved in QFT stems from those subjects. Most people are introduced to quantum through the Hamiltonian formalism, and while you can do calculations in quantum without understanding where the formalism comes from in classical mechanics, you might be confused as to why the calculations work the way they do. You can also do calculations with a Lagrangian in QFT without really understanding what actually is, but again, if you truly want to understand the material it won't get you quite far enough. It is a graduate subject, after all. So you'll probably struggle to understand the material without having a solid undergraduate background in physics, but it's not impossible. It's also the kind of subject that requires multiple attempts to understand it. I took one semester of it as an undergraduate and there were a lot of gaps in my knowledge at the time, so I found it quite difficult. Then I took another class on it again after going through first year graduate courses in classical mechanics, quantum, and electrodynamics, and I had a better feel for the subject.

u/icecoldmind · 2 pointsr/Physics

In case you're new here. We ( well not me really ) physicists really hate the example of Shrödinger's cat. It's a poor example that only raises questions in the wrong direction. It goes right into the weird type of philosophy that we, as scientists, try to avoid at all costs. If you want to know more about quantum mechanics, which is supposed to be the subject of the so-called Shrödinger's Cat, there are plenty of pop-sci books and YouTube channels. If you want to know the real physics, as in the math, you can try Griffiths ( You need calculus and some algebra ).

u/Cpt_Burrito · 2 pointsr/astrophysics

We're not even sure the constants are constant. It's entirely possible they do change in some complicated relationship on levels too large, too small, too fast or too slow for us to notice 'easily'. I know that dodges your question, but it's one hell of a question and answering it directly would be a marked step forward in our understanding of the universe.

Like chip said, the math is just a 'best fit' solution to the events we observe. If you've got the free time you could crack open this book and try moving things around and see what your new maths describe.

I hadn't even passed algebra when I graduated high school though so if you're in the same boat I was in then this book (specifically the later chapters) might give you a better perspective.

u/wafflesforlife · 2 pointsr/chemistry

In addition to the McQuarrie book mentioned (my text for pchem), I would take a look at Griffiths book for QM. The two books are complementary to each other and I think reading them both gave me a big leg up!

u/cowboysauce · 2 pointsr/askscience

Do you want a formal understanding? If so, then there's a problem. The 4 fundamental interactions are not completely understood. The electromagnetic is very well understood and is covered by quantum electrodynamics. The weak interaction is also understood quite well and has been unified with the EM interaction into the electroweak interaction.

The strong interaction and gravity are not as well understood. There is no widely accepted theory of quantum gravity (gravity is currently described by general relativity). The strong force is described using quantum chromodynamics (QCD), however QCD is vey complicated (due to the fact that gluons carry color charge and interact with each other).

If you fine with that, then I have to ask, are you comfortable with classical physics? If not then start there. If you are, then you can continue on with quantum physics, this book is a very good quantum mechanics book.

If you want a lay person understanding, then I suggest you do some searches here on askscience, because there is a wealth of information regarding particle physics here.

One more thing, very few people call it "quantum physics", it almost always goes by the name "quantum mechanics".

u/somnolent49 · 2 pointsr/AskWomen

Food:

  • I make large batches of food which I can freeze and reheat.
  • I eat less meat, and when I do cook meat I eat it with rice or pasta to lower the overall cost.
  • I buy large boxes of snack bars at costco, and toss a handful in my bag. When I get tempted to buy food while I'm out and about, I eat a snack bar instead and wait until I get home to eat.
  • I eat smaller portions, and force myself to wait 10-15 minutes before going back for a second portion, to make sure I'm actually still hungry.

    School:

  • I buy international edition textbooks when available. For instance, the regular edition of one of my textbooks cost $136, while the international edition only cost $16.50. The only difference between the two is that my edition has a few extra book problems the regular edition does not.
  • I go to office hours for professors and TA's when possible. I'm paying thousands of dollars just to sit in a giant lecture hall for three hours a week, yet I can easily get another hour or two of one-on-one teaching from people who are brilliant in their field for free.
u/C_M_Burns · 2 pointsr/philosophy

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

u/CapBateman · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

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 :)

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 2 pointsr/mormon

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.

u/halvardr · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy
u/gnomicarchitecture · 2 pointsr/philosophy

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!

u/jez2718 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

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.

u/required3 · 2 pointsr/reddit.com
u/adelie42 · 2 pointsr/austrian_economics

>a couple of science books about physics

Any chance it's A Brief History of Time and The Feynman Lectures on Physics?

u/perpwy · 2 pointsr/science

If you like Feynman, you might try the Feynman Lectures on Physics, which is a 3-book set covering everything from mechanics to QM to E&M to fluid dynamics. It definitely has that Feynman charm to it. It won't give you the math overview, though, but you're probably better off just picking that up as you go if you've already had calc. If you go much further you'll eventually want linear algebra, though.

u/CarterDug · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Some reviews if you're interested

u/zack1123581321 · 2 pointsr/PhysicsGRE

I am using Conquering the Physics GRE as an overview, but I really enjoy anything from David Morin and David J. Griffiths for the level of questions and explanations (and in-book/online solutions manuals that go a long way towards showing you how to think like a physicist). But my "library" for preparing for the physics GRE is:

CM: Morin, Problems and Solutions in Introductory Mechanics and Introduction to Classical Mechanics

Gregory, Classical Mechanics for extra explanations and problems

EM: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics 3e

QM: Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 3e

Thermo/Stat.Mech: Schroeder, An Introduction to Thermal Physics

Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics

Waves: Morin, on his website are ten chapters to what appears to be a Waves book in the making

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/

Atomic, Lab Methods: Conquering the Physics GRE and any online resources I can find.

​

If you email Case Western, they send a link to some amazing flash cards!

u/songbolt · 2 pointsr/math

I want to say it was from an undergraduate thermodynamics problem asking the question, "What is the likelihood of all the air molecules in a room occupying 99% of the space leaving a 1% vacuum?"

I probably just want to invoke Avogadro's constant, though. (You know, after you see a number a certain number of times, you like seeing it again.)

u/WorfRozhenko · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

You could always try a physics book on the subject. One of the common books used in introductory thermodynamics courses for physics majors is Thermal Physics by Schroeder. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277

It does a decent job at covering the physics behind thermodynamics and a good intro to statistical mechanics.

I am not sure if it meets your criteria of 'interesting' since it is geared at being a college textbook and reading it for leisure may be a bit tedious.

u/krypton86 · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

This is the standard QM text for a large sector of undergraduates. It's what I used and it's very good as an introductory text. I can highly recommend it. Another excellent text is Shankar's book. Some prefer it as it's perhaps more in depth and comprehensive. It's been a while since I've read any QM books, but the last one I read that I quite liked was Bohm's Quntum Theory, though it's dense and a little out of date.

u/mrcmnstr · 2 pointsr/Physics

I thought of some books suggestions. If you're going all in, go to the library and find a book on vector calculus. You're going to need it if you don't already know spherical coordinates, divergence, gradient, and curl. Try this one if your library has it. Lots of good books on this though. Just look for vector calculus.

Griffiths has a good intro to E&M. I'm sure you can find an old copy on a bookshelf. Doesn't need to be the new one.

Shankar has a quantum book written for an upper level undergrad. The first chapter does an excellent job explaining the basic math behind quantum mechanics .

u/damnknife · 2 pointsr/brasil

Se quiser aprender recomendo como introdução :

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Shankar/dp/0306447908

Agora se só precisa de algum tópico especifico seja mais claro...

u/schrodingasdawg · 2 pointsr/Physics

Shankar is a good quantum book, for an advanced undergraduate. Townsend is more elementary (for an intermediate undergraduate). And of course there's Feynman lectures volume 3 for something yet more basic. (And this one's at least free.)

u/ZBoson · 2 pointsr/askscience

You need to know dynamics in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. Get more solid on waves, and electromagnetism. Then you need to do quantum mechanics up through and including scattering, perturbation theory, and Fermi's golden rule (Shankar is a fantastic quantum text that will get you there in modern notation as well as introduce you to Feynman path integrals). Then you can start tackling quantum field theory. Sredniki's book is free online, but it's presentation is very nonstandard. It will, however, take you all the way to and past the standard model, which is nice. Lahiri and Pal is nice but short (with all the problems associated with that), Zee is good, and Peskin is more or less standard. Any of them will take you up through electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism.

And of course all the math along the way. Differential equations (ordinary and partial) and complex analysis need to be hit hard.

u/kevinstonge · 2 pointsr/askscience

There's a book about this... its both excellent and terrible at the same time ... The book does a great job explaining some points, it really gets down to your level and treats you like a kid (this is a good thing).. but then it makes giant leaps of logic leaving you wondering what the heck just happened. I read it like 3 time and still don't understand parts of it. Why does E=mc^2?

u/InfernoIII · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

This might help.

I found it quite interesting.

u/CoyoteGriffin · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/Cletus_awreetus · 2 pointsr/astrophys

Square one...

You should have a solid base in math:

Introduction to Calculus and Analysis, Vol. 1 by Courant and John. Gotta have some basic knowledge of calculus.

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas. This is pretty high-level applied math, but it's the kind of stuff you deal with in serious physics/astrophysics.

You should have a solid base in physics:

They Feynman Lectures on Physics. Might be worth checking out. I think they're available free online.

You should have a solid base in astronomy/astrophysics:

The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy by Frank Shu. A bit outdated but a good textbook.

An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie.

Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction by James Binney. I haven't read this and there are no reviews, I think it was very recently published, but it looks promising.

It also might be worth checking out something like Coursera. They have free classes on math, physics, astrophysics, etc.

u/petermal67 · 2 pointsr/ireland

Have a read of these. Fantastic set of lectures. http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827

u/WhataBeautifulPodunk · 2 pointsr/Physics

Quantum

Easy: Zettili, Comprehensive reference: Cohen-Tannoudji

or if you want more foundational books

Easy: Schumacher and Westmoreland, Comprehensive: Ballentine

u/k-selectride · 2 pointsr/Physics

I would try Landau and Lifshitz. Their treatment of scattering is heavily influenced by Regge theory which was huge back then, so they spent a lot of time on it.

For perturbation theory, I would try Cohen-Tannoudji. It's very detailed, about 260 pages with detailed examples (probably the same ones you've seen before, hyperfine splitting etc). The scattering section isn't as long, but probably worth checking out.

u/jai-a-jai · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Negative motion literally just means multiplying each velocity component by -1, i.e. reversing the direction of the velocity vector.

You're probably referring to negative energy. Negative energy is possible, and is allowed by relativistic quantum mechanics (where E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 , which is Einstein's famous equation). Particles with negative energy are moving backwards in time, and have reversed properties to their forward-moving counterparts. These particles are antimatter. Sounds wild. It is.

Regarding absolute zero: The magnitude of temperature is just a way to describe how much randomness there is in the energy of a system. A higher magnitude of temperature means that more and more particles want to seep out of the absolute zero state. What is the absolute zero state? That depends on the sign of the temperature, which is the whole point of the OP's article. It's not as simple as "being zero". It matters how you approach zero. There are two ways to approach zero: from the left, and from the right. For example [-1,-.5,-.25,-.125,...] approaches zero, but from the left (negative values). Whereas [1,.5,.25,.125,...] approaches zero from the right (positive values). The sign of the temperature is a simple way of saying whether you take the limit to 0 from the left or from the right.

If the temperature is negative, approaching absolute zero will squeeze the particles into the highest energy state. If the temperature is positive, approaching absolute zero will freeze the particles into the lowest energy state.

The important thing to understand is that the lowest energy state (ground state) does not mean no energy, it means the lowest energy. Let's talk a bit about quantum mechanics. Position, momentum, energy, etc. are observable properties. You can measure them. In quantum mechanics, measuring a particle either may change the state that the particle is in, or it may not. Particles which are in states which are unchanged by measuring position are called "position eigenstates". Particles which are in states which are unchanged by measuring energy are called "energy eigenstates", and so on.

In quantum mechanics, it is impossible to find a state which isn't changed by measuring position that is also not changed by measuring momentum. If you think about it a little bit, this has a very important implication: position and momentum cannot be defined simultaneously. It's straight up fucking impossible. The more you know about where a particle is, the less you know about how much momentum it has, and vice versa. In other words, confining a particle to an arbitrarily small region will mean that the particle can have an arbitrarily large momentum.

So now you see why "no molecular motion" is absolutely nonsensical. It leads to a contradiction, if we think in quantum mechanics. If you assume a particle has no motion, then it must have a fixed position. But in the limit of having a fixed position, it must now have an arbitrarily large momentum, which contradicts our assumption of the particle having no motion. There is no notion of having no motion.

If you are interested in this wild fucking shit, read up on linear algebra and get this legendary book on quantum mechanics by David Griffiths.

u/Coffee__Addict · 1 pointr/Physics

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927

For the QM

And

https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269

For the math.

Edit: I'm rereading both of these over the summer as a refresher. They make a great combo.

u/LennartGimm · 1 pointr/explainabookplotbadly

While you’re working on the rules, you might want to think about what types of books are permitted. Are scientific books like the Griffiths allowed? I could just give a very simplified description of QM and have people guess. Are historical books like Rubikon allowed? Opening the sub to simplified tellings of historical events.

I think this really depends on what type of content you and the users want to see. I personally would like the sub to remain focused on fiction and novels, but maybe on Sundays every type of book can be allowed in order to vent the chaos and have a little fun.

Also: You might want to ban certain books from this sub, if they are overdone. I could imagine Harry Potter, LotR and the bible to be posted often.

u/blueboybob · 1 pointr/HomeworkHelp

halliday and resnick for general physics

1 - goldstein

2 - griffith

3 -

4 - griffith or jackson

u/wacky · 1 pointr/science

> I'm not sure which QM textbooks hardcore physicists use.

NOT that one.

If you're doing quantum physics, you're probably not interested that much in how molecules work. At some point you'll learn a little bit, so you know in what direction that goes, but quantum physicists leave chemistry to the chemists.

As for textbooks, I had Griffiths first (Griffiths is amazing, his E/M book too), then Sakurai, and then Nielsen and Chuang in the 5 courses I've taken so far. And we didn't get through each of those textbooks in full; just covered chapters here and there, like science classes always do.

u/Platypuskeeper · 1 pointr/askscience

> Cultural beliefs do actually influence ways of thought, scientific method included

The scientific method is not a "way of thought". It's a method. You're not providing any evidence to support that claim. The fact that different cultures have different patterns of thought is well-established, the idea that this makes science culturally relative is not. Are you saying logic is culturally dependent as well?

> Westerners tend to rely more on formal logic and insist on correctness of one belief over another when investigating conflicting opinions or theories, while easterners consider all the interacting environmental relationships,

A vague and unsubstantiated orientalist over-generalization if I ever heard one.

> One can even argue the Scientific Method is actually an invention of the western tradition

The automobile is a western invention too, and yet the Japanese understand them just the same way as we do.

>TL;DR: read something like The Geography of Thought for intriguing trends in how your Asian lab partner interprets data differently from you.

I've never run across a case where he did. Read a good book on philosophy of science to understand why natural science strives to eliminate bias, including cultural bias. It's not contingent on it but the exact opposite.

>Difference being Goswami was a quantum physics professor

There's no such thing as a 'quantum physics professor' or really a 'quantum physicist'. All physicists study quantum mechanics and nearly all use it, to different extents. Goswami's actual expertise is apparently nuclear physics, which does not imply any greater understanding of the foundations of quantum mechanics than that of most physicists.

> who wrote respected college textbooks

As far as I can tell, he's written one textbook on introductory quantum mechanics. I've never heard of him or his textbook before, and I see little reason to believe it's 'well-respected' or popular, as it only has 5 amazon reviews, as compared to 70 for Griffiths, an actual well-regarded textbook. Sakurai's "Modern QM" and Shankar's "Principles of QM" are popular and well-respected as well. Griffith's is also known for the consistent-histories interpretation of quantum mechanics, while the latter two are 'Easterners', yet don't subscribe to any of this kind of nonsense.

> My background is not in quantum physics, but sooner or later you guys will have to (you should?) reconcile your understanding of reality with how different cultural traditions interpret reality.

You haven't shown any depth of knowledge about 'cultural traditions'. You've made gross generalizations and outright false statements about these things. Calling Western philosophy 'materialist' while 'eastern' is supposedly uniformly 'idealist' (both terms are from Western philosophy) is flat-out wrong.

> Furthermore, the jump is discontinuous in that the electron is never in any orbit not defined by one of the probability clouds.

That's saying that mixed states and quantum superpositions do not exist. It's wrong, and introductory level understanding of formal quantum mechanics is enough to know it.

>Can you please point me to a more accurate description?

Show that the eigenfunctions of the electronic Hamiltonian are no longer eigenfunctions under the action of a perturbing external electromagnetic field.

> What is the interesting part of the delayed-choice experiment then if it's not that what we observe depends on how we measure it?

Did you make any effort at all to find out on your own, such as reading the wikipedia article? I don't see why I should spend time explaining it otherwise. The fact that "what we observe depends on how we measure it" is already evident in the double-slit experiment.

> the most interesting scientific discoveries come when interpretations of science and philosophy butt up against each other.

No, they don't. The most interesting scientific discoveries come when a well-established theory is proven wrong. Metaphysics has nothing to do with science. The Bell test is not philosophy, it's science. It's an empirical test of an empirically-testable thing.

> it appears that a non-local signal (that is, a deliberate faster-than-light transmission) is impossible

It's not the Bell test that says that, it's special relativity.

> Help me understand reality as you interpret it.

Now why the heck would I spend any time on doing that? There's a huge number of good, factual popular-scientific books on quantum mechanics and modern physics. There are plenty of good textbooks. There are good books on science and philosophy of science as well. But instead you waste your time on reading Goswami's nonsense, which would clearly be out of the mainstream to anyone who'd bothered to do a modicum of web searching beforehand. Then you defend it all, basically by stating that you know better than an actual scientist how science works.

You haven't shown that you've made even the slightest bit of a good-faith effort to understand either science, the scientific method and mindset, or established quantum physics. To me it appears that you came here seeking confirmation of what you'd already decided you wanted to believe.

Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil Tyson, Stephen Weinberg and Murray Gell-Mann, among others, have all written good popular-scientific books on modern physics. Just about all of them say something about quantum mechanics and the more popular interpretations of it. And for a more in-depth study of the philosophy of science surrounding quantum mechanics, read e.g. Omnes' "Quantum philosophy".

u/badmathafacka · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If you want to talk about Quantum Mechanics, maybe you should be reading this book instead.

u/firekow · 1 pointr/Physics

If you have taken a solid introductory physics course, this standard text steps through a good number of classic problems in an understandable fashion.

EDIT: Calculus, vectors, linear algebra (clarifies a whole lot of the concepts), ODEs and PDEs.

u/guenoc · 1 pointr/Physics

Sweet. I think the best curriculum to approach this with, assuming you're in this for the long haul, would be to start with building a good understanding of calculus, cover basic classical mechanics, then cover electricity and magnetism, and finally quantum mechanics. I'm going to leave math and mechanics mostly for someone else, because no textbooks come to mind at the moment. I'll leave you with three books though:

For Math, unless someone else comes up with something better, the bible is Stewart's Calculus

The other two are by the same author:

Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics

Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics

I think these are entirely reasonable to read cover to cover, work through problems in, and come out with somewhere near an undergraduate level understanding. Be careful not to rush things. One of the biggest barriers I've run into trying to learn physics independently is to try and approach subjects I don't have the background for yet: it can be a massive waste of time. If you really want to learn physics in its true mathematical form, read the books chapter by chapter, make sure you understand things before moving on, and do problems from the books. I'd recommend buying a copy of the solutions manuals for these books as well. It can also be helpful to look up the website for various courses from any university and reference their problem sets/solutions.

Good luck!

u/dolphinrisky · 1 pointr/trees

I meant his quantum book. There are a lot of varying opinions on Griffiths, but personally I enjoy his more informal writing style. It's nice when studying quantum because the physics can get a bit abstract and intangible, and Griffiths does a good job of giving you plain-English explanations of what is happening.

u/nebos11 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You might laugh me out of the building so to speak, but I'd add David J. Griffiths' introductory college-level book to that list. (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348157753&sr=1-1&keywords=david+j+griffiths+quantum+mechanics). It's not going to blow anyone's mind with crazy philosophical mumbo jumbo, but I think it's the right place to start if you're unfamiliar the basics, i.e. Heisenberg uncertainty, Hilbert space, Schrodinger's Eq, and so on. Understanding the formalism and the fundamentals of QM is vital if you want to get into more esoteric stuff.

u/WillWeisser · 1 pointr/books

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.

u/Earthtone_Coalition · 1 pointr/AskReddit

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.

u/thetourist74 · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

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.

u/Lawen · 1 pointr/philosophy

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.

u/fiskiligr · 1 pointr/booklists

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. :-)

u/kinematografi · 1 pointr/AskReddit

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!

u/NathanielPeaslee · 1 pointr/entp

Yeah, I hear you. I also had my fair share of awful high school teachers.

As for Feynman, he is indeed a great inspiration. Lately I considered buying [his three volume lectures on physics] (http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Set/dp/0201021153/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=) but I found it a little expensive. Fortunately it’s available online as well.

u/thinly_veiled · 1 pointr/HomeworkHelp
u/AquaFox · 1 pointr/Physics

The Feynman lectures books and videos are really really good.

u/freireib · 1 pointr/math

In my opinion the best reference for this is Feynman, but is buried, and you probably wouldn't appreciate what he's saying unless you already understood what he was saying (I didn't learn from that reference, I only read it much later and liked it).

Let's start with a simple example. Let vi be the components of the vector v in the coordinate system with x going to the right and y going up on the screen. If you tilt your head 90 degrees to the right then you have a new coordinate system with x' going up and y' going left (note the primes). In both coordinate systems the vector v is the same, but the components vi and v'i are different. For example, let's say in the first coordinate system v1 = 3 and v2 = 1, then in the second v'1 = 2 and v'2 = -3.

In general we can say two coordinate systems are related by a rotation Bii' (note the prime on the subscript) such that,

v'i' = Bii' vi (using the Einstein summation convention)

If an "object" transforms (when the coordinate system is changed) according to that equation, then it is a first order tensor. Second order tensors follow the relation

A'i'j' = Bii' Bjj' Aij

and so on. So the real answer is, when you change coordinate systems, what happens to the components. If the components change according to those two equations (or their natural extensions for higher order) then they are tensors. Otherwise they're not.

u/geneyus · 1 pointr/Physics

For thermo/stat mech, the standard undergraduate texts are Schroeder (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277), and I guess Blundell & Blundell (http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Thermal-Physics-Stephen-Blundell/dp/0199562105).

For Quantum Physics the standard undergradate books are the quantum mechanics books by Shankar, Griffiths, and sometimes Messiah. I personally didn't like any of them, I learned from Cohen-Tannoudji but it is more difficult mathematically. For more advanced books you can look at Sakurai or Landau's book.

There is no real standard book that I'm aware of for Nuclear/subnuclear physics for undergrads (because it is really a graduate level book). But I think Griffiths has a book on particle physics if you like his quantum mechanics book. He does like to talk alot though just so you know.

u/Kroax · 1 pointr/science

Check out this text book:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265305881&sr=1-1

It goes from simple understanding to the statistical mechanics of what's going on.

Steer clear of engineering books if you want a good understanding as they often cut corners(because alot of stuff that is deeper doesn't apply to them) to make it more applicable to their design work.

u/waveman · 1 pointr/Physics

Alternative to Schroeder "An Introduction to Thermal Physics" for self-study?

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277

Overall this is quite a good book but I am trying to use it for self-study and the author refuses to release any answers to the problems. His explanation was that if he releases any answers he cannot later un-release them.

Compounding this, his problems are often multi-stage problems where parts of a problem depend on earlier parts and one problem depends on the result of previous problems. In some cases you have 3 multi-stage problems building upon one another. At some point you realize something went wrong but you have no clue where...

OK lesson learned: For self study you need answers so you can check your understanding. This is just basic learning theory - you need feedback.

I have looked at a few TP books but none have answers for checking eg Kittel Thermal Physics, Blundell "Concepts in Thermal Physics".

He does have an answer book for instructors only.

u/TomatoAintAFruit · 1 pointr/Physics

For an undergraduate approach I recommend Schroeder. However, this book starts with thermal physics which is, well, a bit boring ;). The math is not hard, but developing that 'physics instinct' can sometimes be challenging.

For a more advanced, but very nice and systematic text, I recommend Toda, Kubo, et al.. Another graduate text is Huang.

There are also the books by Feynman and Landau and Lifshitz Pt. 1 (Pt. 2 is quantum field theory, which at this stage you probably will want to avoid).

u/NeuralLotus · 1 pointr/pics

No problem. As for the Boltzmann distribution, it has to do with thermodynamics. Here's the Wikipedia article for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_distribution#Derivation

This article does a decent job of explaining what it is. The derivation that it links to, however, seems to be a little lacking (I only skimmed through it).

Just in case you want to learn more about thermodynamics, you could try this textbook: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369548035&sr=8-1&keywords=schroeder+thermodynamics

That's the textbook my school used, and it's actually one of the best textbooks I've used in physics or mathematics. It's also relatively cheap for a textbook.

u/snowmen_dont_lie · 1 pointr/Physics

I get that, but I was referring to Principles of Quantum Mechanics,
R Shankar

u/fulis · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

A good, fairly self contained book on QM, is the one by Shankar. This is a textbook intended for serious study, but it also introduces most of the math it uses. That is not a substitute for studying the math separately, but might do in a pinch.

u/scienceisfun · 1 pointr/askscience

Wow, thanks for the Reddit gold, that's awesome! It's been my pleasure to have the discussion with you. As for a good textbook, I have a few suggestions. For a pretty good broad look at optics from both classical and quantum points of view, give Saleh and Teich a look. For purely quantum stuff, my undergrad textbook was by Griffiths, which I enjoyed quite a bit, though I recall the math being a bit daunting when I took the course. Another book I've read that I liked quite a bit was by Shankar. I felt it was a bit more accessible. Finally, if you want quantum mechanics from the source, Dirac is a bit of a standard. It's elegant, but can be a bit tough.

u/Dorun · 1 pointr/Physics

I really like ballentine's and shankar's text books

http://amzn.com/9814578584

http://amzn.com/0306447908

u/yrro · 1 pointr/askscience

If you're in the mood for a book, Why Does E = MC Squared is a really good and accessible explanation.

u/EverythingIsMediocre · 1 pointr/askscience

Probably too late for you to read this but I actually have a book to suggests that spends quite some time dealing with this very subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

u/TonyBLiar · 1 pointr/Christianity

I take it you refer to the question of why something rather than nothing?

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254062143&sr=8-1

u/spicysauce · 1 pointr/askscience

I just wanted to point out one thing, not necessarily settle any arguments. Einstein's equation you wrote is a bit wrong. It should be E=mc2+(1/2)mv2. I think this is right, although I am a bit tired and too lazy to double check (sorry). Anyways, the reason we only remember the E=mc^2 part is because if a relatively small object (for example 1kg) is at zero velocity, then there is a huge amount of energy involved in the total mass. Theoretically, it could power a city for 100 years. This was the ground breaking part, and it lead physicists to discover the atomic bomb -> a lot of energy in little mass.

*This book is the source of what I (brutally) said.

u/burke · 1 pointr/askscience

Looks like your question has been answered, but I have a book recommendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

I think you'll enjoy it. It explains the answers you've asked for and a lot more, in a pretty approachable way.

u/DoctorWhoToYou · 1 pointr/atheism

He's also an author. That specific book titled " Why Does E=mc^2 " breaks the equation and relativity down to an understandable topic and you don't have to do the math, unless you want to.

He's got a few other books out that are on my wishlist. I really enjoyed the one listed above, I've read it twice so far. Will probably read it again this weekend.

u/jamesgreddit · 1 pointr/science

Why Does E=mc2 by Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw

The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies

u/Ashiataka · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

What level are you? If you're physics degree level then I'd suggest Feynman's Lectures on Physics as an excellent introduction. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1408125805&sr=8-5&keywords=lectures+feynman

u/admorobo · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

What you're looking for is The Richard Feynman Lectures on Physics.

EDIT: Just realized these might actually be heavier than you're looking for, but I think there's no better introdcution to the world of Physics than through Feynman.

u/proffrobot · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

It's great that you want to study particle physics and String Theory! It's a really interesting subject. Getting a degree in physics can often make you a useful person so long as you make sure you get some transferable skills (like programming and whatnot). I'll reiterate the standard advice for going further in physics, and in particular in theoretical physics, in the hope that you will take it to heart. Only go into theoretical physics if you really enjoy it. Do it for no other reason. If you want to become a professor, there are other areas of physics which are far easier to accomplish that in. If you want to be famous, become an actor or a writer or go into science communication and become the new Bill Nye. I'm not saying the only reason to do it is if you're obsessed with it, but you've got to really enjoy it and find it fulfilling for it's own sake as the likelihood of becoming a professor in it is so slim. Then, if your academic dreams don't work out, you won't regret the time you spent, and you'll always have the drive to keep learning and doing more, whatever happens to you academically.

With that out of the way, the biggest chunk of learning you'll do as a theorist is math. A decent book (which I used in my undergraduate degree) which covers the majority of the math you need to understand basic physics, e.g. Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Is this guy: Maths It's not a textbook you can read cover to cover, but it's a really good reference, and undoubtably, should you go and do a physics degree, you'll end up owning something like it. If you like maths now and want to learn more of it, then it's a good book to do it with.

The rest of the books I'll recommend to you have a minimal number of equations, but explain a lot of concepts and other interesting goodies. To really understand the subjects you need textbooks, but you need the math to understand them first and it's unlikely you're there yet. If you want textbook suggestions let me know, but if you haven't read the books below they're good anyway.

First, particle physics. This book Deep Down Things is a really great book about the history and ideas behind modern particles physics and the standard model. I can't recommend it enough.

Next, General Relativity. If you're interested in String Theory you're going to need to become an expert in General Relativity. This book: General Relativity from A to B explains the ideas behind GR without a lot of math, but it does so in a precise way. It's a really good book.

Next, Quantum Mechanics. This book: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat is a great introduction to the people and ideas of Quantum Mechanics. I like it a lot.

For general physics knowledge. Lots of people really like the
Feynman Lectures They cover everything and so have quite a bit of math in them. As a taster you can get a couple of books: Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces, though the not so easy pieces are a bit more mathematically minded.

Now I'll take the opportunity to recommend my own pet favourite book. The Road to Reality. Roger Penrose wrote this to prove that anyone could understand all of theoretical physics, as such it's one of the hardest books you can read, but it is fascinating and tells you about concepts all the way up to String Theory. If you've got time to think and work on the exercises I found it well worth the time. All the math that's needed is explained in the book, which is good, but it's certainly not easy!

Lastly, for understanding more of the ideas which underlie theoretical physics, this is a good book: Philsophy of Physics: Space and Time It's not the best, but the ideas behind theoretical physics thought are important and this is an interesting and subtle book. I'd put it last on the reading list though.

Anyway, I hope that helps, keep learning about physics and asking questions! If there's anything else you want to know, feel free to ask.

u/throwaway30116 · 1 pointr/de

Mein armes Hirn, soviel Marketing, Namedroppingscheisse in einem Artikel, und das war nur der Bericht dazu?

Boah, erstmal Frühstück, Hauptgang und Dessert
und den Dorn Bader als Snack.

u/JWD147 · 1 pointr/Physics

If you have the cash to blow, the Feynman Lectures on Physics are a great resource, not just with EM, but everything you learn in undergrad courses.

u/gronkkk · 1 pointr/chemistry

You're not clear about what you want to learn in chemistry -- do you want to do more practical stuff (organic synthesis / physical chemistry) or do you just want to know how molecules/atoms behave (organic chemistry ,biochemistry, physical chemistry , quantummechanics?

Wrt to doing synthesis 'on your own': these days, doing chemistry outside a lab is seen as something 'very dangerous', because only trrrrists and clandestine drug-making chemists are interested in chemistry.

u/dsafish · 1 pointr/Physics

Check out Cohen, very cleared and it's structured so you can go as deep as you want into a subject.

u/David9090 · 1 pointr/quantum

For a good popular overview that has a strong historical focus, this is great: Quantum

Personally, and I think most philosophers of quantum physics, think Krauss is a bit of a hack when it comes to exploring the conceptual and foundational elements of quantum physics. See this: Krauss review

Albert actually has a really good introduction book to quantum mechanics that focuses on the more conceptual side of things, aimed at those with little background in physics: Quantum Mechanics and Experience

u/Telephone_Hooker · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

This is probably the best book for your situation. It was written to help philosophy grads turn into philosophers of physics. It does the mathematical basics you need to understand QM, but its different from a QM textbook in that instead of going on to look at applications like the simple harmonic oscillator or the hydrogen atom it goes on to look at conceptual issues. It won't give you the grounding you need to actually do physics, but it will let you think about it properly.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741137

u/Qgxqpa · 1 pointr/PhilosophyofScience

If you want a book about quantum mechanics, I'd recommend Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-D-Albert/dp/0674741137/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267649766&sr=8-2), as it is intended to be "accessible to anyone with high school mathematics". Just as with the previous book, this doesn't touch on the topics you mention, but is a better bet if you are looking for more information on quantum mechanics itself.

u/CrimsonCowboy · 1 pointr/scifi

Yes. From "The High Frontier", a book on making space colonies, you could deflect meteors - even nonmetallic - from a colony with an electric field. It required a charge of about two gigavolts to be maintained across the whole of it.

This is costly. And any visiting craft would have to be neutralized relative to whatever charge the colony holds.

Just coating a colony in slag is pretty good; sure, spin up will be harder, but... well, reasons previously listed.

I'm reminded of a conversation a friend had with me; a force field is basically something that would repel an object from contact with the field, right? And you'd need some sort of stabilizing element, right? Something spread across the whole field, probable uniformly?

Something like atoms?

What with the nucleus holding it together and the electrons around it providing the desired electric field?

Yeah. A sheet of strong plastic is essentially a force field.

BUT, that's not nearly as cool.

So you could make an electric field strong enough to repel something moving like a meteor, but... well, here's food for thought. Cathode ray TV's and monitors operate at 35Kv or lower. And they are designed to fail if they over voltage, because they shoot beams of electrons through/at a metal screen, and would deliver X-rays to the viewer if they didn't have such circuits.

Why did you think they were made of lead/strontium glass? Rhetorical question, it's to not irradiate the user.

So, having metal buttons on your person may well enough end up giving you cancer. Not so bad if it's your only choice, or you have a short time to live anyway.

Now, maybe if you could entrap differently charged ions in two fields layered over each other, you'd just need like, a mesh to generate and hold the fields, and then when an object passes through the fields, it'd explosively short it. Sorta like ablative armor but... This may still end badly for the user. Layer it, perhaps?

We do have a very good understanding of electricity on the atomic level; Quantum Electro Dynamics. Feynman wrote a really great introduction to it - he was a great teacher, and was one of the inventors of the theory. It's called "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter".

Gravity is also pretty solid; Laplace fixed our understanding of orbital mechanics in the Napoleonic age. Whooole lot of differential equations there.

u/RamBamBooey · 1 pointr/AskReddit

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
It's short (less that 200 pages), it's written so a high school student can understand it and for many years I have gained new incite by thinking back on this book.

http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

(I have many others - I just wanted to make certain this book appeared.)

u/TurkishSquirrel · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I would recommend reading, Feynman explains modern physics beautifully and tailors his writing to someone with very little math knowledge
Amazon Link

u/Dimpl3s · 1 pointr/askscience

Recommended reading on the subject. Here's my explanation, though this is outside my expertises, and a physics major should offer a more comprehensive answer. But here we go.

When a photon strikes an atom, it causes an electron to jump to its next energy level. The photon is absorbed in the process, and its energy is conserved by an increase in the electron energy level. The atom won't like the configuration, so the electron will soon drop back down to the lower energy level, releasing a photon. This is called reflection.

Now, when you get enough atoms lined up in the right orientation, the image will be conserved. The book I provided offers an awesome explanation of the phenomena. Simply, the light can be considered to be reflected off the front surface and back surface. You know how light is sometimes thought of a wave? It is useful to think of it in this way for this explanation. The reflections from the back and front surface will interfere (two waves taking up the same space). If a peak meets with a valley, the two cancel. If a peak meets with another peak, it will interfere 'constructively', and the light will be preserved.

Now, if the surface is nice and smooth, a clear reflection will be seen as a result of this interaction between the two lights. reflections off glass windows works in this manner. When you are in a bright room at night, the light reflecting off from the room is brighter than the light coming in from outside. This is why you have a hard time seeing through your windows at night, and it helps to shield the glass from the light with your hands. BUT I DIGRESS

Now, you are correct in thinking that the absorption/emission event sends the photon in a random direction. But the waves associated with these random reflections cancel each other out in most cases. The only photon that survives the mass extinction are the ones that reflected with an angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence.

But really, read the book I linked. It explains this all much better than I can.

u/phaseoptics · 1 pointr/askscience

Perhaps a lot will be clearer if you get the quantum nature of the measurement of light's polarization. Classically, light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. When one measures a photon's polarization it assumes a definite value, i.e. some orientation. To say that light is unpolarized means that all electric field directions of every photon in a beam will have equal probability to be measured. If the light is polarized then it can be measured in one of only two states. "Circular polarization" means each possible state is described by a plane waves of equal amplitude but differing in phase by 90°. If the light is "elliptically polarized" then it's unmeasured state is described by two simultaneous plane waves of differing amplitude related in phase by 90°. It can also be called elliptically polarized if the amplitudes of the two states are equal but the relative phase is other than 90°. So an unpolarized beam of photons say, or a single photon with a polarization at some angle relative to your measuring polarizer say, is not split into two when sent through a polarizer, rather each photon takes one path or another according to probability.



Concerning your next group of questions about how light propagates through dielectric solids like glass... There is only free propagation, absorption, and scattering. Scattering can be either elastic or inelastic. Scattering theory is a rich subject because materials are so diverse in composition. The most common form of scattering in isotropic media like the atmosphere and dielectric solids composed of small molecules is an elastic form of scattering called Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering occurs when a photon penetrates into a medium composed of particles whose sizes are much smaller than the wavelength of the incident photon. In this scattering process, the energy (and therefore the wavelength) of the incident photon is conserved and only its direction is changed. Rayleigh scattering has a simple classical origin: the electrons in the atoms, molecules or small particles radiate like dipole antennas when they are forced to oscillate by an applied electromagnetic field. This is not an absorption and re-emission. If the scattering sources are stationary, then this secondary radiation is phase locked to the driving electromagnetic field. So perhaps this is what you mean by "coherent transmission". But even for a truly coherent source of photons, from a laser say, the coherence length is shorted by the presence of the dielectric.



Lastly, your bonus question... You need to read Richard Feynman's, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Light propagates as a wave, even single photons. It therefore takes all possible paths, not just the path of least time! It's just that only those paths which arrive at the detector in phase will result in a non-zero amplitude. And for a single ray of light passing from one isotropic medium to another of different index of refraction, there is only one path that satisfies that condition, the path of least time. Anyway, you will love the book and will come away understanding light much better.

u/potatotub · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion
u/gmarceau · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The man that said "if you think you understand when to mechanics, you do not understand quantum mechanics" is Richard Feynman. He also wrote a book that explains quantum mechanics, called QED.

u/Sleestaks · 1 pointr/science

You must realize you are the box and the box is you. With the same instance that you understand your box, your box understands you. This means quantum mechanics may substitute for a cozier box?

On a sidenote however, I understood quatum mechanics at least a little better after reading QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter I recommend it.

u/SEMW · 1 pointr/science

If you want to understand how reflection behaves in a "true" way, read Feynman's QED. Transcripts of popular science lectures. They're not exactly simple to understand, but they were designed to be at least somewhat accessible.

u/Aardshark · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Try reading some of Feynman's lectures - he explains these difficult concepts very well.

Maybe The Strange Theory of Light and Matter would help.

I'm sure you can find a source on the internet pretty easily if you don't want to buy a printed copy.

u/LocalAmazonBot · 1 pointr/askscience

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Link: QED is the one more relevant to this discussion.

u/technically_art · 1 pointr/askscience

> 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.

u/harlows_monkeys · 1 pointr/Physics

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.

u/nothing_clever · 1 pointr/atheism

Damn, actually I thought he was suggesting this be our holy book.

u/sunnbeta · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

>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.

u/LFZUAB · 1 pointr/Physics

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.

u/RainbowNowOpen · 1 pointr/ebooks

I can only find the Amazon Kindle version. :(

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691125759

u/prajnadhyana · 1 pointr/atheism

QED: The strange theory of light and matter by Richard P. Feynman

http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691125759

u/shouldbebabysitting · 1 pointr/scifi

>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

u/UltraVioletCatastro · 1 pointr/Physics

You might want to try Taylor and Wheeler it is an introduction to the basics of GR whose math prerequisite is calculus.

u/Orion952 · 1 pointr/math

Hartle: http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-7&keywords=general+relativity

Pretty introductory, not a ton of math but enough to satisfy most undergrads. Includes a section on introductory Tensor Calculus.

Carroll: http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Geometry-Introduction-General-Relativity/dp/0805387323/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-3&keywords=general+relativity

Probably the best intermediate book, does GR at an intermediate level. Includes several chapters on the math needed.

Wald: http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420630637&sr=8-2&keywords=general+relativity

Covers GR at a fairly advanced level. More rigorous books exist, but are not appropriate for a first course.

u/DrunkenPhysicist · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

Griffith's Electrodynamics has a decent introduction to special relativity. Otherwise, Hartle's book is geared towards the advanced undergrad. Also, Schultz is good too.

u/cailien · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

My undergraduate GR course used Spacetime and Geometry by Sean Carroll, which has a discussion of gravitational lensing in section 8.6. The problem is that the discussion there is built on the rest of the book, which is on the mathematically rigorous side of things. Also, it is kind of expensive, but you might be able to find it in a library.

u/JoJosh-The-Barbarian · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Ahh... I like you!

Great question!

The answer to this is actually extremely complicated. In fact, energy conservation is actually not true in general relativity. If you are interested in reading about this, check out Sean Carroll's blog entry on the topic. He's a well known cosmologist at Caltech who wrote a textbook on general relativity.

u/The_White_Baron · 1 pointr/entp

I just want to add on here that Sean Carroll is a highly, highly respected physicist too. His intro to general relativity is widely used as a graduate textbook.

https://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Geometry-Introduction-General-Relativity/dp/0805387323

So yeah, this guy is a big deal. He knows his shit. Not saying you're implying the opposite, just a nice tidbit 🙂

u/catsails · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You're welcome!

To be honest, I went out of my way to take courses in Tensor Analysis and Differential Geometry before I started learning GR, and I can't say it was that useful. It didn't hurt, but if your interest is just in learning GR, then most introductory GR textbooks teach you what you need to know. I'd recommend Schutz as a good book with tons of exercises, or Carroll ,partly because his discussion of differential geometry is more modern than that of Schutz.

u/too_clever_username · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook
u/therealprotonk · 1 pointr/bestof

Special relativity, yes. You can get the basics of the Lorentz transformation with some effort. Isaac Asimov's Understanding Physics even contains a good derivation.

General relativity...on the other hand. That's considerably more difficult. Einstein extended Maxwell's field theories--theories which Maxwell himself didn't fully understand and Maxwell was one of the most impressive physicists who ever lived. So it's a rough trip.

u/Epicureanist · 1 pointr/GetMotivated

> There are about 3 things i'd love to do related to science, but everyone requires you to have a PhD or AP classes in all 3 sciences.

Autodidactism. All that is really needed to learn is paper, pencil, and a library membership. If you're really interested in science, head to your local library and study individually.

After a few months of doing that, and learning/studying not for grades or due to pressures of parents/teachers you'll really begin to enjoy it. When you do keep it up, and after that if you enjoy it continue to do so. Eventually when you do sign up for classes you'll breeze through them.

Asimov puts it rather nicely best 4:17

> if books weren't so expensive here, or i found good books on them

Bullshit. All you have to do is look. Libraries give away books all the time; even a short search "used books in Canada," provides a lot of results. You could even buy a kindle $75 and pirate books.

Especially when it comes to philosophy and science books. Many of them are dirt cheap for the valuable information they contain. New books and textbooks are expensive, crappy, and very rarely rival the classics, especially those written by masters of the field.

Seriously, fucking look at this

I got an almost new book that covers physics wonderfully for $1.60

awaiting more excuses...

u/thinkyfish · 1 pointr/Physics

Asimov's Understanding Physics is great for a guided tour.

u/larsgj · 1 pointr/Physics

For starters you can read Asimovs Understanding Physics. It's a concept-describing TEXT book. There's almost no pictures, no math and no pop-culture-references. It's the opposite of Serways classic physics book which I used back in the day. Asimov is a good writer and tells about physics in an understandable way. I bought the book used for one dollar :) Best quality/price book I own.

u/schmoggert · 1 pointr/AskAcademia

Haven't looked at it so can't speak to it's quality but:

u/se3k1ngarbitrage · 1 pointr/JoeRogan

Maybe this will help

u/andrewr_ · 1 pointr/Physics

My reason is because I've been teaching myself linear algebra during the summer and thought it might be a good idea to practice my new skills in physics.

Edit: I hadn't thought about re examining classical mechanics from a more advanced perspective. To confirm the textbooks you're talking about is this Morin and this Taylor?

u/Phaen_ · 1 pointr/Physics

I have no experience with Young's books, but if you want to look into alternatives a very popular text book for physics is Physics for Scientists & Engineers by Giancoli, perfect for introductionary courses into classical mechanics. For a more advanced text book about classical mechanics you might want to look into Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor.

u/BertieMBot · 1 pointr/Sat
u/Ebanflo · 1 pointr/QuantumWorld

That's pretty funny. You'll notice that I never made a claim about whether or not the matter exists in a non-vaporized state, I said it can't be observed in such a state. Here's Leonard Susskind giving a rough explanation of why. And what's observable (or what can be used to predict the outcome of observations) is the only relevant thing in a scientific discussion.



By the way, I did a bit of research and superpositioned states have actually been observed for atoms and photons, which was the original premise of the discussion. And honestly that's a pretty ridiculous premise, because regardless of whether or not these states are observable, manipulating them is the basis of quantum computation. And quantum computers work. They work very well.



Some advice: pick up an elementary quantum mechanics textbook before your next discussion about the topic (I would recommend Griffiths), and try your best to refrain from acting like a pretentious douchebag instead of providing arguments in debates.

u/lettuce_field_theory · 1 pointr/AskPhysics


>and the uncertainty principal imposes limits on what we can know through measurement.

Not what we can know, but that a particle's state at any time isn't given by a precise position and momentum (state of a classical particle). This sort of information doesn't exist. Instead the state of the particle is a wave function. The wave function gives probabilities to measure the particle to be in a certain position or alternatively to have a certain momentum. The probabilities for the two quantities are dependent on each other (via fourier transform). The uncertainty principle just says that any wave function can't both be precisely localised in momentum and position space. The best you can do is a bell shaped (gaussian) distribution in both position and momentum that have some nonzero width.

After measurement of position the particle is then in an eigenstate of definite position. That kind of state gives a uniform probability distribution for the momentum measurement (ie all momenta are equally likely, momentum can be anything if you measure that afterwards).

>In doing so, we are assuming space is a continuous object, there are particles in space that occupy a single point, and once measured, a particle has a well defined location even if we cannot entirely know that location.

In that instance we have just measured it so we do know it.

>If we still assume space is continuous but particles had some size and shape which is able to move in a non-uniform manner (different parts moving in different speeds or directions)

We can detect internal structure of particles in experiments. This is how we know the from is fundamental and the proton isn't. There's no evidence otherwise (though having an internal structure doesn't change much for the proton, it's also a quantum object) and there is no incentive of getting rid of what you call "weirdness", on the contrary, quantum theory gives the most accurate predictions we've ever had.

Describing the state of a particle by a wave function psi(t) instead of a pair of values (x(t), p(t)) is a more accurate description.

Your suggestion is literally choosing something that disagrees with experiments over something that agrees with them.

>our inability to measure its position could be related to how we try and collapse this into a single positional value. Or, what if particles are just bigger than what we would expect and in doing a measurement, we are only seeing a given piece a particle?

I agree with /u/cantgetno197 (who isn't a troll, he just told you something that's accurate but you didn't want to hear). I think your view might have to do with not knowing quantum theory very well yet. In that case I would be trying to learn about it (textbooks), not trying to get rid of it. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/1107179866

Yes books do teach you. They teach you intuition too, contrary to what you say (again you haven't read any quantum theory books but have already an opinion). How is anyone supposed to take someone saying he is learning seriously if he is dismissive of reading educational material?

>Besides, those who don't ask questions generally don't understand as well as they think, or they are unimaginative...

Those who don't read books are worse off, they don't ask very useful questions to begin with and don't make progress.

u/supersymmetricman · 1 pointr/Physics

This is the one I have, I think a third edition has come out since then. But I'll have to agree with others here, Griffiths is probably not the best book for QM. There are some parts which are well written, but it is lacking in many areas. Try something like Townsend.

u/Br0wnDwarf · 1 pointr/Sat

I found the College Board's official Math II book really effective for preparation. When I took the real test it felt just like the practice tests in this book.

u/fantasticmrbond · 1 pointr/Physics

My introduction to both General and Special Relativity was from John Taylor's Classical Mechanics, in free pdf form or in a dead trees format. The General Relativity section is lumped toward the end of the 'Special Relativity' chapter. It would be a great place to start.

u/skypetutor · 1 pointr/SATsubjectTests

I used to recommend the Barron's book for Math 2, but with 16 real Math 2 tests at our disposal thanks to the Dubai tests (and the Barron's tests overly difficult compared to the real thing), I no longer recommend it.

Start with the Official Guide to the Math Level 2 Subject Tests, which contains 4 exams with full explanations, including the exams in books #1 and #2 below (and 2 of the Dubai tests).

Here are sources of 4 official tests in every subject:

  1. The Official Study Guide for ALL SAT Subject Tests
  2. Real SAT Subject Tests (2006)
  3. The Official Guide to Sat II: Subject Tests (1994)
  4. The College Board Achievement Tests: 14 Tests in 13 Subjects (1983)

    To access dozens of additional real College Board SAT Subject Tests without answer keys in Math, Chemistry, Physics and Biology, Google "SAT Subject Tests Past Papers" and look for the link from Dubai.

    Book: The College Board Achievement Tests, 1983

  5. Math Level 2 SAT Subject Test
  6. Physics SAT Subject Test

    Book: Cracking the SAT Math 2 Subject Test, 2019

    Test 1 / Answers

    Test 2 / Answers

    Test 3 / Answers and Explanations
u/TotallyNotAsian420 · 1 pointr/Sat

I was using CrackSAT, but I thought the tests didn't seem official. The SAT Math 2 book by College Board with 4 official tests is only $15 on Amazon, so I just bought it.

Here's the link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Mathematics-Level-Study/dp/1457309327&ved=2ahUKEwizi9qhh6jiAhWQVN8KHTw7C68QFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw17S0hDfrL0k9uRzSVI2jvf

u/SoSweetAndTasty · 1 pointr/AskPhysics

Books like Griffiths quantum or Nielsen and Chuang quantum information? From the sounds of your post you have some large gaps in your understanding.

u/rodomontadefarrago · 0 pointsr/Lal_Salaam

Albert works as a philosopher (at Columbia U, very prestigious). But he's a post-grad in theoretical physics. If by physicist you mean someone who works up calculations, he is not. He is someone who understands physics and philosophy very well however. He works among physicists and is a leading person on the philosophy of QM. Quantum Mechanics and Experience is a staple intro in undergrad.

u/hungryascetic · 0 pointsr/askphilosophy

You're right, I'm not a physicist, but I'm well educated in physics. On the other hand, it seems that you didn't read my post, and that you are not well acquainted with either the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor with the rich literature in philosophy of science with respect to the MWI and it's implications. I suggest you take a look at David Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience, David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation and the anthology Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality.

u/piroplex · 0 pointsr/science

Richard Feynman's "Strange Theory of Light and Matter" explains why. It's all about probabilities.

u/lilgreenland · 0 pointsr/Physics

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

u/HollowImage · 0 pointsr/AskPhysics

Ok, so I would recommend Carrol's Spacetime and Geometry http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Geometry-Introduction-General-Relativity/dp/0805387323

If you are feeling more up to snuff with tensor calculus and mathematical analysis and can wade your way through R_n analysis, (in terms of problem solving and approaches), then go for Wald's Genearl Relativity http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332

edit: warning: both of those books are graduate level. Any GR is only taught at grad level, but I took GR with Wald (yep the guy himself) my 3rd year with similar background to yours. You will be fine, but its going to be a lot of head beating against the wall. Some of that stuff is really complex and will possibly require more than one source to understand. JUST the book may not be enough. I would even recommend you talk to your local GR prof and see if you can send him questions as you work through this; I cant imagine any good professor refuse to help you in this way, as long as you dont send a question every 5 minute and they are actually substantial.

also, anything else you would be stepping lower than carrol and i would advise against it if you wanted to get a good grasp of mathematical approaches and rigorous proofs (especially Wald in this case)

u/duckmath · 0 pointsr/askphilosophy

Physics for Mathematicians provides an axiomatic introduction to classical mechanics: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Mathematicians-Mechanics-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098322

Axiomatizing physics is one of Hilbert's problems.

u/disgruntler · 0 pointsr/Physics
u/tempforfather · 0 pointsr/science

All the other books people are mentioning are light fare: Read this - http://www.amazon.com/The-Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Volume/dp/0201021153

It will take you from zero science knowledge to a lot. The explanations and teaching methods are excellent.

u/ErDestructor · 0 pointsr/Physics

Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Shankar

In my opinion, easier to follow than Griffiths. It explains principles better. Covers bra-ket, integral and matrix forms throughout. Many fewer gaps in getting from point a to point b than Griffiths. For someone studying on their own, the fewer gaps the better.

u/mephistoA · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

stop reading shit.

if you want to read about quantum mechanics, i would suggest this for a beginner.