(Part 2) Best astrophysics & space science books according to redditors
We found 643 Reddit comments discussing the best astrophysics & space science books. We ranked the 119 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.
Carbon nanotubes do have the theoretical strength to make a space elevator. According to a NASA study (pdf), a tapered ribbon composed of nanotubes several centimeters long and a feasibly strong epoxy would be sufficient. Brad Edwards is the author of the study, here's his book on the subject.
The study addressed a lot of practical concerns, including meteorites, radiation, weather, construction costs, etc. It actually made a good case for being surprisingly practical.
10 years ago NASA commissioned a study on the plausibility of space elevators, and it was published as an interesting book: The Space Elevator by Bradley Edwards and Eric Westling.
The scheme they propose in that book is to put a 30–50-ton reel of very thin carbon nanotube ribbon in geostationary orbit, and start lowering the end down. As the ribbon is unreeled it is stabilized by tidal forces, and the reel recoils back, keeping the center of mass at geostationary orbit. When the end reaches the ground it is secured, and the empty reel continues to 100,000 km out to be the counterweight.
The ribbon would be the "pilot" elevator, just capable of lifting climber robots that will lay down additional layers of ribbon, building it up to whatever strength is desired.
The authors point out that the first thing you should do with a functional space elevator is to build another space elevator. Getting those 30-50 tons of initial ribbon into geostationary orbit was a very expensive endeavor now made cheap, and ribbons can break.
Easiest introduction (too simple, but a great overview):
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-plasma-physics-controlled-fusion/dp/0306413329/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404973723&sr=8-1&keywords=francis+chen+plasma
Better introduction (actually has real mathematics, this is like the Chen book but better for people who want to learn actual plasma physics because it doesn't baby you):
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Plasma-Physics-R-J-Goldston/dp/075030183X/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404973766&sr=8-1&keywords=goldston+plasma
Great introduction, and FREE:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/plasma.html
Good magnetohydronamics book:
http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-MHD-Jeffrey-P-Freidberg/dp/1107006252/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974045&sr=8-1&keywords=ideal+magnetohydrodynamics
Great waves book:
http://www.amazon.com/Waves-Plasmas-Thomas-H-Stix/dp/0883188597/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974079&sr=8-1&keywords=stix+waves
Computational shit because half of plasma physics is computing that shit:
http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Plasma-Physics-Applications-Astrophysics/dp/0813342112/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974113&sr=8-2&keywords=tajima+plasma
http://www.amazon.com/Plasma-Physics-Computer-Simulation-Series/dp/0750310251/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974148&sr=8-1&keywords=birdsall+langdon
Then there are also great papers, and I posted some links to papers in a previous post, but if you're asking to start, you want to start with Chen (and if it's too simple for you, move onto Fitzpatrick or Goldston). I also forgot to mention that Bellan and Ichimaru also have great books for introductory plasma physics.
EDIT:
I'd also like to add that I love you because this subreddit almost never ever mentions plasma physics.
Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetimes is conceptually not easy. Minimal coupling gives you generally covariant classical field equations, but it does not say anything about the quantum theory. Many ideas which appear very natural when you learn flat-space QFT are artifacts of the symmetries of Minkowski space, and do not translate over to a general spacetime which need not have any Killing Vectors.
As for learning curved spacetime QFT, a friendly introduction is 'Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity' by Mukhanov and Winitzki, an earlier version is also avaiable as a PDF here. There are also these lecture notes by Reall which include the necessary background in black hole physics and include a short section on QFT in CST.
More serious treatments of the physics of curved space QFT are the books 'Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime' by Parker and Toms, as well as the classic monograph 'Quantum Fields in Curved Space' by Birrell and Davies.
More mathematical treatments can be found, for example, in Wald's second book 'Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics' or these lecture notes by Fewster.
EDIT: You may also be interested in this course on 'Quantum Field Theory for Cosmology' by Kempf, of which videos are available on the Perimeter Institute website. The course follows along the book by Mukhanov and Winitzki.
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics is an excellent and easy to read book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108422160/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_omrWBbDYB9MN3
It's commonly used for introductory Astrophysics courses. If you don't have a basic understanding of Calculus it won't make much sense so, if you really want to properly understand the subject, first study basic Calculus. A good introductory Calculus book would be this one:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1285740629/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_JdsWBbH1KXPAN.
You're also going to want a basic understanding of Physics so one more for that:
University Physics with Modern Physics (14th Edition)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321973615/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_LfsWBbHJ83MT6
Those three books together should give you a basic understanding of Astrophysics and put your feet solidly on the road to further understanding. Read the Calculus book first (at least the first half of it or so) and then the Physics book. Then you'll be ready to dive into Carroll and Ostlie's book!
If you don't want to go quite that deep and you just want a really basic overview of the subject, you might consider finding Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time" or watching the PBS SpaceTime series in YouTube.
Edit: If the Calculus book is still a little unclear, your issue probably lies in Algebra. In that case, read this book before any of the others:
College Algebra (10th Edition)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321979478/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_MqsWBbR985C30
Good luck on your journey! Give yourself at least a year or two to get through all of them and don't forget to work the problems!
Oh - download Kerbal Space Program and play it for a while. Trust me on this; you'll develop a second sense of basic orbital mechanics ;)
the amazon website for her audiobook says it will be released on April 7th, 2020. Just hypothesizing with scant evidence, but it could be released then.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Possible-Worlds-Ann-Druyan/dp/1980027528
This whole piece is the prevalent woo-woo equivocation of the term “observed” and used by the likes of Chopra and other peddlers of new age sophistry. Using a surface level understanding of the topic to make unfounded assertions of reality that amount to basically magic. This is a good popularization of what quantum mechanics actually mean. that shows why the OP’s sophistry isn’t backed by the science and that is easy to read.
> mass affects spacetime
Nope, stress-energy tensor affects space-time, a part of which is mass of the object, as well as its energy. Photons have no mass, yet they have energy, which contributes to stress-energy tensor.
> photons cannot be gravitationally accelerate
Photons, like every other particles, follow geodesics of curved space. They are as good 'accelerating' as falling balls, revolving planets and neutrinos.
PS: If you are a layman, and don't really know about general relativity, I would suggest 'Gravity from Ground up' by Shutz. Be warned that you would need high school maths, like little amount of algebra and arithmetic, to understand the book.
It depends on what you go into. If you want to do research, you'd pretty much have to get a PhD, and most astronomers/astrophysicists have a specialty. You could get a general degree and do something like public outreach, but to be honest, those jobs are few and far between. Sadly, astronomy is not required on any level in school so teaching is hard to get as well.
There is a bit of math, and a lot of physics. But there are varying fields within the astronomical community.
You could study stars (like James Kaler) and you'd probably want to look into helioseismology, magnetohydrodynamics, and nuclear physics to see if that's your bag.
You could study galaxy dynamics (which I'm given to understand is currently somewhat a hot topic) and you'd have to understand gravity. LOTS of gravity. There are enormous textbooks on gravity out there. Get one, and see if you like it.
Planetary geology is actually pretty fun, and doesn't typically require hairier math or physics above a high school AP course (basically, you have to like these subjects, but you don't have to be a genius at them). It's super fun, and I recommend starting there if you're interested in astronomy, but don't love math.
If you like chemistry, consider astro/cosmochemistry.
If you're an insane person, go into cosmology. It's really hard. Studying anything that's super theory heavy (like black holes, dark matter, string theory, etc.) is just math on PCP.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find.
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
No, but there is this
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Possible-Worlds-Ann-Druyan/dp/1980027528
"This title will be released on April 7, 2020"
Dude, get ready to own it. This conversation reminded me of the culling I saw at Barnes and Noble a few weeks ago.
They were selling dual editions of 'Brief History...' and 'Universe in a nutshell' (that was the book by the way) - fully illustrated, hardcover for like $20.
Figured even less at amazon. Literally just checked out with one for $7, used; but considering B&N's liquidation of it I bet its still overstocks and scuffs from transport.
Hit it up:
$7 fully illustrated hardcover of Brief and Nutshell
The claim that "time is exactly like space" is not true. Time is treated as a dimension in Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR), but it is very different from the "usual" spatial dimensions. (It boils down to "distance" along the time direction being negative, but that statement doesn't really mean anything out of context.) The central idea of relativity is that while the entire four dimensional "thing" (spacetime) just is (is invariant), different observers will have different ideas about which way the time direction points; it turns out to be convenient for our description of nature to respect the natural "democratic" equivalence of all hypothetical observers.
I can point you to a couple of good resources:
This
is a very good, book about SR, and some "other stuff". It's pretty mathematical, and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who isn't totally comfortable with college level intro physics and calculus.
This
is the "standard" text for undergraduate SR; it's less demanding than the above, but uses mathematical language that won't translate immediately if you go on to study GR. (I have not read this myself.)
This is the book that I learned from; I thought it was pretty good.
This is Brian Greene's famous popularization of String Theory. It has chapters in the beginning on SR and Quantum Mechanics that I think are quite good.
This is Einstein's own popularization, only algebra required. All the examples that others use to explain SR pretty much come from here, and sometimes it's good to go right to the source.
This is a collection of the most important works leading up to and including relativity, from Galileo to Einstein, in case you'd like to take a look at the original paper (translated). The SR paper requires more of a conceptual physical background than a mathematical one; the same can't be said of the included GR paper.
I don't know what your background is--the first three options above are textbooks, and that's probably much more than you were hoping to get into. The last three are not; the book by Brian Greene and the collection (edited by Stephen Hawking) are interesting for other reasons besides relativity as well. For SR, though, another book by Greene might be a bit better: this.
Volume 1 is also available for free: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SW09GKK
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B002TJLF7W/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g2609328962
https://smile.amazon.com/Quantum-Universe-Anything-That-Happen-ebook/dp/B006U6IBEU/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004P1JDYY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect
I would recommend those four very readable books to anyone actually interested in learning the basics of quantum and relativity without having to learn any of the math. If you can handle the Pythagorean Theorem, you can learn QM and Relativity enough to convince people on reddit you know what you're talking about. ;-)
Here's a silly but informative video about EPR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c
And the no-cloning theorem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owPC60Ue0BE
The Big Orange Book, an overview of astronomy from the basics of how we choose coordinates through planets, stars, galaxies, all the way to cosmology. It earned the nickname because of its common use in grad schools.
Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.
Do Americans really buy their textbooks for $500? Why does it cost so much? I just looked up a standard astrophysics textbook on amazon and it costs just below $100.
It does have to do. Generically even spin interactions are attractive and odd spin interactions are repulsive for same sign charges.
This can be seen from the form of the interaction term, gravity couples to the stress-energy tensor T^{\mu\nu}. Hence the interaction between two gravitational charges has 2 tensors like the above that you have to contract with an even number of copies of the metric, the even minus signs on the temporal part cancel out resulting in a + giving us an attractive interaction.
If you compare with the case of spin 1, the charge there is J^\mu, we only need one metric to contract the index that gives us a - sign in the temporal component resulting in repulsion.
Notice how we only make an assumption on the form of the charge to achieve this result. What you said is correct but you start assuming General Relativity which is a lot to assume since GR is the theory of massless spin-2 particles.
Feynman has a book called Lectures on Gravitation (https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/dp/0813340381) that discusses this things.
I'm not sure these are directly applicable, but these some thoughts popped in to my head after reading your post. I'm linking to pages outlining the relations I mention:
It's no problem :) In all honestly, I'm laying in bed recovering from gallbladder removal surgery so I'm super bored and have a ton of time. It's actually kind of keeping me entertained.
Don't worry too much about your background. Your GPA isn't really bad and as long as you have some research you're well ahead of most other students who are applying. Geophysics programs will love that you have coding experience and they do prefer students with physics/math backgrounds over geology students so your background will serve you well in the application process. What languages do you know? Also, if you do well on your GRE (they mostly care about your quantitative score) you'll definitely be golden. I honestly didn't want to go to those schools, but I listened to other people tell me what to want and regretted it. I wouldn't have done well in those schools and I knew it--I'm not a competitive person and I do poorly in stressful environments. It's good that you know what you want out of a program and what you're saying is exactly what, in my opinion, should be valued. Although, just as a word of caution, if you want to go into academia the school you go to will matter. I think breadth of research in the department is also important. Some departments, especially in the earth sciences, are too industry focused and I didn't want that. Definitely talk to the grad students in the program--they're the BEST resource for finding out if you'll be happy there.
I went into geophysics because I wanted a field that was more applied than astrophysics and more stable than paloeontology (which was originally what I wanted to do). I wanted to be able to say that my work could make some small difference in people's lives. So, as for what I want to do when I get out--I want to work in environmental geophysics. I want to use computer modeling and exploration geophysics techniques to develop better solutions for finding groundwater and preserving groundwater quality. I really think that this is going to be a huge issue we face in the future, especially in developing countries and I see an opportunity to help improve the quality of people's lives. I could also see myself working on CO2 sequestration techniques and coming up with better waste-water disposal methods within the energy industry. Contrary to popular belief "fracking" does not cause earthquakes or pollute water supplies--it's waste water removal after "fracking" and other exploration techniques that is doing that. So, I could easily see myself working on developing better methods to dispose of and monitor waste water injection (hopefully also using computer models). (BTW: this is similar to what I put in personal statements if you're looking for inspiration).
The MS degree made a lot more sense for me given these goals. Money isn't too big for me, either, but I do know a lot of people stress this difference between the MS and PhD in the geosciences. If you love research and academia then the PhD is the way to go, but you have to have the dedication and drive. If you're worried about the job market, think very carefully about the PhD and academia. Post docs and academic appointments are difficult to get unless you graduate from those top schools or worked under an adviser who is very well respected and well-known in their field. And research grants are more and more difficult to come by unless you can get those appointments at top schools. That's just the harsh reality. If you want to work in industry (O&G, mining, or environmental), then you're probably wasting your time with a PhD. And, if you have no idea yet--which is perfectly fine--then the MS is the safer option in my opinion and you won't tick off your research adviser by dropping to a lower-level degree (advisers put a lot more time and money into PhD students).
As far as texts go this one is a really great intro textbook in the field. It's expensive, but you might be able to get it from a school library or find it on the internet. The first book that I read on the topic was [this one] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Physics-Cambridge-Atmospheric-Science/dp/0521457149) and it's a really good introduction to the subject as a whole. Another good textbook is [this one] (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Space-Plasma-Physics-Baumjohann/dp/186094079X), but it focuses a lot on magnetospheric physics and less on the ionosphere. Those are some of the ones that I used. I also used a textbook that my research adviser let me borrow that was specifically on magnetohydrodynamics and modeling, but I can't remember the exact title. I learned most of what I know from reading research journals and scientific papers because textbooks are really expensive and you can access research papers for free or email professors and ask for papers they can send you.
Lots of books about astronomy and astrophysics for laypeople.
Cosmos
A Brief History of Time
The Elegant Universe
Welcome to the Universe
(I haven't read the last one. Stumbled on it looking up the Amazon links for the others, but it looks pretty cool, to me.)
Take all the math and science courses you can, especially if your high school offers AP physics and calculus.
> Are there any current experiments in the works that might give us a better idea of the nature of this stretching? I fully accept that people smarter than me have worked on this model, but I just don't see how that conclusion was made?
There's a lot of factors involved (like the cosmic microwave background etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence ) in how we arrive at the conclusion and if the above overview doesn't convince you it will be the best if you go to a library and get a book on cosmology and read through it. These are several 100 page thick tomes that summarize the science that has gone into this (including experimental, also including alternatives that have been checked and ruled out). Obviously there's a lot of details involved in this (which will be hard to fit into a reddit post) and you will have to look into this research in detail to judge it. Wikipedia gives an overview over the experimental evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence
These are two good books that cover this.
https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Introduction-Physicists-Hobson/dp/0521829518
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Steven-Weinberg/dp/0198526822
It isn't. Also, that's his GR book, which has a little bit of QM in curved spacetime, but I was referring to his book Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics.
Dr. Robert Zubrin ran the numbers and its cheaper to refuel on Mars.
Mars Direct https://www.amazon.com/dp/0974144355/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_z-RgDbGKDAXVA
You sound like me, and this is the best book I've read:
http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Ground-Up-Introductory-Relativity/dp/0521455065/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334093050&sr=1-1
Check out the table of contents. It's very conversational without REQUIRING a ton of physics, but on each page there's usually a section dedicated to the math if you want to dive in deeper). Pretty much works it's way from Newton's Apple falling, so how we leave earth, to the solar system, to how galaxies\stars\black holes\the universe was formed and how relativity fits in everywhere.
If you want to understand the mathematics I would highly recommend General Relativity by Hobson et al.
It was our GR course text for 3rd year undergrad, and has a nice balance between physics and maths: as the title says it's specifically for physicists, so some of the tensor properties aren't derived completely rigorously. Nevertheless it's a thorough grounding in the maths of GR, and while focussing on GR it has several chapters on cosmological models and techniques.
So not one to buy but definitely a book to check out of the library if it's there.
I don't really know the field that well, but a long time ago I worked on Cassini and used this book which I quite liked.
I agree with rnally that in order to really get a hold of General Relatively you will need to know differential geometry (which in itself requires you to know calculus and differential forms, multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and maybe a bit of tensor analysis). However don't be discouraged, with just high school math you should be able to figure our Special Relativity. It brings me back memories of when I was a high school senior trying to figure out relativity myself and read Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein. It's a neat little book and you should be able to get through the first half on special relativity (the highest math I saw were square roots), but again don't be discouraged when you hit the section on general relativity and if you understand everything up to that point you would have gone farther than I have when I was your age :). Best of luck! and good choice of major! (Majored in physics myself)
> Swell. Musk's kids love him, but he's also changing the world.
>
> He's not changing the world. He is standing in the way of progress. Those are very distinct things.
You must be a loony: https://gph.is/2r4CQu5
>
> HERE I WILL SHOW YOU.
> Look at these solutions to urban travel. https://images.app.goo.gl/pYQYbv45EbJQQ2se6
>
> Look at which one is best, and then look at which one is worst. Elon musk is backing the WORST one.
Americans don't use public transit. IT's considered low class and inconvenient. Americans drive. Always have, always will.
Musk didn't create this philosophy, but he's a realist and he's not going to back a dead horse.
This is America, right here https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d12817f2-8ee0-4a4c-a719-bc9f90ac29f9
>
> elon musk is holding back progress.
>
> Norway is environmentally friendly
>
> I guess global warming is solved then.
Not yet.
>
> He's working on it harded than anyone else.
>
> He's not working on it at all actually. Since elon musk has started his companies there has been no effect on average c02 rise. None at all.
It's a long term deal. And it's probably not reversible anyway. As long as population increases, there will not be a reduction.
Musk is maybe more concerned with global economic meltdown from a world that runs out of fossil fuels.
That's a scarier prospect than climate change. Nothing more dangerous than panicked humans.
>
> If elon musk is the dude you are waiting on to save humanity, then we are ALREADY DEAD.
He's not saving humanity, he's just doing his bit. Driving a Tesla is more environmentally and economically responsible than driving a stinkpot.
>
> Okay with that statement there you are officially cuckoo.
>
> You don't seem to be informed about future moon plans like I am. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-proposes-establishing-moon-based-special-economic-zone/
And you think Musk is loony. That is never, ever going to happen.
>
> That kinds sums up our entire conversation. I am informed on these issues and you WORSHIP ONE MAN.
I don't worship any one man and you are not informed at all. You're yet another American whacko on the Internet.
>
> I understand it though, I know people, very wealthy people down here in florida that WORSHIP tony robbins. Same psychological phenomenon.
Tony Robbins is a fraud. He does not produce cars or launch rockets. He produces zero.
>
> You better email Elon and clue him in then, Mr. Know it All.
>
> Just send him this book. https://www.amazon.com/Mars-Direct-Robert-Zubrin/dp/0974144355/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mars+direct&qid=1574191973&sr=8-1
I will, thanks.
>
> If I ever email elon musk it will be to say.... "hey I heard you got kicked out of a swinger party because you were being an annoying aspy. Do you have the address of the next one? ya know ..for science"
I had to look up ASPY. I met Musk at a party in Malibu and he is surprisingly normal. A little distracted maybe, but hardly Asperger's.
>
> I ain't buying it.
>
> and I am not buying the elon musk is working for humanity line.
Well at some point you will figure it out.
>
> doesn't matter, tomorrow I will still be me despite someone online not believing some anonymous comment on reddit.
>
> Work on cars, but not design or build cars
>
> I worked on a couple small time race teams and did some fabrication. So technically I have built more cars than elon musk has.
Wrong. Sorry.
>
> Incorrect. We write about the good shit. We shine a beacon of truth on the world.
>
> bullcrap. journalists are not smart enough to know what is good or bad. You are talking to a grown man. I am old enough to know with first hand knowledge that "journalists" are pretty fucking stupid. And they always have agendas. And they are usually basing decisions on emotions.
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. You're the worst possible thing: A not terribly bright person who thinks he's a savant. You're not. Savants go out and do things. You haven't.
>
> you are just fame chasers, you wouldn't even know where to find the nearest hackerspace/makerspace.
I dont know what that is, either.
>
> You journalists are weirdios that believe some crazy postmodern siht man.
You need a spellchecker.
>
> You first.
>
> I am actually overwhelmed with your brain development that has obviously made you a very mature person. That was sarcasm.
You need to get a life.
>
> Journalists keep the world honest
>
> No christopher hitchens is dead, now it's just an ocean of click bait dyed haired freaks talking about "which race has more privilege in starbucks!". "journalism is dead.
No it's alive and well at The New Yorker and elsewhere. There's a lot of crap in the world, but still good writing and thinking.
>
> Because it's evil.
>
> calling science evil. calling the search for cures evil. I think this conversation has come to it's inevitable conclusion, you are a postmodernist that values nothing. You don't have any core values to base a worldview upon. Just selfishness and greed. It's why elon musk's brand of CONSUME TO SAVE THE PLANET activism resonates with you so well.
Wrong and wrong and wrong again. Musk wants people to consume less, which is why he is making cars that don't consume fossil fuels, or emit C02. You really do not get it.
>
> Tesla is not a get rich quick scheme.
>
> I am pretty sure it is. Example https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/musk-stands-by-tesla-appreciation-claim-called-really-dumb
It's a long term bet for the planet.
>
> How many all together, like 80?
>
> all for nothing if it's not sustainable.
>
> It saves humanity from economic and climate meltdown by reducing dependency on fossil fuels and also reducing the release of C02 into the atmosphere.
>
> ONCE AGAIN, for the slow journalists amongst us.... Since elon musk has started his companies... human oil consumption has INCREASED. C02 in the atmosphere has INCREASED. He is doing absolutely nothing.
He's going against the flow and looking way off toward a time when everyone drives electric cars - ideally run on renewable energy.
He has the money and time to think long term, big picture. That is what he's doing.
>
> Or maybe should have just quit after PayPal and sat around in his living room and talked BS on Reddit?
>
> LESS C02 would be in the atmosphere today and thats a fact. Those factories take a lot of energy to build and use.
>
> He worked for it.
>
> I got a photo of him going to china to beg investors for investment in a factory. Thats not work. Thats not earning.
How do you know he's begging. China was probably all for it.
>
> No dear, he is producing 100,000 electric cars a month
>
> Less than 10K actually.
Almost 100,000 cars in third quarter.
>
> It's a very tiny car maker.
> Very small.
They've only been making cars since 2008, and they have almost produced a million.
It takes time. With factories in China and Germany, he'll be kicking ass.
You are becoming a waste of time. I have work to do.
> Swell. Musk's kids love him, but he's also changing the world.
He's not changing the world. He is standing in the way of progress.
Those are very distinct things.
HERE I WILL SHOW YOU.
Look at these solutions to urban travel.
https://images.app.goo.gl/pYQYbv45EbJQQ2se6
Look at which one is best, and then look at which one is worst.
Elon musk is backing the WORST one.
elon musk is holding back progress.
>Norway is environmentally friendly
I guess global warming is solved then.
>He's working on it harded than anyone else.
He's not working on it at all actually. Since elon musk has started his companies there has been no effect on average c02 rise. None at all.
If elon musk is the dude you are waiting on to save humanity, then we are ALREADY DEAD.
>Okay with that statement there you are officially cuckoo.
You don't seem to be informed about future moon plans like I am.
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-proposes-establishing-moon-based-special-economic-zone/
That kinds sums up our entire conversation. I am informed on these issues and you WORSHIP ONE MAN.
I understand it though, I know people, very wealthy people down here in florida that WORSHIP tony robbins. Same psychological phenomenon.
>You better email Elon and clue him in then, Mr. Know it All.
Just send him this book. https://www.amazon.com/Mars-Direct-Robert-Zubrin/dp/0974144355/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mars+direct&qid=1574191973&sr=8-1
If I ever email elon musk it will be to say.... "hey I heard you got kicked out of a swinger party because you were being an annoying aspy. Do you have the address of the next one? ya know ..for science"
>I ain't buying it.
and I am not buying the elon musk is working for humanity line.
doesn't matter, tomorrow I will still be me despite someone online not believing some anonymous comment on reddit.
>Work on cars, but not design or build cars
I worked on a couple small time race teams and did some fabrication. So technically I have built more cars than elon musk has.
>Incorrect. We write about the good shit. We shine a beacon of truth on the world.
bullcrap. journalists are not smart enough to know what is good or bad. You are talking to a grown man. I am old enough to know with first hand knowledge that "journalists" are pretty fucking stupid. And they always have agendas. And they are usually basing decisions on emotions.
you are just fame chasers, you wouldn't even know where to find the nearest hackerspace/makerspace.
You journalists are weirdios that believe some crazy postmodern siht man.
>You first.
I am actually overwhelmed with your brain development that has obviously made you a very mature person.
That was sarcasm.
>Journalists keep the world honest
No christopher hitchens is dead, now it's just an ocean of click bait dyed haired freaks talking about "which race has more privilege in starbucks!". "journalism is dead.
>Because it's evil.
calling science evil. calling the search for cures evil.
I think this conversation has come to it's inevitable conclusion, you are a postmodernist that values nothing. You don't have any core values to base a worldview upon. Just selfishness and greed.
It's why elon musk's brand of CONSUME TO SAVE THE PLANET activism resonates with you so well.
>Tesla is not a get rich quick scheme.
I am pretty sure it is. Example https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/musk-stands-by-tesla-appreciation-claim-called-really-dumb
>How many all together, like 80?
all for nothing if it's not sustainable.
>It saves humanity from economic and climate meltdown by reducing dependency on fossil fuels and also reducing the release of C02 into the atmosphere.
ONCE AGAIN, for the slow journalists amongst us....
Since elon musk has started his companies... human oil consumption has INCREASED. C02 in the atmosphere has INCREASED.
He is doing absolutely nothing.
>Or maybe should have just quit after PayPal and sat around in his living room and talked BS on Reddit?
LESS C02 would be in the atmosphere today and thats a fact. Those factories take a lot of energy to build and use.
>He worked for it.
I got a photo of him going to china to beg investors for investment in a factory.
Thats not work. Thats not earning.
>No dear, he is producing 100,000 electric cars a month
Less than 10K actually.
It's a very tiny car maker.
Very small.
>Where do I start?
Please read the FAQ.
**
>Where can I read why the big bang is the closest theory or idea of rightness. Where can I read about ideas of the particles that made up every atom or whatnot smaller spec to create the big bang?*
Start with:
And
No atheist bible exists. However many atheists arrive at their position from skepticism. A sort of mental filter used to make sure our beliefs align with reality and not some sort of snake-oil. The same filter you yourself use to avoid being scammed by "Nigerian Princes".
You can consult the classic book
Or if you want a fast version from youtube.
**
>Atheist, do you even acknowledge the idea of a God?
Of course the question remains, which god? It's too easy to have a vague god with no definable attributes.
I acknowledge the idea. But an idea can still be imaginary. If a friend told me dragons existed, and each time I said that was impossible, and then they changed the goalposts until "dragon" meant something entirely too vague to disprove, then we aren't getting anywhere in terms of actually proving my friend isn't mistaken, and just wants dragons to exist.
See more here: [The Dragon in my Garage*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E). (4 min on youtube)
May I recommend The Constants of Nature?
Many libraries have it..
See Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. Fantastic read.
The gist is that over vast distances, physical / fundamental constants are anything but constant and are actually scalar fields. When the scalar fields "align" in the proper manner it results in conditions suitable for life (which may or may not resemble our present universe). In areas where the scalar fields do not "align" in a manner suitable for life, you get no physical matter, plasma soups, massive black holes, etc.
Given our current understanding of physics, eventually the universe will experience a heat death and all the stars and all the black holes will evaporate. Some of the crazier theories posit that empty space will spontaneously decay to a lower energy state and cause another Big Bang of sorts.
Good further links for the interested:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs
https://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809067226
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0316016411/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1XND76JQYDEBCX9ZK05Y
Hi, I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, concentrating on simulating turbulent transport in the divertor region and the scrape-off layer of tokamaks.
I won a bit of money from my undergrad institution, and I thought it would be fitting to use it to buy some reference textbooks for my PhD. However, although it's easy to find books, it's not so easy to find good reviews of them. I haven't done much plasma physics before but I will be having a lot of lectures on it in September, so I think more advanced books would be more useful, as I will be recommended plenty of resources for the more basic stuff.
Some of the books I've been looking at are:
but I'm open to any suggestions. I'm particularly interested in books about computational methods, and maybe also about scientific programming in C++.
Thanks!
Yes I know what you're trying to say. However contradiction is a means of showing that a previous statement is wrong (usually by making the converse assumption). The word I think you're looking for is inconsistent. GR has shown tremendous success at predicting the consequences of cosmological events (black holes, neutron stars, gravitational waves, early universe, etc) but it breaks down when you try to describe what happens in a black hole or at the centre of a neutron star or at the big bang as all of these scenarios are on the atomic scale. Similarly the closest theorists have come to a quantum theory of gravity is loop quantum gravity and string theory and Feynman had a decent stab at a renormalizable field theory approach but ultimately failed. His lectures on it are quite good (not to be confused with the classic red books) https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/dp/0813340381. Also light is not both a particle and a wave. The probability distribution for where the particle will eventually be detected has the form of an interfering wave pattern. This does not mean the particle is a wave and vice versa and so our cognitive limitations do not apply here. Yes entropy is best understood as a statistical phenomenon. No time is not best understood as a statistical phenomenon. As I said previously time is just a method by which events can measured in relation to each other. It can be also be a parameter in the differential equations that model the evolution of the physical system of interest be it quantum or classical. The Feynman Lectures on Physics are the best place to start to gain an understanding of the fundamental physics that underpins almost everything. And they're all online http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Possible-Worlds-Ann-Druyan/dp/1980027528 its not too far away April 2020, so four months into 2020. It may even be earlier as this is an audiobook which I imagine would come out after possible world's release.
I'm just happy its not late 2020.
This book was written by a rocket scientist: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Elevator-Earth-Space-Transportation/dp/0974651710
It goes through all the challenges. Carbon nanotubes are strong enough.
> The universe is the sum total of the energy within spacetime
I haven't seen it used in precisely that way. It used to mean "everything," but lately, in modern cosmology, it refers to a particular sphere of spacetime. So books like The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos use the term in that sense, individual spheres of spacetime.
I agree that we don't know what n is. Which is why the simulation hypothesis leads with statements like "if you grant that universes can be simulated in theory, and that technological civilizations can achieve computing power of that level...." The hypothesis is a thought experiment to see where those ideas lead. It is not offered as a proof that we are in fact in a simulation.
True, but even things explained simply are difficult for others to understand sometimes.
Good luck understanding relativity from reading Eisntein's book about it that he designed for the layman.
Here
Sometimes simply is simply not enough.
Yes, it does hold. Mass-energy is the typical term used when talking to laypeople, but physicists tend to use natural units (\hbar=c=k_{B}=eV=1) which means that mass and energy are equal, not just equivalent. E=m, instead of E=mc^2, since c=1. (E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 becomes E^2 =m^2 +p^2 for high velocities, for the pedantic.) So the terms are interchangeable, as long as you're using the right system of units.
The actual theory (the Alcubierre metric) is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations (the complex system of nonlinear partial differential equations that make up general relativity). However, since these are differential equations they can have many solutions, and indeed many different solutions have been found. It is not known which solution (if any) is correct for the real world. In general, it can't be known for certain until a full theory of quantum gravity is discovered. Indeed, the existence of "Dark Energy" is one of the indications that the theory is slightly wrong. It may be explainable as a modification of the theory or may actually be some sort of negative mass-energy, but at the moment we have no way to tell. Again, we need a complete theory of quantum gravity.
For anyone actually wanting to learn about this sort of thing in detail, try the following, in order:
http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Post-Newtonian-Relativistic-Eric-Poisson/dp/1107032865
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Charles-W-Misner/dp/0716703440/
Both are graduate level texts (it's a graduate level theory) and require a thorough understanding of differential equations. And differential geometry, and all the more basic physics on which they build of course. The first book starts with some very good material on Newtonian gravity, but you'll still want to have had at least a year of undergraduate physics to start. The theory is simple, but the solutions are very complicated.
Not just black holes, but very good
(Simplification and semi-mediocre understanding of a high-school student)
Essentially, it's a particle that, through fundamental interactions with other particles such as leptons and quarks and the so called "Higgs Field" cause inertia (mass) to arise. I would consult Wikipedia if I were you and would check out some readings.
Warped Passages by Lisa Randall
A Brief History of Time+The Universe in a Nutshell - Stephen Hawking
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
Personally, I'd recommend the first because, if a little bit dry, Randall explains the Higgs theory better. (The second book was what got me obsessed in science two or three years ago.) Happy Trails!
A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking
-- This is the first book I thought of when I saw your title. It might be the most popular pop-science book of all time. And -- especially how dry and complicated the subject seems -- it's very clear and entertaining.
A Briefer History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.
The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking.
The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, by Brian Greene.
These are books about physics (the way the world works), astrophysics (the way the universe works on a gigantic scale), and quantum physics (the way the world works on the tiniest scale).
I know. It sounds incredibly boring and complicated. And it is complicated. There's a quote widely attributed to a physicist named Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." But that's what's so amazing about it. It's so weird. It's often so counter-intuitive to how we think the world and science works. You'll read about how time slows down as you approach the speed of light, or about the double slit experiment, and put the book down and think, "That's crazy. The world can't actually work like that.
These books do an amazing job of explaining incredibly complicated concepts, without using any math or equations. By the end of any of these books, you're going to understand some very complicated concepts that will probably change the way you see the world.
That phrase about no one having a great understanding of quantum physics is an old saying. It was true when it was said, it is not true today.
And I don't care whether you are talking about real or virtual particles. Negative energies exist for both cases. Case in point, the Kerr metric and its ergosphere.
Yes, what you quote is correct. However, Hawking shows here that this is due to particle pairs. Read the paper and you'll see that it is very much related to virtual particles.
Ask any theoretical physicist about Hawking radiation and they will tell you that the black hole absorbs a particle with negative energy and therefore loses mass.
You might have seen some quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics is a long way from doing quantum field theory in curved spacetime, which is what is required to show how this actually works. But until you've actually done those calculations (you can see the actual formulation here or here ) you will simply have to take it as a fact from those who have.
Scholar of universes and also non-atheist here. I believe in a God, and from the books I've read on the matter (some Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and also this book written by a neuroscientist), the possibility of a multiverse is very real. I think we live in one. A lot of the evidence for multiverses is supported by the mathematics behind string theory (read this), but it can't be proven because "strings" are 10^-35 meters long (the Planck length). (We can currently only see things as small as 10^-16 meters long--or centimeters long, I forget.)
It is all very interesting to me. In the last book mentioned, the author, a neuroscientist with presumably no idea of a multiverse, said that he saw (I forget how he worded it) "our world as one among many" when he experienced his out-of-body experience. It's a great read for sure.
Everything that I've read or learned points to the idea of multiple universes inhabited by life but no other intelligent life than that which is on our home planet.
EDIT: grammar
Interesting problem I have is that people see me as a fake geek because I do like the whole "Geek Chic" look. I can't exactly afford to go preppy and I am a super twink (pun intended). I have a 4.0 GPA in college right now, play PC games more than I should, and spend a lot of my free time researching things that interest me. Currently I am reading The Constants of Nature by John Barrow for pleasure. As for TV shows, I could go fairly in depth about the Dr. Who universe if you asked me.
Sometimes I have people play the "You aren't a REAL nerd like me" card. Apparently, some people just see me and go "That guy is good looking! He can't be a nerd." I guess that shouldn't bother me, but it is part of my identity that people are trying to attributed to be an attention whore.
TLDR: Hot guys can be nerds/geeks too.
Edit: When I reread that, I realized I sounded like an asshole. Sorry.