(Part 2) Best astronomy & space science books according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 2,788 Reddit comments discussing the best astronomy & space science books. We ranked the 758 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Subcategories:

Ufos books
Aeronautics & astronautics books
Astronomy books
Comets, meteors & asteroids books
Mars books
Solar system books

Top Reddit comments about Astronomy & Space Science:

u/saveamericaskids · 256 pointsr/IAmA

I always thought the "seat belt rock" they recovered on Apollo 15 was funny.

Every Apollo mission was planned down to the minute, the planners even accounted for "gawping time" to let Astronauts just stare out into the abyss and appreciate where they were.

During Apollo 15 David Scott and James Irwin were driving around the Lunar Rover from crater to crater doing what science they could and taking a few samples. On their way back to the Lunar Module Scott spied an impressive basalt sample (it was large and can only be formed from Magma cooling at or near the surface of a planet or moon), he stopped the Rover and to account for the stop said he was experiencing a seat belt malfunction.

Irwin played along and distracted Mission Control by describing the craters. Scott got out of the rover grabbed the rock and then they hauled ass back to the Lunar Module.

Mission Control didn't know about this sample until after they had returned to Earth.

If you want to check out the transcripts they're all here.

If you like this kinda story, you should check out Mary Roach's book Packing For Mars. She's got a lot of other anecdotes in it.

u/seanmcarroll · 37 pointsr/askscience

My basic approach is summarized here: Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things About Philosophy. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/

But yes, there's also my awesome new book! I talk about philosophy a lot there, but I don't dive explicitly into the "here is why philosophy is useful" debates. If its usefulness isn't obvious by the time you've finished reading the book, I've failed.

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Origins-Meaning-Universe/dp/0525954821/smcarroll-20

u/BlazeOrangeDeer · 24 pointsr/startrek

A Briefer History of Time is even better, more current and better edited.

u/star_boy2005 · 19 pointsr/space

This is one of my all time favorite topics of conjecture. My favorite book on this topic was one called Where Is Everybody by Stephen Webb. If you enjoyed this article I guarantee you'll want to buy this book.

u/ivicapuljak · 16 pointsr/croatia

Puno je knjiga za preporučiti, ali evo jedne koja me nedavno oduševila: https://www.amazon.fr/Big-Picture-Origins-Meaning-Universe/dp/0525954821

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/itworkedintheory · 12 pointsr/space

The New S.M.A.D

Google it, its the shit

Source : recently graduated aero/astro engineer

Edit: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Mission-Engineering-Technology-Library/dp/1881883159

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/matthewdreeves · 11 pointsr/exjw

Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for de-indoctrinating yourself:

Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.

Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman

Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong

Watch this talk from Sam Harris where he explains why "free will" is likely an illusion, which debunks the entire premise of "the fall of man" as presented by most Christian religions.

Watch this video on the Cordial Curiosity channel that teaches how the "Socratic Method" works, which essentially is a way to question why we believe what we believe. Do we have good reasons to believe them? If not, should we believe them?

Watch this video by Theramin Trees that explains why we fall for the beliefs of manipulative groups in the first place.

This video explains why and how childhood indoctrination works, for those of us born-in to a high-control group.

Another great source is this youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.

Next, learn some science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.

Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Watch this series where Aron Ra explains in great detail how all life is connected in a giant family tree.

Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

Learn about critical thinking from people like [Michael Shermer] (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things?language=en), and how to spot logical fallacies.

For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline.

Read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.

Watch this Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, the late Swedish Statistician, where he shows more evidence that the world is indeed becoming a better place, and why we tend to wrongly convince ourselves otherwise.

I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that we can use to become more knowledgeable people.

You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--

Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."

u/EightOfTen · 10 pointsr/suggestmeabook

The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking because it is so accessible to mere mortal minds.

u/SharmaK · 9 pointsr/books

For some physics :
Penrose - Road to Reality

Gleick - Chaos

Some math/philosophy :
Hofstadter - Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

Anything early by Dawkins if you want to avoid the atheist stuff though his latest is good too.

Anything by Robert Wright for the evolution of human morality.

Pinker for language and the Mind.

Matt Ridley for more biology.

u/Astrokiwi · 9 pointsr/badlinguistics

I feel similarly whenever I see a popular science/philosophy/crackpottery book with "Dr. Archibald Cornelius, PhD" or whatever on it. It makes me feel that their argument is weak enough that "hey, I have a degree!" is the best way to support it.

Serious scientists do this too sometimes, but not very often.

u/ange1obear · 9 pointsr/learnmath

The basic theme of differential geometry is to take calculus in R^(n) and do it in a more general n-dimensional spaces (called manifolds) that are "locally" like R^(n). For example, think of a sphere: when you look at it close enough (like when you're living on the Earth), it looks flat, and you can do calculus with lines on the ground and everything works out. On a larger scale, though, things get messed up when you look at scales large enough for the curvature of the Earth to make a difference. So you always have to look infinitesimally close (that's where the "differential" part comes in). Feel free to ask more about that.

As for notes, I mostly learned from this guy, whose notes on differential geometry are available online. I also really like this book. If you'd prefer a more easygoing, computational approach, take a look at this book, or some other gentle introduction to GR.

ETA: If you'd like to think about non-Euclidean geometry using only basic linear algebra, take a look at these notes.

u/GlandyThunderbundle · 8 pointsr/MMA

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes/dp/0307278123

In a world of infinite universes, there's also one where Randy "Macho Man" Savage is the p4p, and Demetrius Johnson beats Fedor in PRIDE

u/wjg10 · 8 pointsr/science

He is awesome. Read this. It turned me on to astronomy and physics.

u/Senno_Ecto_Gammat · 8 pointsr/space

These:

How to Read the Solar System: A Guide to the Stars and Planets by Christ North and Paul Abel.


A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.


A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.


Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space by Carl Sagan.


Foundations of Astrophysics by Barbara Ryden and Bradley Peterson.


Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins.


An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me About Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything by Chris Hadfield.


You Are Here: Around the World in 92 Minutes: Photographs from the International Space Station by Chris Hadfield.


Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the Space Transportation System by Dennis Jenkins.


Wings in Orbit: Scientific and Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle, 1971-2010 by Chapline, Hale, Lane, and Lula.


No Downlink: A Dramatic Narrative About the Challenger Accident and Our Time by Claus Jensen.


Voices from the Moon: Apollo Astronauts Describe Their Lunar Experiences by Andrew Chaikin.


A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin.


Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA by Amy Teitel.


Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module by Thomas Kelly.


The Scientific Exploration of Venus by Fredric Taylor.


The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe.


Into the Black: The Extraordinary Untold Story of the First Flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the Astronauts Who Flew Her by Rowland White and Richard Truly.


An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Bradley Carroll and Dale Ostlie.


Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space by Willy Ley.


Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants by John Clark.


A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.


Russia in Space by Anatoly Zak.


Rain Of Iron And Ice: The Very Real Threat Of Comet And Asteroid Bombardment by John Lewis.


Mining the Sky: Untold Riches From The Asteroids, Comets, And Planets by John Lewis.


Asteroid Mining: Wealth for the New Space Economy by John Lewis.


Coming of Age in the Milky Way by Timothy Ferris.


The Whole Shebang: A State of the Universe Report by Timothy Ferris.


Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandries by Neil deGrasse Tyson.


Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson.


Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon by Craig Nelson.


The Martian by Andy Weir.


Packing for Mars:The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach.


The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution by Frank White.


Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.


The Science of Interstellar by Kip Thorne.


Entering Space: An Astronaut’s Oddyssey by Joseph Allen.


International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems by Hopkins, Hopkins, and Isakowitz.


The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene.


How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space by Janna Levin.


This New Ocean: The Story of the First Space Age by William Burrows.


The Last Man on the Moon by Eugene Cernan.


Failure is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond by Gene Kranz.


Apollo 13 by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger.

The end

u/mrdm384 · 8 pointsr/science

The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.
Link

u/pedrito77 · 8 pointsr/AskReddit

The fine tuning universe is explained by the many worlds scenario.
Basically it says that there are billions of billions of universes, and for the argument of something from nothing I recommend:
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"

u/dorylinus · 7 pointsr/satellites

FYI, the newer version of SMAD is now called "Space Mission Engineering".

u/steptonwat · 7 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I want to start out by saying I'm not supporting multiverse theory... I want no part of the crazy downvotes on either side of this argument.

But from my understanding (I could be wrong here), multiverse theory (of a few different kinds of "multiverse") are predicted and wholly supported by math and physics as we understand them today. However, no methods are available to test the existence scientifically since the other universes are either moving away from us too fast for light to ever reach us or are located in a different dimension of spacetime. This is all my recollection from listening to an audiobook of Our Mathematical Universe so it may not be quite right, but the point is math and physics support multiverse theory but the existence cannot be proven. I think I'll stop here before anyone on either side yells at me too much.

u/absolutspacegirl · 7 pointsr/atheism

Former NASA employee here!

What got me interested in space was manned spaceflight - at that time, the Space Shuttle. I know she's into astrophysics, but if that's too awkward around the family why not try to get her interested in things like ISS? You could show her the research they're doing on ISS having to do with space science:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/facilities_hardware.html#Earth_and_Space_Science



You could also show teach her about female astronauts and scientists. Sally Ride was a HUGE inspiration to me growing up (when my grandfather told me I had to be a nurse or a teacher because I was a girl!). Eileen Collins (first female Shuttle commander) would be a good role model, too.

Here's the NASA astrophysics page:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/

I'd show her that, too.



Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's autobiography, about growing up and becoming an astrophysicist. I've read it and it's not a hard read:

http://www.amazon.com/Sky-Not-Limit-Adventures-Astrophysicist-ebook/dp/B0030I1XNM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413845530&sr=8-1&keywords=the+sky+is+not+the+limit


Here's another Tyson book that I haven't read so I can't speak to it but she may enjoy it because it's all about space:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1413845568&sr=8-2&keywords=neil+tyson


I loved books and magazines on space at that age. Get her a subscription to Sky and Telescope or Scientific American?


Here are more book suggestions:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/05/crowdsource-what-are-good-astronomy-books-for-kids/#.VEWTkIcgxWI


Let me know how it goes! It's VERY important to keep her interest! A 14 year old girl actually discovered a supernova, so that might be of interest to her. http://www.shakesville.com/2009/06/amazing-women.html

Good luck!


Edit: Is she on Twitter? If so, here are some scientists she can follow: http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/09/top-50-science-stars-twitter#full-list

If she's on Facebook she could also "Like" science pages.

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/DurraSell · 6 pointsr/educationalgifs

If you like this, you may enjoy this book that explains how to do these and several other constructions.

u/clqrvy · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Max Tegmark believes a view along these lines:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

Personally, I don't think the view makes much sense. In fact, I don't really know what it means. For example, suppose one takes the view that mathematical objects are abstract, non-spatiotemporal objects. On this view, if the world is made of nothing but mathematical objects, does that entail that space and time don't exist? (Because mathematical objects are neither spatial nor temporal, and everything is made of math.) Or does it mean that space and time do exist, but not in the way we think they do? What way might that be? I just don't have a grip on what the view entails.

>First, in my feeble understanding, math is simply a language.

It sounds like you might be sympathetic to a kind of formalist philosophy of math.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/

However, these views are very problematic.

u/Cletus_awreetus · 6 pointsr/Physics

This is definitely above your level, and it's from 1982 so it's a little outdated, but if you're really interested in astrophysics then it might be worth checking it out and trying to work through at least the first few sections. I think it's written so that you can follow it without too much math involvement.

Frank Shu - The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy

Otherwise, there are a lot of great popular-writing (i.e. not a textbook) books about physics/astrophysics. Here are a few:

Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time

Carl Sagan - Cosmos

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death By Black Hole, and Other Cosmic Quandaries

My biggest advice, though, for taking physics in high school is to try to do as well as you possibly can in your math classes. Those are the most important for getting into physics. If you do well in math then physics should be pretty easy.

u/FunkyFortuneNone · 6 pointsr/quantum

Friend asked for a similar list a while ago and I put this together. Would love to see people thoughts/feedback.

Very High Level Introductions:

  • Mr. Tompkins in Paperback
    • A super fast read that spends less time looking at the "how" but focused instead on the ramifications and impacts. Covers both GR as well as QM but is very high level with both of them. Avoids getting into the details and explaining the why.

  • Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution (Great Courses lecture)
    • This is a great intro to the field of non-classical physics. This walks through GR and QM in a very approachable fashion. More "nuts and bolts" than Mr. Tompkins but longer/more detailed at the same time.


      Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):

  • Quantum Theory: A Very Brief Introduction
    • Great introduction to QM. Doesn't really touch on QFT (which is a good thing at this point) and spends a great deal of time (compared to other texts) discussing the nature of QM interpretation and the challenges around that topic.
  • The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces
    • Now we're starting to get into the good stuff. QFT begins to come to the forefront. This book starts to dive into explaining some of the macro elements we see as explained by QM forces. A large part of the book is spent on symmetries and where a proton/nucleon's gluon binding mass comes from (a.k.a. ~95% of the mass we personally experience).
  • The Higgs Boson and Beyond (Great Courses lecture)
    • Great lecture done by Sean Carroll around the time the Higgs boson's discovery was announced. It's a good combination of what role the Higgs plays in particle physics, why it's important and what's next. Also spends a little bit of time discussing how colliders like the LHC work.
  • Mysteries of Modern Physics: Time (Great Courses lecture)
    • Not really heavy on QM at all, however I think it does best to do this lecture after having a bit of the physics under your belt first. The odd nature of time symmetry in the fundamental forces and what that means with regards to our understanding of time as we experience it is more impactful with the additional knowledge (but, like I said, not absolutely required).
  • Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics
    • This is not a mathematical approach like "A Most Incomprehensible Thing" are but it's subject matter is more advanced and the resulting math (at least) an order of magnitude harder (so it's a good thing it's skipped). This is a "high level deep dive" (whatever that means) into QFT though and so discussion of pure abstract math is a huge focus. Lie groups, spontaneous symmetry breaking, internal symmetry spaces etc. are covered.
  • The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
    • This is your desert after working through everything above. Had to include something about string theory here. Not a technical book at all but best to be familiar with QM concepts before diving in.

      Blending the line between pop-sci and mathematical (these books are not meant to be read and put away but instead read, re-read and pondered):

  • A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Intro to GR
    • Sorry, this is GR specific and nothing to do with QM directly. However I think it's a great book acting as an introduction. Definitely don't go audible/kindle. Get the hard copy. Lots of equations. Tensor calculus, Lorentz transforms, Einstein field equations, etc. While it isn't a rigorous textbook it is, at it's core, a mathematics based description not analogies. Falls apart at the end, after all, it can't be rigorous and accessible at the same time, but still well worth the read.
  • The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics
    • Not QM at all. However it is a great introduction to using math as a tool for describing our reality and since it's using it to describe classical mechanics you get to employ all of your classical intuition that you've worked on your entire life. This means you can focus on the idea of using math as a descriptive tool and not as a tool to inform your intuition. Which then would lead us to...
  • Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum
    • Great introduction that uses math in a descriptive way AND to inform our intuition.
  • The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe
    • Incredible book. I think the best way to describe this book is a massive guidebook. You probably won't be able to get through each of the topics based solely on the information presented in the book but the book gives you the tools and knowledge to ask the right questions (which, frankly, as anybody familiar with the topic knows, is actually the hardest part). You're going to be knocking your head against a brick wall plenty with this book. But that's ok, the feeling when the brick wall finally succumbs to your repeated headbutts makes it all worth while.
u/nibot · 6 pointsr/physicsbooks
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/Norenzayan · 6 pointsr/exmormon

As others have said, of course we can't know with 100% certainty that there is no God. But to paraphrase the apocryphal words of Laplace, I have no need for that hypothesis. The idea of God does nothing to explain the universe beyond what we already can explain with physics alone, and in fact adding God to the explanation introduces more questions than answers (beginning with the question of why there are so many incompatible interpretations of who/what god is).

There are lots of great atheist thinkers who have filled the void you describe; I recommend familiarizing yourself with some of that work. I'm finishing up Sean Carroll's excellent book The Big Picture, and I can heartily recommend it as a great place to start building a worldview compatible with reality.

ETA: I just read a relevant paragraph from Carroll's book that might help with your void:
>Say you love somebody genuinely and fiercely, and lets say you also believe in a higher spiritual power, and think of your love as a manifestation of that greater spiritual force. But you're also an honest Bayesian, willing to update your credences in light of the evidence. Somehow, over the course of time, you accumulate a decisive amount of new information that shifts your planet of belief from spiritual to naturalist. You've lost what you thought was the source of your love. Do you lose the love itself? Are you now obligated to think that the love you felt is now somehow illegitimate? No. Your love is still there, as pure and true as ever. How you would explain your feelings in terms of an underlying ontological vocabulary has changed, but you're still in love. Water doesn't stop being wet when you learn it's a compound of hydrogen and oxygen. The same goes for purpose, meaning, and our sense of right and wrong. If you are moved to help those less fortunate than you, it doesn't matter whether you're motivated by a belief that it's God's will or by a personal conviction that it's the right thing to do. Your values are no less "real" either way.

u/CatFiggy · 6 pointsr/answers

Wait, wait, wait. I clicked on this page because I didn't know that anybody thought that it wasn't.

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

It is theoretically possible, according to relativity. It is merely incredibly impractical for us right now. We do not have the technology.

One way to travel to the future would be to go up in a space ship that's moving incredibly fast. (Close to light-speed, that is. It is difficult to go this fast. Our ships are incapable.) Because of special relativity, you would perceive everybody to speed up and they would perceive you to slow down, perhaps to freeze. If you were to watch your friend get sucked in by a black hole, you would never see it end because they were moving so fast near the event horizon. They would freeze in your view.

Firenadiceman is wrong because you are not going anywhere. Time is relative. You still exist. You never cease to exist. You are in your space ship for a month, and that's all the time that went by, a month. Earth had thirty years, but that's because of the speed Earth was moving. Matter was conserved and modern physics is quite something.

It is theoretically possible to travel through time with an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole), though those only exist in theory as well. Richard Gott III came up with cosmic-string travel: Two colliding cosmic strings will distort space. This means that if you move through that space, you will also move through time (as they are the same thing: space-time; they are merely different dimensions of the same thing). There are more that I haven't mentioned because I forget precisely how they work.

You should read Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.

u/mattymillhouse · 5 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Some of my favorites:

Brian Greene -- The Fabric of the Cosmos, The Elegant Universe, and The Hidden Reality. Greene is, to my mind, very similar to Hawking in his ability to take complex subjects and make them understandable for the physics layman.

Hawking -- I see you've read A Brief History of Time, but Hawking has a couple of other books that are great. The Grand Design, The Universe in a Nutshell, and A Briefer History of Time.

Same thing applies to Brian Cox. Here's his Amazon page.

Leonard Susskind -- The Black Hole Wars. Here's the basic idea behind this book. One of the basic tenets of physics is that "information" is never lost. Stephen Hawking delivered a presentation that apparently showed that when matter falls into a black hole, information is lost. This set the physics world on edge. Susskind (and his partner Gerard T'Hooft) set out to prove Hawking wrong. Spoilers: they do so. And in doing so, they apparently proved that what we see as 3 dimensions is probably similar to those 2-D stickers that project a hologram. It's called the Holographic Principle.

Lee Smolin -- The Trouble with Physics. If you read the aforementioned books and/or keep up with physics through pop science sources, you'll probably recognize that string theory is pretty dang popular. Smolin's book is a criticism of string theory. He's also got a book that's on my to-read list called Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

Joao Magueijo -- Faster Than the Speed of Light. This is another physics book that cuts against the prevailing academic grain. Physics says that the speed of light is a universal speed limit. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Magueijo's book is about his theory that the speed of light is, itself, variable, and it's been different speeds at different times in the universe's history. You may not end up agreeing with Magueijo, but the guy is smart, he's cocky, and he writes well.

u/futtbucked69 · 5 pointsr/changemyview

> 1. World either exists since ever or was brought to existence.

If you were to assume the latter, then this argument doesn’t really make sense. There is a real danger of arguing in a circle and finishing up where we started. If, for example, I begin with the assumption (hypothesis) that ‘a God exists who created all things’, I cannot subsequently use the existence of the universe as an argument for the existence of God. In other words, reasoning that goes as follows is invalid:

  1. A God exists who created the universe.
  2. The universe exists.
  3. Therefore it must had had a creator (a God who created the universe).

    In a valid syllogism the statements (1) and (2) would lead to a conclusion (3) that is not contained in either (1) and (2), but in this example we simply end up by deducing what we assumed in the first place.


    If you believe in the former however, that the universe has always existed, that starts to make sense. Think about this;

    "The Big Bang does not state that the cosmos somehow “leapt into being” out of a preexisting state of nothingness. To see why, lets’ play a tape of the universe's history backward. With the expansion reversed, we see the contents of the universe compressing together, growing more and more compressed. Ultimately, at the very beginning of cosmic history -- which, for convenience, we’ll label t=0 -- everything is in a state of infinite compression, shrunk to a point: the “singularity.” Now, Einstein’s general theory of relativity tells us that shape of space-time itself is determined by the way energy and matter are distributed. And when energy and matter are infinitely compressed, so too is space time. It simply disappears. It is tempting to imagine the Big bang to be like the beginning of a concert. You’re seated for a while fiddling with your program, and then suddenly at t=0 the music starts. But the analogy is mistaken. Unlike the beginning of a concert, the singularity at the beginning of the universe is not an event IN time. Rather, it is a temporal boundary or edge. There are no moments of time “before” t=0. So there was never a time when nothingness prevailed. And there was no “coming into being” - at least not a temporal one. Even though the universe is finite in age, it has always existed, if by “always” you mean at all instants of time. If there was never a transition from Nothing to Something, there is no need to look for a cause, divine or otherwise, that brought the universe into existence. Nor is there any need to worry about where all the matter and energy in the universe came from. There was no “sudden and fantastic” violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy at the Big Bang, as many theists claim. The universe has always had the same mass-energy content, from t=0 right up to the present."
    (Taken from; Why Does The World Exist, by Jim Holt)
u/Snarkiep · 5 pointsr/DebateReligion

A physicist named Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on this. Its called a universe from nothing. Good read. Also, if youre interested another good book that adresses different attempts to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is called "Why does the world exist?" by Jim Holt.

Heres some links:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595/ref=la_B001IGFJ92_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367993510&sr=1-1

edit: I just noticed that someone else mentioned Krauss in an above comment. Sorry for redundancy.

u/astroNerf · 5 pointsr/atheism

His argument is that the universe does not seem to require a creator, at least that's his view from the perspective of theoretical cosmology. The universe is not the same thing as a wheelchair or ventilator. It might be hard to wrap your head around it, but the universe could have arisen naturally without the need for some intelligent, thinking, planning being. So far, every aspect about the history of the universe indicates that nothing supernatural is at work and galaxies, stars, planets, and people all can come about via natural processes and do not require an intelligence to "design" anything.

I suggest you check out his "Curiousity" episode where he goes into some detail about whether or not a god is needed.

If you want a second opinion on theoretical cosmology, check out the work of Lawrence Krauss, either his book or his talk.

u/Rinse-Repeat · 5 pointsr/AskReddit

The builders 3/4/5 (pythagorean theorem).

Take anything you are trying to build that needs a 90 degree angle. Measure one leg of the 90 in a multiple of 3 (whatever you want, inches, feet, etc), the second leg as a multiple of 4. Now measure the distance between the end of both legs, it should be a multiple of 5.

Easiest way to square up a foundation wall or sill plate of a house you are framing, a cabinet you are building, etc. If you already have 4 sides, measure the two diagonals (X) and you should have an identical measurement if they are square. If one is longer than the other, rack the box until they are equal, then you have a 4 90 degree angles.

Probably less than 5 minutes to learn.

Ohh and if you really want to get into some fun, get a compass, straight edge and sharp pencil. Learn the basic geometric progression of sacred geometry from 1-10, then start seeing the geometric structure in all living things.

Best 12 bucks you will ever spend at the following link (YMMV)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060926716/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000CSCZ58&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0V123YNSK1R329RFF10G

u/kodheaven · 5 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Submission Statement: On November 2016, David Deutsch and Sam Harris did a podcast together. The purpose of that podcast was for David Deutsch to attempt to explain where Sam Harris went wrong or could improve upon his The Moral Landscape idea.

David is a Popperian and has built upon Popper’s work in his two books The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. This podcast sparked my interest in Popper and at the time I did not understand the disagreement between David and Sam. I asked the question and Brett Hall who is an expert (doubt he’d enjoy that label) on Popper and Deutsche was kind enough to make a video explaining their differences.

The reason I decided to transcribe this video is that I have found that comparing and contrasting Sam’s epistemology to that of Popper’s has been super helpful in better understanding Critical Rationalism, which is what Popper called his Philosophy. I have read Popper and Deutsch for a year since and have barely scratched the surface.

You do not necessarily need to listen to the Podcast to get the meat of this content, Brett does a great job presenting both their ideas clearly and their differences as well.

Anyway, here are some interesting bits from the video.

>The majority of people who have an alternative epistemology, something other than what Karl Popper views knowledge as for example, they think that knowledge is about justified true belief. They think that you need to begin with the foundation and on that foundation then you accumulate knowledge, you build it up. And this is an anti critical vision about how knowledge is created. In the Popperian view, you simply have problems, you can start anywhere at all and you attempt to solve those problems when you have them. When you have ideas that are in conflict with one another by using a critical method, it's a completely different vision.

On What Morality is,

>So instead, just to preface, what morality really consists of, it's about solving moral problems. And in order to solve moral problems, we have to conjecture explanations about what might improve things. And they can always be false. We can always criticize them.

There is no need for bedrock,

>Okay. So again, David says that moral theory should be approached like scientific theories. They don't need foundations. They don't need foundations. There are a lot of theories out there, a lot of moral theories like, Kant's categorical imperative, or Rawl's fairness or stuff that comes out of the Bible the golden rule et cetera, et cetera. Whatever your moral theory happens to be or indeed Sam's wellbeing of conscious creatures. All of these, these principles, these ideas, these theories should be seen as critiques, as critiques of each other or as critiques of any other theory that someone proposes or as a critique of a solution that someone proposes.
>
>They shouldn't be seen as foundations from which you begin to build up everything else.

There is a lot of great information in here not just about morality, there’s a bit about politics, creativity, and perhaps most groundbreaking in my estimation, David’s explanation of what a person is.

I hope this is helpful!

Other Links:

u/the6thReplicant · 5 pointsr/space

Cosmos (the original, and I think the new one) has a companion book. It was a NYT bestseller, in 1980, so it'll be easy to find at a secondhand book shop.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345539435/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1462352386&sr=8-2&keywords=cosmos

u/MrFunkhouser · 5 pointsr/videos
u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 5 pointsr/mormon

A couple resources come to mind:

u/Mikesapien · 4 pointsr/Cosmos

Bill Nye

u/entropywins9 · 4 pointsr/exjew

I posted this response to the supposed 'emptiness' of a secular life, on a different sub:

Try reading this book: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345539435/

The universe is an astounding place- just our galaxy has hundreds of billions of suns, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. It is mindbogglingly huge.

Life is astounding. Evolving on our planet for a billion years, from single cells to human consciousness, trees, insects, whales, birds, dinosaurs, and countless millions of life forms in between.

Have you watched David Attenborough's Planet Earth series? It is so beautiful it will make you cry: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02544td

Have you been to the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the MOMA in NYC, or your local art or natural history museum?

How about laughter? Comedy brings me great joy. I watch the Daily Show, Bill Maher, and have enjoyed other series over the years, but I realize comedy is highly culture-specific.

Exercise? If you are feeling down, going for a jog or workout is a great natural endorphin rush.

Food! Do you like to cook? This is another wonderful joy in life.

Do you have friends? Even if you are in an isolated place, with mostly fundamentalist religious people, perhaps there are others you can talk to, and if not, be glad that we live in 2018 and you have the internet!

I wish you luck. It takes great courage and strength to acknowledge that your previous way of life was based on a collective delusion, even if it was a comforting one. But:

“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” ― Flannery O'Connor

u/Rory_The_Faggot · 4 pointsr/Documentaries

If you liked these you should consider reading his book Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, in which he covers these topics in greater detail in his usual accessible way.

u/porscheguy19 · 4 pointsr/atheism

On science and evolution:

Genetics is where it's at. There is a ton of good fossil evidence, but genetics actually proves it on paper. Most books you can get through your local library (even by interlibrary loan) so you don't have to shell out for them just to read them.

Books:

The Making of the Fittest outlines many new forensic proofs of evolution. Fossil genes are an important aspect... they prove common ancestry. Did you know that humans have the gene for Vitamin C synthesis? (which would allow us to synthesize Vitamin C from our food instead of having to ingest it directly from fruit?) Many mammals have the same gene, but through a mutation, we lost the functionality, but it still hangs around.

Deep Ancestry proves the "out of Africa" hypothesis of human origins. It's no longer even a debate. MtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA can be traced back directly to where our species began.

To give more rounded arguments, Hitchens can't be beat: God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist (which is an overview of the best atheist writings in history, and one which I cannot recommend highly enough). Also, Dawkin's book The Greatest Show on Earth is a good overview of evolution.

General science: Stephen Hawking's books The Grand Design and A Briefer History of Time are excellent for laying the groundwork from Newtonian physics to Einstein's relativity through to the modern discovery of Quantum Mechanics.

Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine are also excellent sources for philosophical, humanist, atheist thought; but they are included in the aforementioned Portable Atheist... but I have read much of their writings otherwise, and they are very good.

Also a subscription to a good peer-reviewed journal such as Nature is awesome, but can be expensive and very in depth.

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also an excellent look at the human mind and genetics. To understand how the mind works, is almost your most important tool. If you know why people say the horrible things they do, you can see their words for what they are... you can see past what they say and see the mechanisms behind the words.

I've also been studying Zen for about a year. It's non-theistic and classed as "eastern philosophy". The Way of Zen kept me from losing my mind after deconverting and then struggling with the thought of a purposeless life and no future. I found it absolutely necessary to root out the remainder of the harmful indoctrination that still existed in my mind; and finally allowed me to see reality as it is instead of overlaying an ideology or worldview on everything.

Also, learn about the universe. Astronomy has been a useful tool for me. I can point my telescope at a galaxy that is more than 20 million light years away and say to someone, "See that galaxy? It took over 20 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach your eye." Creationists scoff at millions of years and say that it's a fantasy; but the universe provides real proof of "deep time" you can see with your own eyes.

Videos:

I recommend books first, because they are the best way to learn, but there are also very good video series out there.

BestofScience has an amazing series on evolution.

AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism is awesome.

Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists is good.

Atheistcoffee's Why I am no longer a creationist is also good.

Also check out TheraminTrees for more on the psychology of religion; Potholer54 on The Big Bang to Us Made Easy; and Evid3nc3's series on deconversion.

Also check out the Evolution Documentary Youtube Channel for some of the world's best documentary series on evolution and science.

I'm sure I've overlooked something here... but that's some stuff off the top of my head. If you have any questions about anything, or just need to talk, send me a message!

u/_Psychopharmacology_ · 4 pointsr/dxm

Great question! Here's a wikipedia article on the subject, here's a book I read a while back that I enjoyed(does not require prior experience with philosophy), and here's a summary of the debate for the more philosophically inclined.

u/JohnCamus · 4 pointsr/AskReddit

Nah. Lawrence Krauss' book has been unfavourably reviewed by theologans and atheist philosophers alike.

If you haven't read Jim Holt, give it a try. I really liked it

u/deajay · 4 pointsr/aerospace

I have a BSME, working in the space industry. The big thing I feel I was missing from my undergrad was orbital mechanics. To get the math, pick up the SME/SMAD. To get an intuitive understanding, pick up KSP. Randall is not wrong.

Your undergrad should otherwise have comparable material science, physics, mathematics and programming (matlab, python, perl, whatever) to have you on an even field. The rest of it is the time to obtain the experience.

A decade out and I can hold my own at work with any of the aero's.

u/uncletravellingmatt · 3 pointsr/atheism

>without a God how did the universe come into existence?

I could rephrase that into a question that would be even more baffling:

>with a God, how did the universe come into existence?

The 2nd one is more crazy to explain, because now you need to know how a god was created, not just why there is or isn't more or less matter and energy.

If you are genuinely interested in astrophysics, here are some good books written by people who know more than me about the issues you mention:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X

http://www.amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553385461

Remember, even if you don't know the answer to a question about nature, it's always OK to say "I don't know." It's not OK to pretend that a story about the supernatural explains an issue in the natural world, if embracing the myth about the supernatural wouldn't really explain how things work, and would really only raise more questions.

u/ap0s · 3 pointsr/space

You can't go wrong with A Brief History of Time or The Universe in a Nutshell.

A book that is only partially about space but covers a lot of material that I'd highly* recommend is How to Build a Habitable Planet.



u/Cyberbuddha · 3 pointsr/atheism

I just started reading The Road to Reality. Very dense but highly recommended from what I've read so far.

u/ericderrick · 3 pointsr/mathbooks

I'd recommend Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality : A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. It starts with basic math concepts and goes to very complex concepts.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0679454438/

u/ex_ample · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

A normal person can become great at math. Once they do that, they can understand quantum physics.

Your question is like "can a normal person, who's not in shape, run a marathon?" The answer is to become in shape. Anyone can do it, but it takes a real effort.

Roger Penrose wrote a book, The Road to reality that goes over quantum physics and is (supposedly) written for people with no basis in math, and introduces the mathematical concepts as they go along. Check it out.

But the reality is, it won't come easy. You have to work. And it's worth it.

u/jacobolus · 3 pointsr/math

How about Penrose ’s Road to Reality?

You could try the Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics if you like the other one.

Or you could look up some mathematical history books.

u/josephsmidt · 3 pointsr/cosmology

If you think you can read an undergraduate textbook Ryden is a standard.

However, if you think that may be too advanced, start with some popular books on the subject such and The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku or the classic by Hawking A Brief History of Time.

If after reading those you want something more advanced but still not a textbook try The Road to Reality by Penrose. It reads like a popular book but he actually works through math (and the real stuff with like tensors etc...) to make his points so it is more advanced. Also, the Dummies Books are also a more intermediate step and are often decently good at teaching the basics on a lower technical level than a textbook.

u/Independent · 3 pointsr/books
  1. Parallel Worlds - by Michio Kaku
  2. very tough call - 7.5/10 if you're interested in theoretical physics, cosmology, 1/10 if you are not
  3. Science; astrophysics, cosmology
  4. Whether the ideas in this book are fact, theory, fantasy, fiction or all of the those is probably a matter of perspective. But, perspective is what it's all about. To date, it's given me the best window yet into a layman's understanding of multiverses, mebrane, micro and macro universes and string theory. Parts 1 and 2 give a good overview of what some physicists currently believe. Part 3, frankly, delves into speculative fiction.
  5. Amazon link
u/xnd714 · 3 pointsr/kurzgesagt

Parallel worlds by Michio Kaku is pretty good, if you're into the history of string theory and/or the universe. I read it about 10 years ago, so I'm not sure if it's outdated nowadays.

The world without us by Alan Weisman talks about what would happen to the earth if we disappeared, it talks about engineering marvels like the hoover dam, NY subway system, and nuclear waste storage sites and what could happen to these if humans were not around the maintain them.

I'm looking for a book about space if anyone has a suggesting. Particularly books that talk about neutron stars and other cosmic wonders.

u/Lars0 · 3 pointsr/engineering

I am an ME major EE minor and would agree it is a better route to aerospace. But that need not stop you from studying aerospace topics!

I think an awesome space engineering (if you are interested in astronautics) book you can jump into without a lot of heavy pre-requisites is SMAD (http://www.amazon.com/Space-Mission-Engineering-Technology-Library/dp/1881883159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462136211&sr=8-1&keywords=smad). If you are having fun it is easier to learn, rather than trying to plow through a calculus or thermodynamics book. Edit: But get the 3rd edition, not the most recent one.

Other really good options would be to get hands on experience building stuff, programming & wiring arduinos and building stuff at a hackerspace. Building a 3D printer from a kit would be a good starting point.

u/MyOpus · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions
u/frodomann108 · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

You should take some time to see a movie. "Exit" Through the Gift Shop is one of my favorites, and it might even help you feel a little less crabby. Some beautiful street art in there.

Wishlist

u/SlothMold · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Mary Roach's Packing for Mars is more about human extra-terrestrial life and the science and social engineering behind life on the ISS and potential space colonies, but it's still an excellent read.

u/petrus4 · 3 pointsr/Permaculture

> Here is the thing permaculture is a bullshit made up thing.

No, it isn't.

> It doesn't have a consistent definition from one person to another.

Yes, it does. Permaculture is a group of techniques that collectively allow terraforming, which takes into account systems theory, and heterodox forms of geometry, hydrology, zoology and botany. We're the guys who tried to get a liberal sciences degree at university, and got kicked out either for paying too little attention, smoking too much weed, calling our professor an idiot and being able to prove it, or all of the above. Being a renegade is fun.

Most people don't know how to enunciate that clearly; especially considering that your average Permaculturist is an extremely right-brained hippie. I'm a left-brained hippie on the other hand, so for me, linear activities like sentence construction come more naturally.

u/mhornberger · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

> The many worlds theory does not solve the issue of contingency in any meaningful way. ... if you just say it was all necessary then there's only 1 possible world.

Yes, that was the point. We just have to clarify that "world" means different things in different contexts. It can mean "absolutely everything" or a particular sphere of spacetime. Or one branch, in Everett's MWI of QM. So there is one world globally, but many worlds more parochially. What we perceive as contingency is just an artifact of our own ignorance as to how our branch/world plays out. In actuality there is no contingency. The MWI, or any model resulting in a plurality of worlds, dissolves contingency altogether.

>so you now have even more possibilities which are not actuality.

Everett argued that they are actual. Deutsch argued in The Fabric of Reality that the dual-slit experiment in QM is sufficient to establish the existence of these other worlds. I'm not saying you have to agree with him or Everett. I'm only saying that these models, or any model that results in a plurality of worlds, answers the contingency problem.

-------------

Edit: I've alluded to Deutsch's argument several times, so I thought it would be fair to post an excerpt so people would know what I was talking about. This is from his book The Fabric of Reality.

>>The possible cannot interact with the real. Non-existent entities cannot deflect real ones from their paths... It is only what really happens that can cause other things really to happen. If the complex motions of the shadow photons in an interference experiment were mere possibilities that did not in fact take place, then the interference phenomena we see would not, in fact, take place.

u/lkesteloot · 3 pointsr/slatestarcodex

The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch radically changed the way I think about many things. It's one of the few books I've read twice (ten years apart). The physics part was interesting, but it's the philosophy of it that affected me.

Another book of his, The Beginning of Infinity, had quite an effect on me as well, especially the idea that all solutions have their problems, and that instead of regressing, we should push forward to find solutions to the new problems.

u/redtrackball · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

> It's inevitable and unavoidable.

David Deutsch (and I, being convinced) would argue that there is an infinitesimally small chance that it won't be unavoidable:
The Beginning of Infinity (I do wish he'd released it under a free license, but it was very much worth the $11)

u/QuakePhil · 3 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

An even bigger stretch is Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark.

I recently gave it a read, and it was very interesting. Max basically lays out how everything is math, using several layers of "multiverses" starting with the simplest one that is a side-effect of inflation.

That's a simplistic way of putting it, but he goes in painstaking detail, and eventually ends up at everything is math.

Please note thet even in this radical text, Max is never able to draw a connection between his thesis and anything theistic whatsoever...

u/theholyraptor · 3 pointsr/AskEngineers

Further reading/research: (Not all of which I've gotten to read yet. Some of which may be quite tangentially relevant to the discussion at hand along with the books and sites I mentioned above. Consider this more a list of books pertaining to the history of technology, machining, metrology, some general science and good engineering texts.)

Dan Gelbart's Youtube Channel

Engineerguy's Youtube Channel

Nick Mueller's Youtube Channel

mrpete222/tubalcain's youtube channel

Tom Lipton (oxtools) Youtube Channel

Suburban Tool's Youtube Channel

NYCNC's Youtube Channel

Computer History Museum's Youtube Channel

History of Machine Tools, 1700-1910 by Steeds

Studies in the History of Machine Tools by Woodbury

A History of Machine Tools by Bradley

Tools for the Job: A History of Machine Tools to 1950 by The Science Museum

A History of Engineering Metrology by Hume

Tools and Machines by Barnard

The Testing of Machine Tools by Burley

Modern machine shop tools, their construction, operation and manipulation, including both hand and machine tools: a book of practical instruction by Humphrey & Dervoort

Machine-Shop Tools and Methods by Leonard

A Measure of All Things: The Story of Man and Measurement by Whitelaw

Handbook of Optical Metrology: Principles and Applications by Yoshizawa

Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon by Gray

Machine Shop Training Course Vol 1 & 2 by Jones

A Century of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, 1882-1982

Numerical Control: Making a New Technology by Reintjes

History of Strength of Materials by Timoshenko

Rust: The Longest War by Waldman

The Companion Reference Book on Dial and Test Indicators: Based on our popular website www.longislandindicator.com by Meyer

Optical Shop Testing by Malacara

Lost Moon: The Preilous Voyage of Apollo 13 by Lovell and Kruger

Kelly: More Than My Share of It All by Johnson & Smith

Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed by Rich & Janos

Unwritten Laws of Engineering by King

Advanced Machine Work by Smith

Accurate Tool Work by Goodrich

Optical Tooling, for Precise Manufacture and Alignment by Kissam

The Martian: A Novel by Weir

Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain by Young Budynas & Sadegh

Materials Selection in Mechanical Design by Ashby

Slide Rule: The Autobiography of an Engineer by Shute

Cosmos by Sagan

Nuts, Bolts, Fasteners and Plumbing Handbook by Smith Carol Smith wrote a number of other great books such as Engineer to Win.

Tool & Cutter Sharpening by Hall

Handbook of Machine Tool Analysis by Marinescu, Ispas & Boboc

The Intel Trinity by Malone

Manufacturing Processes for Design Professionals by Thompson

A Handbook on Tool Room Grinding

Tolerance Design: A Handbook for Developing Optimal Specifications by Creveling

Inspection and Gaging by Kennedy

Precision Engineering by Evans

Procedures in Experimental Physics by Strong

Dick's Encyclopedia of Practical Receipts and Processes or How They Did it in the 1870's by Dick

Flextures: Elements of Elastic Mechanisms by Smith

Precision Engineering by Venkatesh & Izman

Metal Cutting Theory and Practice by Stephenson & Agapiou

American Lathe Builders, 1810-1910 by Cope As mentioned in the above post, Kennth Cope did a series of books on early machine tool builders. This is one of them.

Shop Theory by Henry Ford Trade Shop

Learning the lost Art of Hand Scraping: From Eight Classic Machine Shop Textbooks A small collection of articles combined in one small book. Lindsay Publications was a smallish company that would collect, reprint or combine public domain source material related to machining and sell them at reasonable prices. They retired a few years ago and sold what rights and materials they had to another company.

How Round Is Your Circle?: Where Engineering and Mathematics Meet by Bryant & Sangwin

Machining & CNC Technology by Fitzpatrick

CNC Programming Handbook by Smid

Machine Shop Practice Vol 1 & 2 by Moltrecht

The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles A fantastic book with tons of free online material, labs, and courses built around it. This book could take a 6th grader interested in learning, and teach them the fundamentals from scratch to design a basic computer processor and programming a simple OS etc.

Bosch Automotive Handbook by Bosch

Trajectory Planning for Automatic Machines and Robots by Biagiotti & Melchiorri

The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals by Zhu, Zienkiewicz and Taylor

Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines by Brown & Sharpe

Grinding Technology by Krar & Oswold

Principles of Precision Engineering by Nakazawa & Takeguchi

Foundations of Ultra-Precision Mechanism Design by Smith

I.C.S. Reference Library, Volume 50: Working Chilled Iron, Planer Work, Shaper and Slotter Work, Drilling and Boring, Milling-Machine Work, Gear Calculations, Gear Cutting

I. C. S. Reference Library, Volume 51: Grinding, Bench, Vise, and Floor Work, Erecting, Shop Hints, Toolmaking, Gauges and Gauge Making, Dies and Die Making, Jigs and Jig Making
and many more ICS books on various engineering, technical and non-technical topics.

American Machinists' Handbook and Dictionary of Shop Terms: A Reference Book of Machine-Shop and Drawing-Room Data, Methods and Definitions, Seventh Edition by Colvin & Stanley

Modern Metal Cutting: A Practical Handbook by Sandvik

Mechanical Behavior of Materials by Dowling

Engineering Design by Dieter and Schmidt

[Creative Design of Products and Systems by Saeed]()

English and American Tool Builders by Roe

Machine Design by Norton

Control Systems by Nise

That doesn't include some random books I've found when traveling and visiting used book stores. :)

u/Sanpaku · 3 pointsr/EliteDangerous

If FD want to adhere to the science, it seems likely that while microscopic life may be ubitquitous on planets wihin habitable zones, macroscopic life like Earth's may be very rare. Common M-class habitable worlds may be tidally locked storm-worlds, rarer O,B,A and F class stars may leave the main sequence before their Cambrian explosions, and the limited number of terrestrial, tectonically active worlds in non-eccentric, continuously habitable orbits around G and K class stars of the right age (4-5.5 B years for macroscopic life on Earth, til our own runaway greenhouse), and that haven't been sterilized by cometary impact or nearby supernova, may severely limit independent origins for macroscopic life. See Rare Earth, How to Find a Habitable Plant, Lucky Planet, and Where is Everybody for further constraints.

Hence most of the macroscopic life found on HZ worlds in human space may be seeded during terraforming operations. Inhabited Earth-like planets may mostly have Earth creatures, borrowed from the 101 wild animals of Zoo Tycoon, but also the domesticated animals humans bring everywhere they settle.

Truly alien macroscopic plant and wildlife may await till peace accords with Thargoids allow us to land on their own thargaformed worlds.

u/DoYouWantAnts · 3 pointsr/AskReddit
u/seeseefus · 3 pointsr/QuantumComputing

I would also like to mention "Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum" by Leonard Susskind.

Lectures are available online on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL701CD168D02FF56F

Lectures go nicely with the book of same name.
Book: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903

I found this book and lecture series a nice and gentle entry into the field. Sort of like preparation for Mike and Ike.

u/Du_Bist_A_bleda_buaD · 3 pointsr/Physics

I've currently not a lot of time so i'm not able to give a thoughtfull answer but there are plenty of books which could teach you special relativity (Carroll takes it pretty much as a prerequisite).
Maybe one of the following helps (but don't be surprised it take a lot of hard work to get some knowledge about it...):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY and following

Spacetime Physics - Edwin F. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler should be quite nice (i've heard)

http://www.amazon.com/A-First-Course-General-Relativity/dp/0521887054 maybe this is a good starting point.

Take one book after another till one suits you. I think the only important point is that they have equations inside.

u/jsaf420 · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I've heard nothing but awesome things about A Day In The Frontal Lobe from people who love reading and love neuroscience. It's one of my next planned reads.

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time was a good read and the illustrated version was awesome.

If you want something a little lighter with an easy writing style and low base knowledge entry 13 Things That Don't Make Sense is good and fun to read.

u/i010011010 · 3 pointsr/technology

They eventually revised it in a hardcover with illustrations that match Nutshell https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Brief-History-Updated-Expanded/dp/0553103741

I imagine his books are going to see a surge in sales this week. Would be a great book to give to a kid interested in this stuff.

u/uniquelikeyou · 3 pointsr/tabc

Oh also, by Stephen Hawking The Illustrated A Brief History of Time

It's really dense stuff, so you need the illustrated version for sure. But's it's soooo interesting

u/seasmucker · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Since you're done with Short History, you should check out A Brief History of Time. I think he explains it (and everything else) in greater detail there. I'd recommend the illustrated version: http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Brief-History-Updated-Expanded/dp/0553103741


Here's a little something to whet your appetite before then: http://freeonlinedocumentary.com/a-brief-history-of-time/

u/atheistcoffee · 3 pointsr/atheism

Congratulations! I know what a big step that is, as I've been in the same boat. Books are the best way to become informed. Check out books by:

u/Leolily1221 · 2 pointsr/whatisthisthing

I think you should buy this Book " A Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe"
https://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Constructing-Universe-Mathematical/dp/0060926716

u/Juxtapoe · 2 pointsr/MandelaEffect

With the additional context in parenthesis, I will go on the assumption that all the pronoun 'It's are referring to Quantum Computers (QCs).

​

The specific theory that was the original goalpost that you had set for accepting that there is a possibility of planes interacting and information crossing over is gone into in great detail in this book written by one of the inventors of the field of Quantum Computing:

​

https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/014027541X

​

I can't help but feel that you are trying to move the goal post from a specific theory to a Scientific Law which takes hundreds of years to get to.

​

One of the founders of the field of Quantum Computers explicitly states that how his computers are designed to operate is to collaborate with other versions of themselves in the superposition.

​

The fact that he made a prediction about particles interacting with themselves in other universes and that he could use this interaction to process information back in the 80's and later demonstrated it by producing working computers means that this fits the criteria for specific scientific theory (hypothesis, prediction + results match prediction).

​

This is demonstrated and applied science at this point. Other people can come up with other hypotheses about alternate ways to explain the results, but none of those have made predictions, that have been experimentally tested and results confirming those predictions, which make them weaker in the current scientific body.

​

Since I doubt you will read the book, I will provide a Cliff Note version for how Superposition and Multiverse work according to the strongest theories with the most evidence currently.

​

Initially the rigorously observed phenomenon that super position states exist and that they collapse into classical behavior when a hard measurement is taken was thought of as a fuzzy state that disappears after the probability wave has collapsed.

​

The more modern explanation for this which the creators of the quantum computer ascribe to is that the superposition state doesn't ever go away and just our ability to actively OBSERVE/MEASURE/INTERACT with other planes only happens when we can repeat the same action repeatedly to observe probability distributions. What was previously thought of as a wave form collapsing just means that after taking the measurement the superposition of planes expands to cover the measuring device.

​

For example, (double slit experiment) if a particle is being sent 1 at a time through 1 of 2 slits and we add a measurin device to determine which slit it went through, the reason the interference pattern appears to disappear for us is that the superposition of states went from just the particle in superposition to the observer, the measuring device and the particle are all in superposition, and all 3 (including the Scientist observing results) is in superposition, so from the Scientist's point of view it appears that the wave has collapsed and a particle went through the right slit, BUT he doesn't realize that he is now in superposition and there is another version of him that has observed the particle going through the left slit, along with a superpositioned measuring device displaying results which represents the entangled environment that fits the outcome according to classical physics.

​

From inside a probability wave you only see the results of one of the probable scenarios playing out according to classical physics and other probable outcomes in the past are undetectable to you.

​

From outside the probability wave you can see particles and classical objects as large as a piezoelectric turning fork interfering and interacting with themselves and their other probabilistic states.

u/polarpeon · 2 pointsr/science

It's a mistake to place too much emphasis on definitions, because if you do you will always find yourself in an infinite regress. (You will have to keep searching for definitions of the terms used in previous definitions.)

This is hard to grasp unless it is appreciated that nothing we interact with that is complex and autonomous depends on how we define it. Everything real has attributes which are "out there" already.

Btw the video doesn't talk about Deutsch's criteria for reality; they're covered in Chapter 4 of his book The Fabric of Reality.


u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsche. One of the best intuitive syntheses since Godel, Escher, Bach and already proving prophetic in hard science and quantum technology.

u/xenomouse · 2 pointsr/infj

These are not fast questions, haha.

>What do you think is on the other side of the black hole?

Theoretically, if the black hole is part of a pair that were created from entangled subatomic particles, then they would be connected by an Einstein-Rosen bridge, and (again, theoretically) if you were to allow yourself to be sucked into one of them you'd emerge wherever the other one happens to exist. This could be in another galaxy, or yeah, some people think it's possible you could end up in another universe.

>Is there a lot of universes?

Theoretical physicists (particularly those working in string theory) are starting to think that yes, there are. Brian Greene and Michio Kaku have written reasonably accessible books on this theory, if you're interested.

>what about aliens?

Of course. It is highly unlikely that in a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each of which contains hundreds of millions of stars, only one of them would have a planet in its orbit that is capable of sustaining life. Robert Lanza hypothesizes that, in fact, the universe is biocentric - that life and consciousness are not mere accidents, but what the structure of the universe is based around. This, too, would suggest that life cannot then be confined to one planet.

>What happens to the infj emotion after their death? Are you thinking of reincarnation?

Not reincarnation exactly, no. My beliefs are pantheistic in a way that isn't really compatible with reincarnation in the traditional sense. My concept of "God" is, essentially, "the combined energy of the universe". Part of this energy is used to power my body and mind; what some might call a soul. But my "soul" isn't a discrete entity; it is made of energy, which is fungible. So, when I die, that energy (and therefore, I) will return to "everything". Of course, it will then be used to power other things... perhaps another life form, perhaps a star, or wind, or electricity. But it won't be the "same" energy - just as, if you pour a cup of water into the ocean and then fill another cup from it, it won't be the "same" water. It comes from the same source, but the individual molecules are probably going to be different. But I do think our thoughts and memories remain, as a sort of... resonance, let's say. They become part of everything, too. When people talk about remembering past lives, most likely they are accessing these resonating memories. But, not because your soul has moved into their body - rather, because you, and they, are part of the same whole.

Which, I guess, might sound like quibbling - it's not that different from reincarnation, not really. It's just that one view sees every soul as separate, and the other does not.

u/Homeboy_Jesus · 2 pointsr/badeconomics

Mini physics lecture coming right up! I think /u/slugwind is our resident physicist so she (I think, sorry if otherwise) might be able to give you some more insight.

---------------------

At its core the uncertainty principle is telling you that you fundamentally cannot know both the velocity and position of a particle with complete accuracy for both. Knowing more about one means that you know less about the other. Here's a nice explanatory anecdote that I'm stealing from this book:

Say you've got a camera set up in a room, there's a fly buzzing around, and you can adjust the shutter speed of your camera. If you crank up the shutter speed and look at the resulting picture you can tell exactly where the fly is, but you don't know anything about its velocity (remember that velocity is a vector, it has a value for speed and direction). Conversely, if you slow down the shutter speed and look at the resulting picture the fly is very blurry, but you can infer from the shutter speed how fast it was going and in what direction.

That's pretty much the core of it. By sacrificing knowledge about velocity (increasing shutter speed) you can know more and more about the fly's position. By sacrificing knowledge about its position you can know more about its velocity. What you can't do is have great information about both simultaneously.

----------------------------------

Now, as this pertains to your post, I would argue that because decisions are made based on the information available to the agent at the time things like the uncertainty principle can be extrapolated upward, if only because knowing everything is impossible.

u/silverforest · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

I've two recommendations:

  • Stephen Hawking - A Brief History Of Time
  • Brian Greene - The Hidden Reality - This book is more about string theory and other related concepts. (Also look at The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Elegant Universe)
u/schnitzi · 2 pointsr/programming

If you like that book, read this one (non-fiction).

u/larkasaur · 2 pointsr/atheism

I like Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. In a nutshell, that the universe is inevitable because it's the result of mathematics, and mathematics just exists - doesn't need a cause. He wrote a popular book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality about it.

So mathematics would be "God" in your argument. That argument doesn't imply that "God" is anything like a person.

u/cspayton · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Thanks for responding!

I think that there are a few books which have influenced me greatly, but I have a much more expansive list of books I want to read than ones I have already consumed.

To start, you should try the greats:

u/tjmiller88 · 2 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

Read Carl Sagan's Cosmos. If you're truly interested in physics, it'll motivate you to learn as much as you physically can.

u/dlopez1196 · 2 pointsr/Cosmos
u/John_Q_Deist · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Great movie, and even greater book (more detailed, esp at the ending). +1 would recommend.

u/ep0k · 2 pointsr/askscience

This is one of the potential solutions to the Fermi Paradox. You might enjoy Where Is Everybody by Stephen Webb, as it addresses this and 49 other proposed answers to that question.

It is not unreasonable to think that the reason we have had no contact with ETC is that we are either the first, or among the first and so distant from the others that we can't discern each other's existence yet. However, we must also consider that life may exist in forms so alien to us that we wouldn't recognize it.

u/takamori · 2 pointsr/science

Short boring blog spam.
If you are interested in the Fermi Paradox go pick up Where is Everybody? ( http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Aliens-Everybody-Solutions-Extraterrestrial/dp/0387955011 )

u/mk_gecko · 2 pointsr/collapse

Thanks for taking the time to write this.

  1. talking about the universe is off topic. Later on he switches to the galaxy and discusses the Fermi paradox. It doesn't matter how many stars are in the universe; the galaxies are so far apart that there is no way (that we know of) to communicate except by setting off supernova in some sequence (which totally sterilizes that part of the galaxy) or perhaps messing with neutron stars. So, we can ignore the 10^24 stars in the universe and just consider the 10^11 stars in the Milky Way.
  2. The number of earth like planets is really small. The book "Rare Earth" details this. But we can just ignore this for now.
  3. Fermi paradox. Yes! The book Where is Everybody? examines 50 solutions to the Fermi Paradox. The new edition has 75 solutions!
  4. The principle of mediocrity is an assumption that is completely unproven. It is also specific to various fields and can't just be broadly applied to everything. It is used in cosmology with some controversy, but applying it to extraterrestrial civilizations is a huge unsubstantiated leap. The example for gravity is completely incorrect. Gravity is considered universal because all experimental tests everywhere have indicated that Newton's universal law of gravity is correct. Everywhere, every time. Two exceptions: (a) modification for GR is needed (e.g. for Mercury's orbit) (b) galaxies are rotating too fast, so either Newton's law is wrong on large scales or else there is dark matter. So far, we're going with unseen dark matter.
  5. "Whitmire found that if he assumed that humans are typical rather than exceptional, then the bell curve produced by statistical analysis places us in the middle of 95 percent of all civilizations" What civilisations? What bell curve? There is only one civilization: human beings on planet earth. A single point does not make a bell curve.
  6. "In other words, if the human race is typical ..." There is no way to know this since there is a sample size of one. Whitmore should know this.
  7. "Since this is a statistical result, standard deviation is involved. ..." I dispute that this is a statistical result in anyway, except for a salient example of misuse of statistics.
  8. Oho! They do mention the sample size of one near the end! Somehow the predicted lifespan is always 5 times our total radio+ age (100 years so far). This is worse than Zeno's paradox. It's obvious that we'll never go extinct according to these calculations, because each year that goes by means that we'll exist for 5 year more. So one could conclude that we we will not go extinct until we do -- yes, a meaningless tautological truism, that's about all one can conclude from this article.
  9. Conclusion: This article is indeed meaningless clickbait. It's more worth while to read the two books that I mentioned above.
  10. Note that this is written by a (science?) reporter who is discussing Whitmore's work and making it palatable for the reader, and not written by Whitmore himself.

    So ... let's have a look at Whitmore's article ... okay. I don't have time to read it as well. Just a few notes from the abstract and glancing at it.

  • later on he refers to the principle of Mediocrity by its correct name: the Copernican principle. Good.
  • he says it's a cornerstone of modern cosmology, but does not mention physics. Excellent. That's the science reporter who added in that error.
  • "If we assume that this principle applies to the reference class of all extant technological species," -- this class has only one element in it: us!
  • "then it follows that other technological species will, like us, typically find that they are both the first such species to evolve on their planet and also that they are early in their potential technological evolution." I disagree on the second part. Sure, there is an excellent chance that any civilization is the first one on its planet. However, no one knows the limits of technological evolution so it's meaningless to speculate how far along a non-existent hypothetical alien race is when we can't even tell how far along we ourselves are. It's really quite ridiculous, however, just because something is riduculous doesn't mean that it won't get published if it's a slow news week and if it concerns something titilating to the public.

    P.S. The journal is called "Journal of Astrobiology" ! That in itself should set off alarm bells as there is no astrobiology. That's the whole point of the Fermi Paradox. Astrobiology is studying something that doesn't exist - like pink invisible unicorns.
u/arms_of_the_beloved · 2 pointsr/books
u/Outofmilkthrowaway · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

READING RAINBOW (reading rainbow.. reading rainbow..)

u/TheRightTrousers · 2 pointsr/Astronomy

His videos don't plug the related book(s), but I found them to be worthwhile as well. Everyone learns a little differently, your mileage may vary.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681

u/Deadmeat553 · 2 pointsr/Physics

The Feynman Lectures, Volume III and Susskind's Quantum Mechanics Theoretical Minimum are both great resources. Neither one is like reading a textbook (which can be quite tiring), but both manage to cover all of the stuff that you should need to cover.

u/mehmetegemen · 2 pointsr/Physics

Maybe theoretical minimum by Leonard Susskind? I'm reading classic mechanics of this series and it's awesome, gives a totally new perspective to you and also teaches scientific notation.

u/Araraguy · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

You could first become clear on what you mean by “mechanism.” Are you speaking of these sorts of mechanisms:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/

Thinking About Mechanisms

When you talk of "fundamental" and of not believing in “anything solid," you might be looking for quantum mechanics and, more specifically, Quantum Field Theory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

Depending on your background in mathematics, this book could be the best place to begin. It's also paired with a lecture series at Stanford. Here's an early quote from the text:

> Ordinarily, we learn classical mechanics first, before even attempting quantum mechanics. But quantum physics is much more fundamental than classical physics. As far as we know, quantum mechanics provides an exact description of every physical system, but some things are massive enough that quantum mechanics can be reliably approximated by classical mechanics.

Additionally, this lecture by Sean Carroll is very approachable, couching our understanding of the fundamental in the present state of physics (in 2013) and where physics seems to be headed.

Keep in mind that there are various interpretations of the quantum.


u/astrolabe · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

I learned the basics from Shutz (which I liked a lot). I don't remember it requiring Lagrangian/Hamiltonian stuff.

u/weforgottenuno · 2 pointsr/Physics

I would actually suggest NOT trying to learn about these subjects, at least not on their own. Put in the time to really learn tensors, then co- and contravariance will makes loads more sense!

I found the first 3 or 4 chapters of Schutz's "First Course on General Relativity" to be a great place for teaching these things to myself. You could also take a math methods course that covers tensors.

EDIT: This is the book I'm talking about:
http://www.amazon.com/A-First-Course-General-Relativity/dp/0521887054/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345315215&sr=8-1&keywords=schutz+general+relativity

u/pi3141592653589 · 2 pointsr/Physics

For an undergrad I would recommend

http://www.amazon.com/A-First-Course-General-Relativity/dp/0521887054

before moving on the MTW.

u/ibanezerscrooge · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist
u/awkward_armadillo · 2 pointsr/atheism

A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:

​

u/sanjeevmishra94 · 2 pointsr/askscience

If you want a relatively intense read, but not that difficult altogether, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is a great read for cosmological science and theoretical physics (general relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, string theory, etc.)

u/TheEmancipator · 2 pointsr/books

A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking. A layman's guide to the history of modern physics and the universe. Its a much shorter version of A Brief History of Time.

u/OhDannyBoy00 · 2 pointsr/Astronomy

If you want to go the self teaching route there are some great books you can get. A nice introduction is: http://www.amazon.com/Astronomy-Self-Teaching-Guide-Wiley-Guides/dp/0470230835/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Beyond that there's this book: http://www.amazon.com/Astrophysics-Easy-Introduction-Astronomer-Practical/dp/1852338903/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367595032&sr=1-1&keywords=astrophysics+is+easy It gets way more in depth. This book will leave you with a really great understanding of the universe.

It looks like about.com has a free intro to astronomy course: http://space.about.com/cs/astronomy101/a/astro101a.htm

I haven't gone through this course but poking through it it looks like it covers a lot of information.

Something I do to stay on top of current astronomy issues is read Sky and Telescope magazine and check out space.com and universetoday.com, sometimes I'll run into concepts that I'm not very familiar with and that's where wikipedia helps out.

Let's say you read an article talking about how old a star in a globular cluster is and you're like "what the hell is a globular cluster?" and you haven't read about it in one of your intro to astronomy books, well, bam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster

The books that are regularly considered the best introductions to skywatching are:

Nightwatch by Terrence Dickinson

Backyard Astronomer's Guide by T. Dickinson
and

Turn Left at Orion by Guy Consolmagno and Dan M. Davis (you must get this book if you buy a telescope)

Below are some other great books that get much more in depth on the astrophysics side of things.

http://www.amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553385461/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367595413&sr=1-1&keywords=a+briefer+history+of+time

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Short-Introduction-Peter-Coles/dp/019285416X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367595478&sr=1-2&keywords=cosmology


u/Linguiste · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Well, you can't go wrong with this.

u/goodbetterbestbested · 2 pointsr/science

No, not an imposition at all.

I read this book a long time ago, but I think it is where most of the information I know about cosmology came from, and speaks to the idea of time as analogous to spatial dimensions:

The Universe In A Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

I haven't read A Brief History of Time but I hear it's great, too.

and there is always this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

u/krypton86 · 2 pointsr/Physics

> Darn, I feel like the best response is just going to be that it's all too technical and broad for nonspecialists to have any reasonable understanding of.

No, the only response is that this is the kind of question that entire multi-volume books are written to answer. Even if this post received the most comments of any post that has ever been posted to reddit, it wouldn't really answer your question.

Read this instead: The Road to Reality

u/Dawn_Coyote · 2 pointsr/bestofthefray

Schad's quote pretty much takes this guy's argument out at the knees, but I don't like Dawson, Pinker, or Krauss either, and Sam Harris is an idiot. Tyson is adorable, but there was that problematic claim in his Cosmos series about the seeds of life coming to Earth on asteroids. These guys overreach like the egomaniacs that they are and the Skeptics should disavow them.

I've been reading a book for a couple of months called, Why Does the World Exist?. The author, Jim Holt, consults with physicists, philosophers, and cosmologists, among others, but none of the aforementioned individuals. It's a joy to read.

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/LockeWatts · 2 pointsr/askscience

Would Askscience consider Parallel Worlds by Michu Kaku and other works by him to have acceptable science behind them, or is he just making things up?

(Before suggesting it, since it's not my field, I thought I should ask)

u/FelixFelicis · 2 pointsr/Astronomy

I like Michio Kaku. Perhaps this book is what you're looking for?

u/confusedaerospaceguy · 2 pointsr/space

most of the costs come from developing the spacecraft and its life support systems, and then qualifying it to a level the operator feels safe with. 20 billion seems like a good number to wildy guess at.

if you want equations, they are in here https://www.amazon.com/Space-Mission-Engineering-Technology-Library/dp/1881883159

u/nbaaftwden · 2 pointsr/engineering

My husband did his masters in space systems engineering and SMAD was pretty much the bible. Maybe you can find it at a library near you.

u/GNCengineer · 2 pointsr/EngineeringStudents

I think the Space Mission Engineering and Orbit and Constellation Design and Management textbooks should have what you're looking for!

u/Urobolos · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/MaterialMonkey · 2 pointsr/AskWomen

I love these lists that everyone has compiled here, I've seen some amazing books that I've read and have yet to read. But since no one's mentioned this one, I'd to add a book that I think is really significant to AskWomen and the state of our society today:

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. It's about how a black woman died of cervical cancer in the 50s, then doctors took her cancer cells to experiment on without telling her family, and they're basically the only human cells to be replicated in the lab without dying so they've been used in all of medicine, including to develop vaccines like polio -- and yet her descendants live without healthcare. It's an amazingly well written, interesting, and exciting book.

Other than that I recommend Mary Roach as an author, she is very fun to read. My favorites are Gulp: Adventures in the Alimentary Canal and Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void

u/Bostaevski · 2 pointsr/funny

If it's not mentioned already - people should read "Packing For Mars" by Mary Roach. It talks all about the side of space travel you never hear about but want to know. Including how to shit in space. It even talks about that transcript.
http://www.amazon.com/Packing-Mars-Curious-Science-Life/dp/B00AR2BCLW

u/elektrogirl · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Packing For Mars is a pretty interesting read. Full of interesting facts about the science of space travel, while still being readable and funny.

u/joerdie · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The book "A Briefer History of Time" does an awesome job at explaining this.

u/I_love_aminals · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

My labor day reading! :)

Used 2 bucks with 4 bucks shipping

Favorite quote: “It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

u/lolredditftw · 1 pointr/Christianity

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1395199423&sr=8-5&keywords=stephen+hawking

It's much less in depth than you might imagine, but definitely goes deeper than a science documentary would. It's also nicely illustrated, which is frequently helpful.

u/onacloverifalive · 1 pointr/atheism

It's probably easier to swallow if you go beyond just the topic of evolution and its evidence. If he's truly a bright and open-minded guy and he learns a little about chemistry, physics, Biology, Genetics, and animal behavior, he will reach the conclusions you have himself.

There is a wornderful movie they show at the Smithsonian Planetarium that is a broad overview of the origins of all the heavenly bodies, spacetime, galaxies,etc., and if you are going to be in DC anytime soon you should catch it in all its glory.

There are a few Very insightful books I could recommend as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Universe-Nigel-Calder/dp/0517385708 is a great overview of 20th century not quite unified physics for laypeople.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511133101&sr=1-1&keywords=universe+in+a+nutshell&dpID=41BPtZAJx8L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

The Universe in a Nutshell is Hawking's outstanding illustrated overview of physics of particles and waves for laypeople.

Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is his attempt at waves and fundamental forces for laypeople as well, and all these have a different flavor.

Also here is the Kurzgesagt animated educations youtube video on evolution which is the best one I've ever seen in just 10 minutes.
I recommend you watch the whole series, and then move on to TED talks for some basic enlightenment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiQaabX3_o

u/Optimal_Joy · 1 pointr/science

Thanks, one downvote is nothing to get too upset about, some days I have people run through and downvote my last 20 or 30 comments just to spite me for something I wrote that they strongly disliked. I'm used to it. In this case, I was making an obscure reference to these types of references:


Top Physicists Ponder on the Idea of Universe in an Atom

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Single-Atom-Convergence-Spirituality/dp/076792066X

The Universe in a Single Atom by his Holiness the Dalai Lama

physicsforums.com discussion : could it be a possiblity that our entire universe as we know it, is contained inside of what appears as one single atom in another universe?

Sadly, you and perhaps only a handful of others will ever even see this comment...

u/nickcernis · 1 pointr/golang

Jeff Atwood has a nice take on rewriting (and Joel's post): https://blog.codinghorror.com/when-understanding-means-rewriting/

>Joel thinks rewriting code is always a bad idea. I'm not so sure it's that cut and dried. According to The Universe in a Nutshell, here's what was written on Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death:
>
>\> What I cannot create, I do not understand.
>
>It's not that developers want to rewrite everything; it's that very few developers are smart enough to understand code without rewriting it.

u/nurburg · 1 pointr/math

I'm slogging through Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. It's changed my life (I'm dead serious).

Road to Reality

u/wildgurularry · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.

My dad lent it to me. My bookmark has been sitting part way through the second chapter for almost a year and a half. What is stopping me? Having a kid. I've been reading nothing but child-rearing books for the last year and a half.

I talked to my dad not long ago and he said he never even made it to the end of the first chapter, so I guess I don't feel so bad. I still plan on reading the whole thing... I might just change my strategy to skim it instead of trying to understand every formula.

u/DirectXMan12 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

For anyone that's interested, Roger Penrose has an excellent explanation for this in his book "The Road to Reality", that I cannot, for the life of me, remember at this moment. Here's the Amazon link for the book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Reality-Complete-Universe/dp/0679454438

u/ghettohaxor · 1 pointr/AskReddit

if you like physics or math check out the road to reality

u/count757 · 1 pointr/science

What the bleep is hilarious awful and not a documentary at all.
Get this:
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679454438

Work through it all, and you'll be on top of things in no time (or 3-4 years...)

u/ilostmyoldaccount · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I see you're on a Road to Reality.

u/IRBMe · 1 pointr/Christianity

> I respectfully direct you to the words of a recent interview with Walter Penrose, the eminent physicist and respected pioneer.

And I respectfully roll my eyes in to the back of my skull.

That's R.o.g.e.r Penrose. I'm reading his book right now, The Road to Reality, and it's practically a whole book on Quantum Physics. The first 300 pages of the book are just a mathematics course to give you the mathematical knowledge to make sense of quantum theory. I also read the interview as it was linked here on Reddit today, I think in the science Subreddit.

So, why are you giving me quotes about the many worlds interpretation? I never said anything about that and I would agree entirely with Penrose about it - it doesn't explain anything. It's an "interpretation" of the theory of quantum uncertainty - just one of many possible ideas that might or might not reflect reality. Whether the many world interpretation is right or wrong, useful or not, has nothing to do with the validity of all of quantum physics!

I mean, come on. You can't even get the guy's name right, you obviously don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics or quantum physics, yet you're discarding the whole lot as nonsense? And dare insult Roger Penrose by giving me quotes by him, a quantum physicist (where he talks about, not quantum physics itself, but the many world interpretation) as some kind of rebuttal to the very thing that the man is famous for, and indeed to most of modern physics?

As for him saying that it's not exactly right, that's nothing new. Very little in science is exactly right! That doesn't mean that it's wrong. Newtonian Mechanics wasn't exactly right, yet it still gives us predictions that are incredibly accurate, except at extreme tininess or extreme speed (close to light speed). Only, quantum physics is several orders of magnitude more accurate than Newtonian mechanics.

What, pray tell, are you even arguing any more? Are you seriously trying to debunk most of modern physics or something? Because it sure looks like it. If that's not it, I'm at a loss what you're trying to prove here. If that is it, then well... there's nothing I can say to that. I wouldn't even know where to begin debating somebody who just throws the last 50 years of advancement in physics out the window, disregarding it as nonsense, without even having a clue what it actually is, in favor of a 2000 year old book whose biggest contribution to mankind seems to be no better than "Hey, the Earth is kinda like a circle, if you squint". That is somebody who does not have a healthy grip on reality.

u/PickleShaman · 1 pointr/Psychonaut

These are some of my favourites:

  1. The Psychedelic Renaissance (talks about different psychoactive drugs) http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychedelic-Renaissance-Reassessing-Psychiatry/dp/1908995009
  2. Be Here Now (hippie, buddhist/hinduism peace and love vibes with wonderful illustrations) http://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052/ref=sr_1_1_ha?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411704494&sr=1-1&keywords=be+here+now
  3. Why Does The World Exist? (more scientific and metaphysical) http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411704588&sr=1-1&keywords=why+does+the+world+exist

    That's apart from Timothy Leary's "The Psychedelic Experience" and Huxley's "Doors of Perception" thought, those are must-reads.
u/BizarroMork · 1 pointr/C_S_T

Also you might appreciate this book; I found it interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595

"Why is there something instead of nothing" is the fundamental question of reality. I enjoyed this post, thanks.

u/horse_architect · 1 pointr/Physics

In my experience, nobody has offered a coherent explanation for why the universe exists (physics, in my view, only describes its contents and behaviors).

I'm not sure such an explanation is even possible in principle.

This book offers a digestible overview of the problem for some light reading: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595

Perhaps this is the wrong question to ask.

u/Tangent83 · 1 pointr/MastermindBooks

I actually preferred this book “Why the world exists” by Jim Holt.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595


It’s more exhaustive when attempting to answer the question of existence from a critical perspective. Lawrence’s book seemed more geared towards people who shared his philosophical viewpoints IMO. Thanks for sharing though.

u/L00n · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

This'll hardly explain it like you're five, but Jim Holt's book "Why Does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story is fantastic further reading that essentially investigates this existential question from every angle. Historical theories, different philosophical theories/ideas, scientific study and theory (basic physics through to advanced quantum stuff)...

I really recommend it.

u/psuedonymously · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

For anyone really interested in an accessible look at the philosophy and science of nothingness and how the universe could have emerged from it, I recommend this book.

u/dagdha · 1 pointr/books

Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku

u/Astrosonix · 1 pointr/ADHD

Sooo many lol, here are some of my favorites.

ADHD

Smart But Stuck: Emotions in Teens and Adults with ADHD https://www.amazon.com/dp/111827928X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_1.Y9ybCSGW7GF

General Brain Stuff
You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, an d 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592407366/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_abZ9ybEHGSMEK

You are Now Less Dumb: How to Conquer Mob Mentality, How to Buy Happiness, and All the Other Ways to Outsmart Yourself https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592408796/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_vbZ9ybKY1636G

School/Study Help
A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science (Even If You Flunked Algebra) https://www.amazon.com/dp/039916524X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_gcZ9ybCDM8Q6K

Social/Relationship skills
What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Speed-Reading People https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061438294/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_1cZ9ybQJXS3BK

The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex, and the Science of Attraction https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591846617/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_OdZ9ybBFRG9R4

Cosmology

Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400033721/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_GeZ9ybHP9J2J5

Each one of these books has had a big impact on me, as a side note I'm have become a big fan of audible since I normally have a hard time sitting still to read, so I'd recommend giving it a try if you never have. You'll be surprised how much of a book you can comprehend while listening to it as do you other random chores and stuff throughout the day.

u/ClarkeOrbital · 1 pointr/AerospaceEngineering

It depends on exactly what he's interested in(propulsion, structures, controls, launch vehicles or satellites, etc) but check out the new SMAD(or old, for cheaper). It's a thorough book that covers the basics of practically everything and good enough to do initial designs. It could also be good to help find what he's interested in if he doesn't know yet.

Pricey new but not to pricey if bought used. I'd recommend getting it used or getting the older version. Paying the extra 100$ or more isn't worth it imo but as always that's up to you.

https://www.amazon.com/Space-Mission-Engineering-Technology-Library/dp/1881883159

u/_text · 1 pointr/cubesat

If you're looking to build a mission from scratch, SMAD (Space Mission Analysis and Design) is a textbook / reference book that'd probably help quite a bit. It'd give you a good overview of most of what you need to know. It can also help you answer questions about ADCS systems before you know you have them.

u/phobos123 · 1 pointr/aerospace

oh boy, thank you so much for this detailed response! This is exactly what I was looking for. Seems like I have plenty to go on. In case anyone else is ever looking at this thread I have to add one more to your list of general space systems books- SMAD. SMAD and Griffin's book have been my bibles.

u/Its_Space-Time · 1 pointr/space

Space Mission Engineering/SMAD is a pretty good general overview of space mission engineering and spacecraft design, if that's what you're looking for. That's the senior design textbook for my program, but it's written by a number of engineers at NASA and in the industry. Braeunig also has some good information on some basics of the science (and it's free), but it's mostly undergrad-level orbital mechanics and rocket propulsion.

Is there anything more specific (other than heat transfer) that you're looking for?

u/spinozasrobot · 1 pointr/atheism

Not true really. You're missing the difference between First Cause and a thing that was the initial condition. Scientists don't know what precipitated the big bang nor the physics behind it. But they're considering ideas abut it all the time. One provocative idea is Smolin's The Life of the Cosmos. Some ideas about Causes of a universe out of nothing are found in Lauwrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.

TL;DR: Scientists don't know what existed before the big bang, but they don't say there was nothing at all. Minimally, there was physical law.

Edit: speling

u/Smallpaul · 1 pointr/askscience

I'm waiting for this to come out in print. But you could give it a shot:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Universe-from-Nothing-ebook/dp/B004T4KQJS

u/TheoriginalTonio · 1 pointr/Christianity

> Sorry there you are wrong

No, I'm not.

> Christianity says God created the universe.

Christianity says a lot of stuff but actually knows very little. Knowledge is based on evidence. The creation account in genesis is not evidence but a claim, which requires evidence itself.

So you don't know why the universe exists. You just believe that it was a god. And you believe it without evidence, just because an old book says so.

> The atheists problem

No, it's not really a problem, is it? Atheists are under no obligation to offer an explanation for the existence of the universe in order to dismiss the God-explanation.
That's because the God-explanation isn't even an explanation as it explains absolutely nothing. It's just a claim that is not even backed up with any evidence whatsoever.

> finding an explanation for absolute nothing causing something to happen.

There are indeed [some explanations] (https://www.amazon.de/dp/B004T4KQJS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1). But these are just hypotheses, as we don't have the possibility to verify them through empirical experiments.

> This is made worse as he big bang theory points to the univese having a begining.

The universe as we know it began with the big bang. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was absolutely nothing before. It is entirely possible that the universe always existed, but was in a different state before the big bang.

> 1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.

That's a fallacious way of reasoning like William Laine Craig would present it. It's based on the unsubstantiated premise that "There is an objective moral law".
No, there isn't.

What we call morality can be entirely explained through our ability to feel empathy. And empathy can be entirely explained by evolution. Groups in which empathy caused individuals to helped each other rather than killing each other had an obvious advantage in surviving and reproducing. And we are descendants of these populations from which we inherited the instinctive feelings of empathy. You can easily observe moral behavior among various groups of other mammals.

> "we know why science works. because we know how science works." That is nonsence on a parr with Dawkins,' evolution has been seen to happen, it just that we weren't there when it happened'.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean, that it's nonsense.

Science works because it's open to change and improve. It's a self-correcting method in which better working explanations replace older ones.

> I ask how do you start it and you answer by discribing how the internal combustion engine works. That doesn't answer how the engine is turned on.

These are both "how" questions. One is on a technical level and the other on a practical one.

> The universe was created by a supernatural being that exists outside of time and space.

That's something you believe, but nothing you can possibly know with any certainty. It's also a completely unfalsifiable claim and needs to be dismissed for that reason alone.

> It accounts for there being a begining. It accounts for why science, maths, logic and morality exist and work as this super natural being is reasonable, consistent and moral and these characteristics are reflected in creation.

It accounts for everything you want it to account for but again, it explains absolutely nothing. "God did it" is just as good as an explanation as "Zeus did it" or "because Unicorns fart rainbows".

Also the God-explanation has been shown to be false on multiple occasions in the past. Ancient people believed that lightnings were thrown by Gods or volcanic eruptions were divine punishments. Today we know exactly why these things happen and God plays no role anymore in their explanations. To invoke God as an explanation for anything that is not yet explained by science is what is called the [god of the gaps] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ).

u/Mazzaroth · 1 pointr/Astronomy

May I suggest reading Krauss' A
Universe From Nothing

u/hobbes305 · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

> If you do not have mass what do you have that you are measuring?

Energy.


>Are you saying energy came from nothing?


According to Quantum Physics, that is precisely what occurs (Virtual particles, the Casimir Effect). Of course, you also have to define what you mean by the term "nothing". Lawrence Krauss has written books on the subject and has several videos lectures available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE)


FYI, If the net amount of positive and negative forms of energy in the universe sum out to zero, then the sudden appearance of energy does not violate the Conservation of Energy Principle.



>Or that energy first exists without mass but then a picosecond later does have mass?


Pretty much...


>Even a photon has mass.


What is the rest mass of a photon? Any guesses?


>I said time depends on mass


No. The passage of time is affected by mass, but time itself does not depend on mass. Space-time can exist entirely independent of mass.

u/FromRussiaWithBalls · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

>> If you do not have mass what do you have that you are measuring?
>
>Energy.
>
>
>>Are you saying energy came from nothing?
>
>
>According to Quantum Physics, that is precisely what occurs (Virtual particles, the Casimir Effect). Of course, you also have to define what you mean by the term "nothing". Lawrence Krauss has written books on the subject and has several videos lectures available online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE)
>
>
>FYI, If the net amount of positive and negative forms of energy in the universe sum out to zero, then the sudden appearance of energy does not violate the Conservation of Energy Principle.
>

I don't disagree with this, I know this. I'm confused why someone who firmly believes something came from nothing is having a hard time picturing a conscious universe.

It's also worth pointing out that these are different fields of science that don't match up perfectly, for instance relativity breaks down at the quatum level. Quantum science is it's own science. Making it work cohesively with other science even math wise is tricky. That's what the whole unified theory of everything is that we haven't found, something that ties all these fields together.
>
>>Or that energy first exists without mass but then a picosecond later does have mass?
>
>
>Pretty much...

That's good and well. Provide one miracle and science will explain the rest. You are still saying something came from nothing and that science has shown that's not uncommon. the 'something from nothing' argument is always cast against theists when it turns out that is the fabric of our reality as we know it.
>
>>Even a photon has mass.
>
>
>What is the rest mass of a photon? Any guesses?
>



>>I said time depends on mass
>
>
>No. The passage of time is affected by mass, but time itself does not depend on mass.

Are you referring to relative time? I mean sure relative time never seems to change until you measure against the relative time of another observer at a different distance from the mass. That's time dilation, satellites are constantly re-syncing their clocks to ours due to special relativity.

>Space-time can exist entirely independent of mass.
>

Ah so you think space time was not created from the big bang? I think that's wrong. I may be wrong but my understanding was that the big bang created both. There was nothing, then all of a sudden something, which is what we've concluded is our scientific observation. That something came from nothing and that it's common.

u/homedoggieo · 1 pointr/space

I haven't read it yet, but Packing for Mars by Mary Roach is probably as hilarious and informative as everything else she's written (which is why I'm recommending it).

u/throwawayp1zza · 1 pointr/starcitizen

Not outside of this book, but it's a great read. Packing for Mars

u/PinkBuffalo · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I had a great great grandmother we called Nana. She was the oldest of 13 children and took care and helped raise them all. When she was about 13 (I think) she moved her family from Cape Breton, Canada to Rhode Island and hand sewed handkerchiefs (because that was a woman's job) to help take care of her siblings. She built the large, French-Canadian, loud, ginger, wine-loving family that I am proud to be a part of today. When she got mad at us, or we did something not to her liking, she would raise her hand like she was about to slap someone and would said "don't make me give you one of these" while waving her hand in your face... as she got older she would say it from across the room, but her hand was always raised. When I was 14, she was 96, and she woke up one day and made a blueberry pie. When the pie was out cooling down, she called my great aunt and said "take me to the hospital, I'm going to die." I kid you not, not even 24 hours later she was dead. My great aunt then came home from the hospital and froze the pie. When our family gathered together to celebrate her life, we ate the pie (after a lobster dinner of course... the were in Rhode Island). Nothing has ever tasted better.

I would love this book. I love love love Mary Roach and I really enjoy learning and my fiance and I would totally read it out loud with each other.

u/momentomary · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Have you read "Packing For Mars" by Mary Roach?? I highly recommend it!

u/is_not_or_and_with_x · 1 pointr/philosophy

>I wonder, have you tried using the flower of life (or maybe the seed of life) geometric design to visualize your thoughts? It seems like a natural fit. Are there parallels in your theory to thoughts from the schools of sacred geometry?

Sacred geometry is a really interesting topic. I do touch on it a little in the ratiocinator video I am making. A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe was one of my favorite books when I was a kid.

>I appreciate the academic approach and wouldn’t want you to get lost in the artistry, but I do feel a few crisp visual aids might go a long way to convey your idea.

You are not the first, second, or third person to say this to me lol. I am intentionally not having visual aids, but I am going to make a video that discusses different ways of representing the model after I get the last two main videos done (ratiocinators and instantiation).

>About the model itself, are the tesselations of ratiocination of domains presented arguably the complete list, or are they more like examples of categorically shared attributes? Where does electromagnetism fall?

Ratiocinator tessellations (fabric, particle, chemical, amalgam, telluric, celestial, stellar, galactic, cosmic) are the shared scales / building blocks that take on different character depending on what ratiocinator(s) you use to make sense of them. If you look only through apparatus ratiocination, the universe looks like organicism, if you look only through the matter ratiocinator, the universe looks materialist.

About the completeness of the list of tessellations – it is maybe not a complete list, just covers the scales of the universe that our species is currently is aware of.

About electromagnetism, it would be an instantiation domain within material dynamic particle.

>If Life is a qualitative fractal, what does the imaginary quantity of the equation represent?

I suspect that architectonic models in general are attempts to draw a big circle around our total human capacity to know and do things, and are therefore schema ratiocinator instantiations, and the act of converting it into math is a recursive application of applying the form ratiocinator to measure it.

>As far as I know this effort has stalled, though not just for a lack of convenient way to organize the data. Please consider making your software an open source platform to ensure its availability to all as we move forward!

Yes, it has definitely stalled. In terms of models, Ken Wilber has one called Integral theory, but the problem is that it is religious, and you kinda have to adhere to its religious notions if you are going to use it. I very intentionally took a lexiconic approach for this reason. There needs to be a model anyone can use no matter what their beliefs are.

I hear a lot of arguments why software based on this should or should not be open source. I lean towards open source.

u/Academ1aNut · 1 pointr/freemasonry

I just started "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science." Not far into it, but pretty excited to dig in.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060926716/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_SFv9yb1BA6675

u/eh_dubs · 1 pointr/SacredGeometry

Thank you! There is a lot of Enneagram info out on the web relating to personality types. This calendar doesn't follow such a system. Originally, I don't think it was used for personality types...

The idea from this came from a beauty of a book called "The Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" by Michael S. Schneider (https://www.amazon.ca/Beginners-Guide-Constructing-Universe-Mathematical/dp/0060926716)

In there he mentions how it lines up with seasons of farming / harvest, and uses it to show how useful it can be to break down any whole event (in his example he uses a kitchen's process of serving food). I would highly recommend the book as it's very entertaining and changes your everyday perspective on numbers around you.

Other than that, Georges i Gurdjieff, brought the idea to the west. He's in my list of stuff to read soon ;)

Dry erase is meant to be put on the plastic / glass pane on the frame, NOT the actual print. Can you let me know if that wasn't clear? May need to add a note before some people blemish their poster haha

u/Ironballs · 1 pointr/AskComputerScience

Some good popsci-style but still somewhat theoretical CS books:

u/Morning_Star_Ritual · 1 pointr/AskReddit

For anyone interested, please read The Fabric of Reality, by David Deutsch it really delves into the Many World's theory and is an awesome read.

u/optimizeprime · 1 pointr/rational

Book recommendation: The Fabric of Reality

Deals explicitly with how to think about a concept of time travel very similar to this. It’s framed in terms of Virtual Reality, but I think you could translate it for your own use easily. As a bonus, it’s a pretty fun tour of some really important ideas too.

u/lisper · 1 pointr/philosophy

> Interesting! Tell me more.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fabric-Reality-Universes-Implications/dp/014027541X

> So, it's just the fact that science doesn't happen to use grue and bleen as predicates that makes them unscientific?

No, it's that there are no grue or bleen things (but there are blue things and there are green things).

> remember again that from the perspective of Mr. Grue, it is YOU who has hidden time dependencies attached to green

No, this is the mistake. Time dependence can be objectively determined.

> What explanations do you think hold in scientific discoveries that attest to the legitimacy of green over grue that is NOT question-begging in favour of blue and green?

You can measure if something is blue or green without knowing what time it is. Not so for grue and bleen.

u/IranRPCV · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Check out Brian Greene's book The Hidden Reality for the latest thinking on this topic. There might be an infinite number of universes being created at every moment.

u/BlondeJaneBlonde · 1 pointr/NoMansSkyTheGame

Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of Roko's Basilisk but found a breezey explainer (on Slate ). It is interesting; the survey questions made me think about a 2011 Brian Greene book which runs through a bunch of theories of multiple or simultaneous universes.

u/tyro17 · 1 pointr/askscience

Idk if Brian Greene is welcomed by this sub but I found his book on multiverse a incredibly informative. It talks about all different types of "multiverses" posited, including this one.

Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307278123

u/ididnoteatyourcat · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

>Well it is just that in my opinion is that string theory is the first thing that comes to mind for me. And it's not that I wonder where something comes from, but that it HAS to be made out of something.

Well I'd still argue that you haven't provided a coherent definition of what you mean by "something." I think you should try to think about this. Perhaps in a bath tub. With some marijuana. The fact that it is so difficult to define what you mean should be taken as a pretty big hint that the concept itself is more subtle or elusive than you realize.

> So that means the 'inside' of the smallest possible something could possibly be a 'field'? Then what would a 'field' be?

To the best of our knowledge, all there is in the universe are a set of mathematical relationships. A field is a mathematical object that has a value at every point in space. Our current best model of the universe posits that there are various fields that fill all of space. These fields have larger or smaller amplitudes at various places, and they interact with each other. What are the fields? They are mathematical objects.

Here is another book recommendation along the lines of "everything being math." The previous book recommendation is a bit more technical and emphasizes the "everything is information" side of things.

u/astrominer1 · 1 pointr/Retconned

Sorry sourcing a book as a link (https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809?tag=space041-20) There are some papers on google scholar but too high level for my comprehension.

u/rainwood · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Our mathematical universe by Max Tegmark is I think right up your alley.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

His position, which amounts to a highly stylized "from a certain point of view" style argument, is quite interesting and goes very in depth. He does a lot to establish some rules of sanity and then goes on to explain the role things take.

I don't want to spoiler alert the whole book, but the core tenant of his proposal is that you ARE mathematics. It's kind a of mind-bending concept when you first hear it, but by the end of the book it leaves you sort of "Okay then so what? What does that matter?"

That, as per usual, is an exercise left up to the reader. Though I would very highly recommend reading it, as it does give you a very different and honestly refreshing perspective on the role mathematics takes in our lives.

I don't know he was able to convince me I'm a mathematical quantity; but I don't not believe his interpretation either.

u/catchierlight · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

wow. so well said! now I can get back to reading this book and it will make more sense to me https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809 (the best book I ever read in explaining Guth's inflation theory and cosmology in general to lay folks like myself...oh wait, is that what you are talking about? is there a distinction between "expansion" and "inflation theory"? my understanding of the latter is what OP is discussing)

u/HerrSasquatch · 1 pointr/Physics

Maybe you'd like the ideas of Max "Mad Max" Tegmark. https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

u/EpicurusTheGreek · 1 pointr/ReasonableFaith

> A bit yeah, just moved in to my own apartment!

congratulations

> I understand the logic, but I still don't think these things have been demonstrated outside of philosophy essays.

Remember, demonstrability is only a qualifier for empirical evidence, evidence in general can be taken to be more vast and up for debate.

> I would disagree, but I don't even know what this means, unfortunately ;)

If you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Defended-John-Leslie/dp/140516204X/

I don't think I can do his ideas any justice on a Reddit forum.

> I have heard of this, but I've never talked to anyone who actually held that view. I would like to talk with them about it for sure. I disagree, but on what part I disagree depends on what they say.

Well, if interested, I would suggest Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. He holds that our entire universe is literally made of mathematical numbers. He's also a physicist at MIT.

> Eh. So far as I am aware again, these are akin to borrowing theology's word-games in philosophy to demonstrate different things. I mean, sure, people can think of that if they want, but I don't think it shows anything particularly relevant about reality.

I would think that topics as our eternal destination, the fundamental metaphysical makeup of the world and the nature of reality help to bolster and reinforce scientific theory. I would doubt that many physicists would have stumbled onto space time without previous discussion of philosophy of time for example. Not to mention the ability of certain cosmological arguments to predict notions of a universes beginning. They might not be correct in the long run, but do provide certain hypothetical frames for future discoveries.

> True that, there are also plenty of atheists who are not rationalists at all, and believe all kinds of weird/unprovable things. I would be one of those strict materialists however ;)

Sorry to be pick the knits, but you mean empiricists, not rationalists in this case. Rationalist tends to focus on concepts through the work of a priori knowledge and then place it in an overall framework. The Mathematical and Platonic notions I mentioned are achieved through a rationalist frame work.

Empiricists are more about the posteriori verification of these ideas through induction and falsifiability. This does not preclude empiricists of being Platonists (Arif Ahmed is an example of such a case).

According to the philpapers, skeptical materialists make up only 5% of philosophers. So I would say tread lightly to claim these other 95% are being irrational.

u/chromodynamics · 1 pointr/askscience

Max Tegmark thinks the universe is actually mathematical. Its an interesting idea but im not sure how i feel about it. He's definitely going beyond the mainstream with his ideas. He has a book and some youtube talks.

u/luminiferousethan_ · 1 pointr/askastronomy

This really depends on what you want to learn. I'll throw out some of my favorites.


Coming of Age In The Milky Way

Chasing Venus: The Race to Measure The Heavens

Of course there's Carl Sagan's Cosmos which is a bit outdated, but still a fantastic read. I'd personally recommend any of Sagans books. Demon Haunted World (about science and skepticism), Pale Blue Dot (spiritual sequel to Cosmos)

Death by Black Hole

Atom: A Single Oxygen Atom's Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth... and Beyond

u/shafable · 1 pointr/ExCons

I have 0 experience with incarceration, but I have loads of experience with books. Not sure his interests, but here are a few books I adore:

The Lies of Locke Lamora - Basically an Ocean's 11 heist story set in a world similar to Game of Thrones.

The Name of the Wind - (from the Amazon description) The riveting first-person narrative of a young man who grows to be the most notorious magician his world has ever seen.

Cosmos - Carl Sagan saw the best in our species. This book is what the TV series was based on.

I would encourage your friend to read text books as well while he is inside as well. Pick a topic they have an interest in, and find an older textbook on the subject. For me that would be this book. Not a topic I was educated on, but something I have an interest in.

Thank you for supporting your friend!

u/001Guy001 · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark + Cosmos (I haven't read it, just watched the show, so I don't know how it compares)

Brian Cox - Wonders Of... book series (again, haven't read them but watched the mini-series)

u/Ultima_RatioRegum · 1 pointr/videos

If you haven't read it, this book covers a huge number of conceivable reasons for the Fermi Paradox:

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-WHERE-EVERYBODY/dp/0387955011

u/Daggdroppen · 1 pointr/space

If you want some deeper knowledge about this topic I recommend this book:


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Teeming-Aliens-Everybody-Extraterrestrial/dp/0387955011

u/fewcatrats · 1 pointr/space

If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens ... WHERE IS EVERYBODY? is a nice book on the subject that I bought on another redditors recommendation, and it was really worth it!

u/scrapghan · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/FredWampy · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

How about this in my hardcover/paperback list?

Thanks for the contest!

u/WalterFStarbuck · 1 pointr/AskReddit

In addition to Guns, Germs, and Steel:

u/jaredharley · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Some of my "intellectual" favorites:

u/ElvenKingLoki · 1 pointr/collegeinfogeek

I had gotten the book Death by Black Hole last April to read over the break, but never did so. I am trying to start reading it again. Its quite an interesting book

u/kbreedlove · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

Can't go wrong with Dr. Tyson. I love his book "Death by Black Hole". Go here and buy it! http://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

u/YoshiKwon · 1 pointr/Physics

I've heard pretty good things about Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind. I imagine it also has the added advantage of matching the Standford course he did that can be found on YouTube

u/SleepMyLittleOnes · 1 pointr/Futurology

It might also be that I simply don't understand enough of either. I have only read Einstein's relativity stuff a couple of times and the quantum mechanics books I've read are pretty low level.

I also tried to make it pretty ELI5, so it's probably pretty wrong to start. I dunno. I can armchair physics OK, but everything I know is probably wrong somehow.

u/The_Dead_See · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

For a completely introductory book: Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the debate about the nature of reality

Or if you're mathematically inclined... Quantum Physics: The Theoretical Minimum

(note that for the second book the lectures are available free online at theoreticalminimum.com

u/AgAero · 1 pointr/math

I've pretty much learned them on my own, it has taken me quite some time, and I'm still far from an expert. Checking this book out from the library proved useful in advancing my knowledge of cal 3 topics. I got my first real exposure to tensors through this book on GR.


Prior to that, I had some experience with the Cauchy Stress Tensor in solid mechanics, but only a very minimal amount. My degree program taught the solid mechanics curriculum fucking pitifully and I'm planning to grill them on it in my exit interviews when I graduate next year.

u/freelanceastro · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Energy isn't conserved. It can be -- and is -- created and destroyed. This is a direct result of general relativity, and it's been known for close to 100 years, but somehow word never really got out about it except to cosmologists (probably because it is very close to conserved on "small" scales like the Milky Way).

Source. Another source is page 348 of this textbook (search for "loses energy").

u/tylerthehun · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

I have addressed every point you've made that wasn't complete nonsense. Buy this, and read it. If you need stronger fundamentals to understand it, buy books on those and read them too. You cannot spontaneously acquire pre-formed knowledge of physics, you must study it.

> If you define space as having structure, then what is holding that structure?

Space and space-time are already very well-defined, and this whole thread started with you simply denying that. Surely you don't doubt the existence of three spatial dimensions, commonly denoted X, Y, and Z. That is structure. The fact there are exactly three dimensions (plus time) in our universe in the first place is already pretty interesting in and of itself. Whether or not something exists to "hold" that structure or it exists spontaneously is also a fairly interesting question, but its answer is irrelevant. Space does exist, it has structure, and that structure can be described.

The structure of our space is the reason "left", "up", and "forward" are all mutually perpendicular, and it's impossible to point your finger in a fourth direction that isn't already composed of those three. It's the reason moving "towards" a black hole is the opposite of moving "away" from it, but this only holds true in flat space, and our space is only flat when it is "empty", or devoid of mass and energy. Whether something is an "object" or not is irrelevant, what matters is mass-energy. The presence of mass-energy changes the essence of directionality. Within the event horizon of a black hole, "away" ceases to exist entirely. Every possible direction points closer to the center, hence, nothing can escape, no matter how fast it goes, or whether it has mass or not.

Less intense gravitational fields behave similarly. Light always travels in a straight line, but the very meaning of "straight" changes in the presence of mass and energy. The structure of our space defines how distances are measured, and "straight" is simply the shortest path between two points. It doesn't always look "straight" in the traditional sense. So a photon will curve around massive objects as if it were pulled by gravity, despite having no mass of its own.

That's the question I was answering in the first place. Maybe space doesn't actually curve but light simply behaves as if it does for some other reason, as observed through the "sense faculties" which, incidentally, relies on light behaving in a predictable fashion. If whatever you are trying to posit as an alternative cannot account for that, then it is neither a meaningful nor useful distinction to make.

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/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/iHaveAgency · 1 pointr/atheism

The book is by Sean Carroll and it is called The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Amazon link.

u/redditzendave · 1 pointr/atheism

He has a new one releasing next week called The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. The table of contents alone is impressive LOL.

u/BeakOfTheFinch · 1 pointr/atheism

The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself - Sean Carroll

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0525954821/

u/JebusWasAnAlien · 1 pointr/islam

>Have, have you do your PhD thesis on anything? That skipped many many many steps lol.

No sir. I do not have a PHd. You went to college. Presumably, you have a Masters, at the very least. I never went to college.

​

>**This is my most important response here. So you're saying it was a product of chance. Great. Let's roll with that because I think that will be easier for now.
>
>Is chance purely random or preordained. Are the two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive?

This question is too deep & I too unequipped to answer. I would recommend Sean Carrol's The Big Picture.

But of course we both know you're not gonna read it.

​

>You seem to have all the answers so give me your best here.**

I never made such a claim. You're confusing me for a religious person. Those are the people who have "all the answers".

As an atheist, all I have is a bunch of I-don't-know(s). If you want certainty, go get a religion. Any religion. Doesn't matter. They're all pretty certain.

u/repliesinbooktitles · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/Phantasmal · 1 pointr/atheism

You may also want to read The History of God and Why We Believe What We Believe.

I have found some of my best reading by checking the bibliography of books with ideas that I really enjoyed and then reading the books that were referenced there.

The hardest thing for many people is replacing a feeling of certainty with a feeling of uncertainty. You may want to read Steven Hawking's Brief History of Time.

Some basic introductions to philosophy would not go amiss either. People have been tackling the "big questions" in much the same way, throughout all of history. There are not as many new ideas as there are old ideas, rehashed. Learn something about the history of human thought, it is pretty fascinating and will help you figure out what you think.

u/mccartym · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/wildcard_bitches · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I've never studied Physics beyond high school but I have the same interest as you. A few of the books I've read that might interest you include:

You Are Here - Christopher Potter

Physics of the Impossible - Michio Kaku

A Briefer History of Time - Hawking, really easy to read version

There was another one along the same lines I read recently that was pretty good too. If I remember it I'll list it later.

u/strudels · 1 pointr/todayilearned

i think the subject is covered in this neat little read:

A Briefer History of Time

check it out one day. totally worth it.

u/LikeABossInc · 0 pointsr/AskAcademia

I second this. There are plenty of pop science books that give a good foundation of science in a big-picture way, which can then be applied to more dense studied.

One of my favorites: A Briefer History of Time

Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, and Carl Sagan all have excellent and very readable books.

u/physicsking · 0 pointsr/askscience

You can think of it like this if it helps. if you take a balloon and put some dots on it and then blow it up slowly, you will see that everything is getting farther way from everything else. This is a nice visualization but has some small inconstancies. First, we are in what is called the 'local Group' of galaxies. that is, Milkyway, Large & Small magellanic clouds, and andromeda. Usually these groups' constituents are getting closer. Second, a 'better example' if you can think about soap bubbles filling a space (many bubbles all squished together). Now try to picture the surface of all the bubbles. If you think that these bubbles were inflated like the balloon then where multiple bubbles (balloons) meet you will have a higher density of galaxies. Pictures of these LINK at this site right but where it talks about lensing. These are the current 'filaments' that we observe. As far as "what we are expanding in to", is a much harder and deeper question. Probably will hack it up if I attempt to explain. Better off not thinking of it. Be happy that there are things you can explain. Otherwise, perhaps life would be lame. You can also just snag book.