(Part 2) Best physics books according to redditors
We found 1,984 Reddit comments discussing the best physics books. We ranked the 687 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
21. Six Not-So-Easy Pieces: Einsteins Relativity, Symmetry, and Space-Time
10 mentions
Basic Books AZ
Hey guys, this is the textbook - as you can see, it is really $950 for a used hard copy.
Reddit loves to fact-check, so I'm sure you'll find that you can buy the looseleaf version for $160, but if you check the reviews you'll see that it's been printed with no diagrams, making it almost useless (this is confirmed by someone I know irl who bought it for the course. This is also the version that our bookstore carries for $200, amazingly). You'll also see that you can buy the online version, which is nice, but for fluids you need lots of tables to use during tests and since having laptops open during tests is too much of a liability, the professor only allows hard copies of the tables for tests.
I'll be using a pdf version of the book (not one from Amazon, that's all I'll say...), and printing out the tables for the tests. If I'm not allowed to do that I'll just drop the course, because there's no way in hell I'm buying the $950 hard copy like she is pressuring.
Oh, and here are screenshots of the course syllabus showing that we do actually need the book, and yes it is only for a few weeks (4 actually, not 6 - the first 6 weeks are with another book which is sold for $215 at our bookstore)
All of the books I can see from top to bottom on Amazon:
Books & Speakers | Price (New)
---|---
Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering (4th Edition) | $122.84
Molecular Thermodynamics | $80.17
Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach | $89.59
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles | $128.32
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics (The Mcgraw-Hill Chemical Engineering Series) | $226.58
Organic Chemistry 8th Edition | $186.00
Elementary Differential Equations | $217.67
Numerical Methods for Engineers, Sixth Edition | $200.67
Applied Partial Differential Equations | $20.46
Transport Phenomena, 2nd Edition | $85.00
Basic Engineering Data Collection and Analysis | $239.49
Calculus (9th Edition) | $146.36
Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd Edition | $206.11
Inorganic Chemistry (4th Edition) | $100.00
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer | $197.11
Biochemistry: A Short Course, 2nd Edition | $161.45
Separation Process Principles: Chemical and Biochemical Operations | $156.71
University Physics with Modern Physics (13th Edition) | $217.58
Speakers | $50.00
Most you can get is $1476.86 (selling all of the books (used and hard cover) in person), and if you sell it on Amazon, they take around 15% in fees, so you'll still get $1255.33. But wait...if you sell it to your university's book store, best they can do is $.01.
Total cost: $2832.11 (including speakers)
Net loss: -$1355.25 (books only). If sold on Amazon, net loss: -$1576.78 (books only). Speakers look nice; I wouldn't sell them.
Edit: Added the two books and the table. /u/The_King_of_Pants gave the price of speakers. ¡Muchas gracias para el oro! Reminder: Never buy your books at the bookstore.
Edit 2: Here are most of the books on Library Genesis
Thanks to /u/WhereToGoTomorrow
I think his point is that they are kind of the same thing. Some other physicists https://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Next-Revolution-Physics/dp/0195145925 have argued what I perceive to be a similar concept. Essentially time doesn't exist in the way we colloquially think about it. There is only the relative configuration of all particles and energies in the universe and that tends to move from low to high entropy (over time, for lack of a better way of putting it.).
The two books:
What is probably the most-used textbook for quantum field theory:
Peskin & Schroeder
The Higgs is covered in chapter 20, I believe. I think you only really need to study chapters 1-7, whichever chapter has Goldstone's theorem (11?), 15-16, and 20 to get to the Higgs material and cover the basics of quantum field theory and the Standard Model, although this skips the deeper aspects of renormalization.
What you've said is mostly close enough that the difference doesn't matter much to a layperson. However this bit:
> Light does not pass through time (which doesn't make sense to me, but I read that somewhere) which is why it is always moving through space at the speed of light.
Is a bit off while also being a very interesting topic. I imagine the source of this statement is related to the fact that photons will always travel at the speed of light, relative to all observers. In other words, if I were to travel towards you at 0.5c, then shine a light towards you, the light would travel away from me at c while simultaneously (from your point of view) approach you at c, not 1.5c.
In essence, if you assume it to be true that the light moves away from me at c, and towards you at c, the only way to reconcile the two statements is that we experience time differently.
This incidentally is a really good starting point for learning about General Relativity (I heartily recommend the book Why Does E = mc² (and Why Should We Care?) if you find this interesting as it does a way better job of explaining it than I could).
One good example from that book is a thought experiment where you have two observers. One observer is on a train. He has with him an extremely precise clock that simply bounces photons from one plate (bottom) to another (top). For this observer, the photons are going completely vertically as long as the train is NOT accelerating. It critically does not matter whether the train is moving relative to the ground or not, only whether it's accelerating or not. However, to the observer on a platform as the train goes by, the position of the photon as it bounces off the bottom plate, is not directly below the point at which it hits the top plate. It's very close, as the train is not traveling at relativistic speeds, but it's definitely not directly above (picture it as a right angled triangle where the light just traveled the hypotenuse).
This means that even in something traveling relatively slowly, the light has traveled further for the observer on the platform, than for the observer on the train, despite being exactly the same photon traveling at exactly the same speed (c). How much further the light traveled depends on the relative speed. One of the interesting things about this though is that the time dilation effect is actually real and measurable even at relatively slow—certainly achievable—speeds. In fact, it actually effects things we use every day. Flights for example are fast enough that it's measurable, but more interestingly, GPS would not work for more than a few days at a time if the satellites we put in orbit for it to function did not take this effect in to consideration!
He was trying to learn.
I too like to learn with my belly. Sometimes I learn about food by eating it. Other times I try to learn about QFT by laying on my copy of Pesking and Schroeder.
My favourite is Kleppner-Kolenkow.
>Time surely existed before the big bang
Though I tend to agree that time did not 'begin' with the big bang, we definitely cannot say that it surely existed before the big bang. We cannot even say with certainty that time surely exists at all. It is feasible that the so-called dimension of time is nothing more than a byproduct of our perception of motion, and some physicists (Julian Barbour comes to mind most readily) have proposed models in favor of this view.
As for what came before the big bang, the only legitimate scientific theory to turn to would be the inflationary model. It says that our universe decayed from a false vacuum state that expands at an exponential rate. The false vacuum is unstable and decays at an exponential rate as well, but in most formulations of the theory its rate of expansion is greater than its rate of decay. This implies that the false vacuum state will never decay entirely.
Our universe, in the modern inflationary theory, is a single expanding bubble of true vacuum within a much larger false vacuum state. The transition from a false vacuum to a true vacuum state is the event we term the 'big bang.' Pockets of true vacuum such as our universe are continually forming within it, sometimes collapsing again and sometimes expanding eternally at the own much more mundane rates, but overall the expanding false vacuum should approach a steady-state condition in a manner similar to the steady-state model of our own expanding universe that Fred Hoyle favored over the big bang hypothesis.
(This is paraphrased from a passage in Alan Guth's book on the subject that really stuck with me. I hope I did it justice.)
EDIT: Though that inflationary model opens the door for what Guth called an "eternally inflating" false vacuum with neither beginning nor end, and definitely implies that the false vacuum should continue to expand infinitely, there are still mathematical arguments that have been made suggesting it still must have had a definite 'beginning' at some point.
For a non-mathematical but no-nonsense book about quantum field theory, I'd recommend
For a surprisingly good summary of the development of quantum mechanics, and also an account of a very interesting man's life:
And the now-standard textbook for my field (the start of which is suitable someone at a mid to high level of their undergraduate studies)
Griffiths > Eisberg > Sakurai > Zee > Peskin
Peres and Ballentine offer a more quantum information oriented approach, read em after Griffiths.
Shankar before Sakurai, after Griffiths.
In that order. Your best bet though, is to find the appropriate section in the nearest university library, spend a day or two looking at books and choose whatever looks most interesting/accessible. Be warned, it seems that everyone and their cat has a book published on quantum mechanics with funky diagrams on the cover these days. A lot of them are legitimate, but make little to no effort to ensure your understanding or pose creative problems.
Being an atheist doesn't come close to answering metaphysical questions? How do you explain work like https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093 which posit natural metaphysics?
“Computational Physics” by Mark Newman is a first class book to learn from. I was taught from it in my undergraduate career and I have repeatedly gone back to it for reference. The language is python so that might be a turn off for some people.
Start here.
Then go here.
When you're ready for the real thing, start reading this.
If you want to become an expert, go here.
Edit: Between steps 2 and 3, get a physics degree. You need to understand basically all of physics before you can understand anything properly in General Relativity. Sorry...
Edit 2: If you really want a full list of topics to understand before tackling general relativity, the bare minimum is special relativity (the easier bit) and tensor calculus on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds (extremely difficult). I'd strongly advise a deep understanding of differential equations in general, and continuum mechanics in particular. Some knowledge of statistical mechanics and the covariant formulation of electromagnetism would be pretty helpful too. It is also essential to realize that general relativity is still poorly understood by professionals, and almost certainly breaks down at large energy densities. I strongly advise just taking a look at the first two links I posted, since that will give you an excellent and non-dumbed-down flavour of general relativity.
Don't read Feynman. While it's extremely dense and good, it's also very unconventional and hard to understand if you don't know where it's going already.
I'd suggest Griffiths or Zee's Nutshell. While both are technically textbooks, i think you can read them very well without necessarily understanding all calculations.
Of course, those are damn expensive so you should better look for them in a library.
Author of two widely used undergratuate physics texts: one for Electricity and Magnetism and one for Quantum Mechanics. He also authored the somewhat-less-widely used (perhaps mainly because it's a specialist subject in most undergrad programs) Introduction to Elementary Particles.
Dennett's "Real Patterns" is a great place to start, and one of the cleanest presentations of the position I've come across. Lots of the literature on ontic structural realism (e.g. Every Thing Must Go) consists largely in a development of that idea, too.
Very briefly, the position is that there's no meaningful distinction between a "thing" and "the information content of a thing." Everything that we take to be a concrete particular can be equally well understood as a pattern in the time-evolution of some other stuff (which in turn can also be understood as patterns in other stuff). There are no fundamental objects: it's patterns all the way down.
Teleportation is not only possible, but already being done. Though, we are a looooooong way off from being able to transport a human being.
Time travel, according to some in theoretical physics, is possible. I personally do not believe it is, but some use the tenants of relativity to indicate that it would work.
Healing factors - not sure what you mean. But we are working on nanotechnology which some day may be able to be instructed to seek out and repair damaged cells while destroying disease.
Invisibility is again, not only possible, but already being developed. There are several experiments that have shown that you can cloak things, the science fiction fantasy of a personal cloaking device is probably a bit far fetched, but given enough time we might be able to. The only caveat is that our current understanding of how it would be achieved would leave you completely devoid of all incoming light so you would, too, be essentially blind. But it would be capable of housing a research facility (visually, radiation and other forms of detection such as walking up to it and trying to touch it would work).
I highly recommend reading Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku
Read this in high school it touches on ethics in a future society that uses these matter recreaters to teleport people. For example teleporting from an ambulance stretcher to a hospital bed instantly and how a group of people develops that thinks the soul or ghost gets left behind.
Books! Quantum mechanics in a nutshell or Quantum field theory in a nutshell
<3 Merry Christmas.
You can learn the math from Khan Academy (and a bit of the physics). Alongside that two good introductory textbooks are University Physics and Physics For Scientists And Engineers. Those two books will each cover everything you would learn in a first year university program. You can find them for a few bucks on abebooks but it's worth getting the newer editions because the modern physics section in the older ones is pretty thin.
This has been gone over many times. Please see here, here, here, and here.
For anyone really interested in a lot of this stuff, especially the physics-related sutff, I STRONGLY recommend reading Michio Kaku's (yeah, that guy) writing. Especially "Physics of the Impossible".
He writes a lot about what it would take to change the future of humanity, and the related impacts on a real level.
I live in NZ and recently read his 'Physics of the Impossible' book, where he refers to the Kiwi as a 'flightless bird from Australia'. &#3232;_&#3232;
Still loved the book, just made me chuckle.
Friend asked for a similar list a while ago and I put this together. Would love to see people thoughts/feedback.
Very High Level Introductions:
Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):
Blending the line between pop-sci and mathematical (these books are not meant to be read and put away but instead read, re-read and pondered):
You're definitely asking the right question. It doesn't explain. To be fair, it's difficult to explain without some math (it's in Kleppner and Kolenkow, if you have a copy available to you).
But I think it is a deficiency in the blog write-up. Presumably the author wants this kind of feedback.
If you really want to learn quantum mechanics check out this intro book by David Griffiths. It assumes you know some calculus but that's about it.
In addition to the historical perspective provided by /u/Luolang, there are antimetaphysical trends in more recent literature as well. (I've heard tell that the authors of the former misinterpret the latter, but it's anti-(analytic) metaphysics either way so I include it here).
e: Additionally, of course, there are also the sceptical philosophers of history, people like Pyrrho, Arcesilaus, Carneades, Sextus Empiricus, who to varying degrees made arguments against the possibility of any knowledge whatsoever (sometimes even the knowledge that one cannot have any genuine knowledge), not just metaphysics.
Thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger are also anti-metaphysics, at least ostensibly, but not really in the way you mean, so I won't go into detail here without prompting.
I've been thinking about buying QFT in a Nutshell. Better than Peskin & Schroeder ?
Try reading Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku. It's not at all utterly ridiculous for a civilization to be advanced enough to travel long distances. Rather than staggeringly improbable, it's likely.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0385520697
Crop circles, inside out cows, "dropping by a trailer park"... I guess you completely missed the story of missile de-activations caused by saucers. It's been going on for decades.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDsveTvupY
But go on, be a skeptic. Don't open your mind.
Really interested, actually! But I'm curious about a few things:
When exactly will it start in January? And when will it end? Will it be in the evenings? Which days of the week?
Will we need a text book? I have a Dover book on basic analysis already which I haven't cracked open.
Where will the class be held?
I had an incredibly hard time with calculus as a university student. I took it 5 times because I kept dropping it or withdrawing or not getting a passing grade. I almost got kicked out of my program because I pushed the limits of how many times I could repeat the course. There was a general disinterest on my part, but now, almost 10 years later, I am much more fascinated and genuinely interested in math, number theory, and also in many ways, analysis.
I started reading a book recently that finally explained what calculus actually was in simple terms. I feel like it's the first time that was ever done for me and I can say that helped my interest.
Anyway, I'd really hope to attend your class! The reason I'm curious about exact start date is that I'll be away from the HRM until mid-January. And it's a bummer to miss the first few classes of anything!
Start off with a good undergraduate level book, such as Griffiths, you need a good grasp of differential equations first. (I think you can pick up partial differential equations through the course since most problems in introductory QM are separable and they walk you through the separation)
MIT has these resources, but unless you are a prodigy, I think you'll need a textbook with descriptive explanations to really get it.
If you're searching for free information, I'm not going to tell you to search torrents for "quantum mechanics" and "ebook" because that would be unethical. (being sure to select "file scan")
But a good place to start might be like this
Its bad reputation amongst scientists is probably due to ignorance more than anything else (I don't say that to diss scientists. Lots of philosophers, likewise, don't know much about science beyond the basics.)
As for the science-heavy philosophers (that is, philosophers who try to engage heavily with empirical science in their work), its bad reputation is due to a variety of factors. You can get a taste by reading a few pages of the first chapter of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093#reader_0199573093
I think it's important to keep in mind order of explanation: it's not clear to me that, say, having greater knowledge of science leads to having a lower opinion of analytic metaphysics. Rather, I suspect that the reason "science-heavy philosophers" become science-heavy philosophers is because they are antecedently skeptical of the value of metaphysical inquiries that don't engage heavily with the sciences.
Absolute beginners? The local high school textbook.
If you know calculus then I'd sugguest Young & Freedman's, because mechanics knowledge is paramount. Futhermore the book covers electromagnetism, waves, some special relativity, and dabbles in advanced topics. It was used almost the entirety of my first year at uni.
You can easily choose an older version if you don't want to pay so much.
> yet to see a persuasive argument against number two
Look up Bell's Inequality.
Or this: https://smile.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Einstein%C2%92s-Relativity/dp/0465025269/ref=sr_1_3
Or this: https://smile.amazon.com/Quantum-Universe-Anything-That-Happen/dp/0306821443/ref=sr_1_4
Virtually no math in these that Oz's Scarecrow couldn't understand.
(Former) theoretical physicist here, with a few years of college teaching experience.
A lot of the recommendations provided so far by other people here emphasise a mathematical background, which is definitely important and necessary if you're going to pursue physics in the long term. However, when starting, it's easy to get sidetracked by the math and lose sight of your stated goal, thereby getting discouraged.
Therefore, my best advice is to start with a solid conceptual book and build up from there, depending on your interests and knowledge. As for the math, learn as you go until you feel that you want to dive deep into a particular subject in physics, at which point you'll know what math you'll need to learn in depth.
An excellent conceptual start is Hewitt's Conceptual Physics.
Other good starting point books are Feynman's Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces.
Hewitt's book is a more traditional textbook-style text while Feynman's books are more free-style.
From there, the Feynman Lectures in Physics are challenging but extremely rewarding reading.
Once you've gone through those, you'll be in great shape to decide on your own what you want to read/learn next.
Also, as already suggested, online resources such as MIT's Open Course are highly recommended.
Best of luck!
Use:
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Physics-Self-Teaching-Guide-Guides/dp/0471134473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1265739762&amp;sr=8-1
This as a starter if you are completely new to physics, it is a non technical book with not a lot of math in it
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-IB-Diploma-K-Tsokos/dp/0521708206/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1265739900&amp;sr=1-2
and
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-IB-Diploma-Study-Guides/dp/0199151415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1265739900&amp;sr=1-1
The IB books should be fine, you do not need highly technical college textbooks that may or not have answers and solutions with them. The IB course also covers basic university physics so you should be fine.
As for video supplements:
http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/fundamentals-of-physics/content/syllabus
http://khanacademy.org/ for basic theory and some calculus help
You might want to ask http://www.reddit.com/r/physics though.
I also hope you have a good calculus background, it is pretty much essential.
This is also a good online supplement
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html
here you go
Here and here. You can also check out a local library if you just want to review.
What are you trying to be? Have one book just slightly deeper than Greene's book, or actually learn theoretical physics to say become a theoretical physicist or at least understand it?
If the former, it will be difficult as there's a lot of things that might be tacitly assumed that you know about more basic physics. However, a very good intro to Quantum Mechanics is Shankar. I'd also look into Foster and Nightingale's relativity book for a brief introduction to special (read Appendix A first) and general relativity. Maybe after both try A. Zee intro to QFT if you want to learn more about QFT. If you want to learn about phenomenological particle physics, say look at Perkins. Also it may help to have a book on mathematical physics, such as Boas or Arfken. (Arfken is the more advanced book, but has less examples). Also it may help to get a basic modern physics book that has very little math, though I can't think of any good ones.
If the latter than you will have to learn a lot. Here's advice from Nobel Laureate theoretical physicist Gerardus t'Hooft.
It's https://www.amazon.com/Munson-Young-Okiishi%C3%82s-Fundamentals-Mechanics/dp/111884713X
That's the beauty of Buddhism. In an interview with Carl Sagan, the Dalai Lama said that if something in Buddhist beliefs did not align with scientific understanding, then it would make sense to discard that belief.
I believe that Buddhists have taken inner exploration into the realm of mental science. Their meditation techniques have a linear path that one can follow if they want to achieve an experience like OP talks about.
Anyway, I'll stop going on about it, because this is a wonderful topic and I don't want to write an essay at the moment. All I meant to say is that if one is interested in learning about the intersection between science and spirituality that I recommend this book:
The Dancing Wu-li Masters
Start with Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#Field
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/#OntStrReaOSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1456405155&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=everything+must+go+science
https://www.amazon.com/Bit-Physics-Information-Frontiers-Collection/dp/3319129457/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1465986246&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=it+from+bit
Not that wikipedia is a good source, but it actually explains modern quantum field theory pretty well in the first few sentences. Which is good for context before moving into sep articles. In short, particles aren't tiny balls like people thought 150 years ago. Fundamental particles don't have size at all, but are points. Their only properties are effectively describable as something like data or information. The basic thing in existence is "fields" which are universe wide systems of interaction, and energy is basically just something a field is doing in a specific place. Fundamental particles are just a special excited energy state. Whats more, you can't really think of the information in the place as a distinct "thing" since it only exists in relation as a system.
Of curse the fact that they have no size is no problem for us. Because they can still be distances apart form each-other and relate in ways that add up to structure. And the field and energy is more structure itself rather than a "thing" because its all just a system of relations. Energy is just "capacity to do work." Yet is also the fundamental thing that exists in fields. Which sounds abstract until you begin thinking of it as information or data. And so this "capacity" is an abstraction that can be in a specific place. Since things change based on what is around them (gravity, etc) its even hypothesized that every point in space theoretically has information about everything else in the universe in it.
Physicalism is the generic modern term to replace the term materialism, but the more important term is ontic structural realism. Which is basically the position of taking physics as it is and saying that what it tells us is true. Which at this point means that all that exists is "structure" instead of matter. The term matter is only used now to refer to things that structurally add up to molecules and so then act like what classical matter was thought to. So it is a construct we use to make sense of the world, rather than anything real. Since to the chemist these abstract differences about molecular physics don't matter much to a to of macro scale practice.
Note of course that there's ambiguity here. The only properties fundamental things have are something like data or information. But is this information the same thing as what we normally use the word information to refer to in physics? Is it something else? Are these properties literally nothing but mathematical properties, or are they only isomorphic to them in some way? Is what we see something that exhausts existence, or is it an unfolded version of a more fundamental existence as in the physicist bohm's idea of implicate and explicate order? The truth is that there's more or less an absolute limit on our ability to answer some of these questions with pure science, because past a certain level, we can only get information about things indirectly. We don't even know why chemical structure is able to exist despite violating some of the principles of quantum physics. Since electrons shouldn't really be acting in the ways they seem to in electron bonds, and we can only see what's happening indirectly due to inability to directly see things on that scale. All of reality emerges from things we can only see indirectly, and so there's a limit to what we can say about it. After all, how can you "see" something that has no size?
---
Also, this is unrelated but there's many metaphysical questions that still exist despite science. Metaphysics isn't an alternate way to find things out from science. Its trying to answer slightly different questions, but with overlap in the middle on ones that both contribute to. For instance, philosophy of identity is something that science can help, but which also needs more work beyond just describing science.
I mean.
There's Griffiths and Halzen and Martin which are suitable for undergraduates. They'll teach you how to calculate scattering amplitudes and some phenomenology and stuff like that. Anything more complicated than that would probably require a QFT book, in which case I would recommend Peskin and Schroeder. Ironically, I feel like you would learn QED way better with P&S than any other typical standard model book.
I know the university I'm headed to is using University Physics. I have a PDF of it, if you want it. It basically covers all the fundamental physics using calculus, so I would definitely regard it as a post-IB book.
I've heard many say that Resnick and Halliday's books are the best out there. They are perhaps a bit old, but seem to be the favorite among undergraduates.
If you want a more intuitive understanding of physics, then The Feynman Lectures are a must. He covers some material that requires knowledge of undergraduate level physics, but a lot of it I've found to still be enlightening. The intuition you'll get is invaluable.
Michio Kaku goes into this in his book Physics of the Impossible. They made a TV series about it, and you should check out this episode
Seconded. Physics of the Future is a great read.
Another one to check out by him is Physics of the Impossible
You might want to look at this book. It's high level enough and Feynman does a good job explaining it.
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Physics-Self-Teaching-Karl-Kuhn/dp/0471134473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1481747179&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=basic+physics+a+self-teaching+guide
To be completely honest, neither Brian Greene books nor high school math are going to give you a genuine feel of what it's like to study physics at the advanced undergraduate or graduate level. That said, if you're interested, then I absolutely recommend diving in and seeing how far you get. Even if you eventually decide that you don't want to be a physicist, the quantitative and critical thinking skills you'll pick up are desirable in many other lucrative careers (e.g. finance, computing, etc).
As for intro physics texts, I highly recommend An Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow. This is about as close as an intro physics book gets to real physics (in terms of style, not content). It's not an easy read, even for students who already have a background in physics...but if you want to study physics, you'll have to get used to that. I'm not sure how much math you've seen, but you'll need to be comfortable with single variable calculus before reading a book like K&K.
If you haven't seen calculus yet, then I recommend focusing on math for now...physics without calculus is rarely more than memorizing equations and crunching numbers. This will definitely give you the wrong idea about what physics is like.
Landau and lifshitz mechanics is short enough.
http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Edition-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960
I looked at the free pages on Amazon and it does seem a bit wordier than the physics books I remember. It could just be the chapter. Maybe it reads like a book; maybe it's incredibly boring :/
If money isn't an issue (or if you're resourceful and internet savvy ;) you can try the book by Serway & Jewett. It's fairly common.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Raymond-Serway/dp/1133947271
As for DE, this book really resonated with me for whatever reason. Your results may vary.
http://www.amazon.com/Course-Differential-Equations-Modeling-Applications/dp/1111827052/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372632638&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=differential+equations+gill
If your issue is with the technical nature of textbooks in general, then you'll either have to deal with it or look for some books that simplify/summarize the material in some way. The only example I can come up with is:
http://www.amazon.com/Div-Grad-Curl-All-That/dp/0393925161/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372632816&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=div+grad+curl
Although Div, Grad, Curl, and all That is intended for students in an Electromagnetics course (not Physics 2), it might be helpful. It's an informal overview of Calculus 3 integrals and techniques. The book uses electromagnetism in its examples. I don't think it covers electric circuits, which are a mess of their own. However, there are tons of resources on the internet for circuits. I hope all this was helpful :)
Hello! I have the 6th edition of this textbook, it's a uni introductory course textbook. Typically uni physics will go into more math than H2 i.e. involve more calculus. PM me if you're interested!
Do the practice test at the College board first. It's somewhere on their site. Meanwhile order the other one.
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Physics-Study-College/dp/1457309211/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498518127&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=SAT+Physics
I got a new paperback version for $13 because there were no used at the time I ordered. But there seem to be used ones for $6.99+ $3.99 right now.
If there are some you get wrong and don't understand, give me a holler. I sometimes help people-- and I may be able to point you to something that helps you understand or just explain it. (I'm waiting to hear how some of the kids on the AP thread did! Fingers crossed!)
I'll be out of internet distance from July 10-July 29 so ask sooner rather than later. But you can private me or ask here and hope someone else might help. Other people sometimes help too. (It may seem amazing, but it never hurts to ask.)
Barron's is fine. But some of the Barron's questions were fine but sometimes hilarious. I read them answers to my husband and we just laughed. (It was the type that gives a bunch of things that might be true. Then the answers are like
(a) I, II, and IV
(b) I and II only.
And so on for c-e. But some of the options were like:
I "X is larger than Y"
II "Y is larger than X"
Obviously I and II can't both be true! So you could narrow down without knowing any physics. The actual SAT test never had anything like that. (But the content was mostly the same.)
That said: The SAT book is best for its practice tests. What it's not good for is teaching. It explains answer but really it's just practice tests.
None in the SAT book where that bad.
What I would suggest:
Introduction to Modern Optics by Fowles. It's short and to the point.
The Oxford Solid State Basics by Simon. The author also has lectures posted on his website that are fantastic. Additionally, Roald Hoffmann has a series of papers that introduce solid state concepts that are useful for chemists. They're very worthwhile reads. Here, here, and here.
Computational Physics by Newman. I find this really easy to read and understand. A lot of people around here recommend it.
I used this during my undergrad:
https://www.amazon.com/Computational-Physics-2nd-Nicholas-Giordano/dp/0131469908/
There's also this, that seems highly reviewed:
https://www.amazon.com/Computational-Physics-Mark-Newman/dp/1480145513/
The Giordano book probably requires a basic physics/math background (caluclus, linear algebra, classical mechanics, electricity/magnetism, basic quantum). Dunno about the other.
With a year of physics you can start to work through this book https://www.amazon.com/Computational-Physics-Mark-Newman/dp/1480145513/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1499909731&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=physics+python
I learned Python with it and I really enjoyed it. I tried the different free online courses that ran you through the basics but I lost interest. What kept me going was seeing immediately how Python can be used to solve various physics problems. I would say you can easily get through this book this summer before graduate school.
Edit: Forgot to mention that there are a few chapters online for free if you want to look through them before buying the book. With your background the problems will be really straight forward, but I would say that would help you focus more on learning Python, but still doing physics (which makes it more fun).
Sort of depends on the type of book you're looking for but here are some of my faves in no particular order: Illusions, Stalking the Wild Pendulum, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Dancing Wu Li Masters, The Holographic Universe, Center of the Cyclone, True Hallucinations, The Archaic Revival, Be Here Now.
I'm not big on monism, but I think it's interesting that modern inflationary cosmology is philosophically compatible with substance monism. You could see everything, all matter and energy, as a manifestation of or interaction between the underlying energy of the quantum vacuum.
I'm not reaching for some Dancing Wu Li Masters synthesis, or preaching woo, but for those who do want to find some link between philosophy and science, I think the philosophical ramifications of inflationary cosmology, and stochastic processes like evolution, deserve more attention than they get.
The first one can be learned from Griffiths' text, but it's definitely an 3rd/4th year physics textbook. If you have a strong background in math, though, much of the physics can probably be gleaned quickly enough from online introductory material.
As for the second, I've been told that Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem is a great read, but I haven't taken the time to check it out yet.
Barbour talked about 'memory' as that which creates a perception of time ...
https://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Next-Revolution-Physics/dp/0195145925
The OP had a question about Julian Barbour's "End of Time". Barbour is a physicist with an iconclastic view of the nature of spacetime. He views the perception of reality as a string of jumps from one frozen configuration of energy in spacetime to another. Each of these "time capsules" contains a complete history of its past.
However, the reply by Tom (who hasn't read the book) didn't really respond to the question. As you say, it's mostly pontificating. However, the quotes from the Buddhist sources are quite interesting, and many of them are entirely consistent with Barbour's thesis. Tom does present what amounts to a dual of Barbour's thesis: "...the way that's experienced is that you feel that you (Buddha Mind) are absolutely still in the midst of a world of absolute motion..."
In Barbour's view, you are jumping through independent worlds of absolute stillness.
All worlds energetically allowable exist. Transitions between them are those with the highest probability, and the transitions may not be unique.
I recommend Barbour's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195145925/qid=1140375254/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9273098-8804053?s=books&amp;v=glance&amp;n=283155
Well, the truth of the matter is the question of the limitations of human reason to grasp knowledge of what is real is a very old one going back as far as the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in 1781 and has gone through a lot of radical development since then. In NDT's defense, this is a hard question of contemporary philosophers working in epistemology today, let alone an astrophysicist working on other matters.
In my opinion, I think Tyson comes from a generation of scientists who have, for understandable reasons, become exhausted with talk of the philosophical foundations of science. About a century ago, which is not long ago as for philosophical progress, the dominant view in what would come to be called philosophy of science was to rid science of any sort of metaphysical propositions. By metaphysical propositions, I don't mean the kind of pop-metaphysics of energy crystals and auras but claims about reality itself, such as "everything which exists reduces to particles," which they believed weren't wrong, just lacking any cognitive meaning.
When this view, called logical positivism, failed to achieve its goals for various reasons as well as a number of crippling critiques from the following generation of philosophers, I'd surmise that this generation of scientists, beginning in the 1960's, had become exhausted with all the philosophy talk and settled for some kind of "shut up and do science" mentality with elements of positivism, Karl Popper's falsification, and such like we find in Richard Feynman. This is the generation I think Tyson sympathizes with.
That said, I'm hopeful that the latest generation of scientists are more open to philosophical investigation of the epistemological and metaphysical commitments or foundations of science. A great book to pick up toward this end, though of course difficult philosophy, is Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized.
(note that these are broad strokes and speculation of a philosophy graduate which may not be 100% historically accurate but I figured interesting enough to share)
Everything must go by Ian Ladyman and Don Ross might also interest you.
Depends on your level, but any book with a title not far away from "Introduction to quantum field theory" will do the job if you already know a lot of physics. For instance, this is the text book of the introductory course at my university. But it is for people with a bachelor in theoretical physics.
That's perfect then, don't let me stop you :). When you're ready for the real stuff, the standard books on quantum mechanics are (in roughly increasing order of sophistication)
By the time you get to Shankar, you'll also need some classical mechanics. The best text, especially for self-learning, is [Taylor's Classical Mechanics.] (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372650839&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=classical+mechanics)
Those books will technically have all the math you need to solve the end-of-chapter problems, but a proper source will make your life easier and your understanding better. It's enough to use any one of
When you have a good handle on that, and you really want to learn the language used by researchers like Dr. Greene, check out
Aside from the above, the most relevant free online sources at this level are
You might be interested in the book Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. It does a good job of explaining, without getting too technical (you can actually skip the few math parts if you want, but they keep it simple), what that speed limit is and where it comes from.
I highly recommend it if you are really curious about this. It is very enlightening and easy to read.
Brian Cox writes some good books like this. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Why does E=MC2
But following the links of related titles will probably help you a lot.
The elegant universe is also a really good book... somebody else mentioned it, just want to say that I support that thought. :)
It is discussed excellently by Michio Kushi in Physics of the Impossible.
The Physics AS/A Levels are a funny lot of modules; I believe they're designed to be doable without any A Level-equivalent Maths knowledge, so they're riddled with weird explanations that really try to avoid maths - which often just makes everything harder in the long run. (I did AQA Physics A, but all were pretty similar as far as I gathered.)
With that in mind, if you're looking to study Physics further on, I'd recommend supplementing your mathematics. If you're doing Further Maths, you probably needn't bother, as the first year of any university course will bore you to death repeating everything you learnt about calculus etc.; if you're doing single Maths, I'd recommend getting confident with C1-4, and maybe purchasing the Edexcel (Keith Pledger) FP1/FP2 books to get slightly ahead before uni. They're great books, so might be useful to have for Y1 of uni and reference thereafter regardless. I was quite put off by the attitude towards Y1 maths of the Further Maths people (about half the cohort), who kept moaning about having done it all already, so found focusing in lectures a tad harder; I wish I'd bothered to read just a little ahead.
The second thing I'd recommend would be reading fairly broadly in physics to understand what aspect in particular you enjoy the most. In my experience, the students who have even a rough idea of what they want to do in the future perform better, as they have motivation behind certain modules and know how to prioritise for a particular goal, e.g. summer placement at a company which will look for good laboratory work, or even as far as field of research.
To that end (and beginning to answer the post!), books that aren't overly pop-science, like Feynman's Six Easy Pieces/Six Not-so-Easy Pieces are good (being a selection of lectures from The Feynman Lectures). Marcus Chown does a similarly good job of not dumbing things down too much in Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You and We Need to Talk About Kelvin, and he talks about a good variety of physical phenomena, which you can look up online if they interest you. I could recommend more, but it really depends how you want to expand your physics knowledge!
E - darn, just read you're not in the UK. Oops. Mostly still applies.
All the video sources I'm finding seem... spotty, but Richard Feynman's lectures on physics are the best in my opinion. He starts out with the basic foundations modern physics and progresses into much more difficult territory. They're well written, and definitely a good read for anyone who wants a basic understanding of physics.
I have these copies of his lectures which I like because they split up the easy and the hard topics in to separate books. But this is just personal opinion, and there are many, many copies of his works out there.
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
The Theoretical Minimum is an outstanding series of books. It goes beyond most popular physics books, demanding that the reader learn a bit more math, but isn't overwhelming.
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&amp;tag=duckduckgo-fpas-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=2025&amp;creative=165953&amp;creativeASIN=0465075681
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681
There's a lot of fun and interesting physics and astronomy that can be understood with little more than solid algebra skills. Add a little bit of introductory calculus, and there's a lot to keep you busy. If you're brave enough to dive into calc, I recommend this book.
Since you expressed particular interest in Astronomy, I would suggest using that as an anchor point. Get a good Astrophysics text like An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and start there. Inevitably, you will come upon concepts that you're shaky on-- luckily this is the age of the internet! I find HyperPhysics is a great resource (which appears to be down at the moment).
If you find that Newtonian physics is tripping you up, I recommend Basic Physics: A Self-Teaching Guide to fill in the gaps.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Physics-Self-Teaching-Karl-Kuhn/dp/0471134473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1453932112&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=introduction+to+physics
The books others have suggested here are all great, but if you've never seen physics with calculus before, you may want to begin with something more accessible. Taylor and Goldstein are aimed at advanced undergraduates and spend almost no time on the elementary formulation of Newtonian mechanics. They're designed to teach you about more advanced methods of mechanics, primarily the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations.
Therefore, I suggest you start with a book that's designed to be introductory. I don't have a particular favorite, but you may enjoy Serway & Jewett or Halliday & Resnick.
Many of us learned out of K&K, as it's been something of a standard in honors intro courses since the seventies. (Oh my god, a new edition? Why?!) However, most of its readers these days have already seen physics with calculus once before, and many of them still find it a difficult read. You may want to see if your school's library has a copy so you can try before you buy.
If you do enjoy the level of K&K, then I strongly encourage you to find a copy of Purcell when you get to studying electricity and magnetism. If you are confident with the math, it is far and away the best book for introductory E&M—there's no substitute! (And personally, I'd strongly suggest you get the original or the second edition used. The third edition made the switch to SI units, which are not well-suited to electromagnetic theory.)
By the way: if you don't care what edition you're getting, and you're okay with international editions, you can get these books really cheaply. For instance: Goldstein, S&J, K&K, Purcell.
Finally, if you go looking for other books or asking other people, you should be aware that "analytical mechanics" often means those more advanced methods you learn in a second course on mechanics. If you just say "mechanics with calculus", people will get the idea of what you're looking for.
Try looking on the course webpages such as for CS 31 and CS 32. Attempt to do the problems before learning the material for CS 33. This will test your understanding and solidify what you already know. Some of their homework problems are extremely challenging, but in most cases, the homework problems will not change from year to year that much. This means that if you start now, you will be done with the homework by the time you get here. This is awesome because your grade for these classes are all from your homework. The textbooks used for these courses are RHK, K&K, and Feynman.
While you're at it, you might want to start learning linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, and partial differential equations.
Source: I graded homework for CCS Physics.
J. R. Gott
> The only time travel that is possible is perception based
No, it's really something more fundamental than just perception. For example, in the classic twin-paradox setup, one twin stays on earth and observes his brother moving quickly. So, he sees his brother aging slowly. If his brother then slows down and comes back to Earth, he is actually younger than his twin. (Note that this situation is asymmetric due to the acceleration of the traveling twin - that's a whole other story if you want to get into it).
So I'd argue that it's not just a perceptual thing, time travel actually occurred. The now-younger twin has "traveled to the future" since he has aged slower than his Earthly twin. If you're interested in thinking about relativity, as it seems that you are, I highly highly recommend this book: Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. It discusses how relatively allows time travel to both the future and the past, and is written for people without a science background. (The travel to the past part is somewhat controversial - Gott (the author of that book) and Hawking argue about this)
Again, the domains of physics themselves describe it. I can't give you years of physics edcuation on a reddit post. Do you have multivariable calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra? If so, then you can read the descriptions. And here's what you asked for:
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutshell-nutshell/dp/0691140340
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527406018,subjectCd-PH20.html
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Molecules-Solids-Particles/dp/047187373X
Those three intros will give you a decent (though not complete) description of what matter is.
I'm no physicist. My degree is in computer science, but I'm in a somewhat similar boat. I read all these pop-science books that got me pumped (same ones you've read), so I decided to actually dive into the math.
&#x200B;
Luckily I already had training in electromagnetics and calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra so I was not going in totally blind, though tbh i had forgotten most of it by the time I had this itch.
&#x200B;
I've been at it for about a year now and I'm still nowhere close to where I want to be, but I'll share the books I've read and recommend them:
&#x200B;
I'm available if you want to PM me directly. I love talking to others about this stuff.
LOL, if 3TB is measly, my 10GB of maths, physics and computer science books must be microscopic! I think I have Bibliophilia for the subjects. It took me 10 years to collect all of them, so it's a very filtered collection. It's pretty much books like this one:
http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/
and this one
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutshell-nutshell/dp/0691140340/.
Djvu is an AMAZING format for books.
For Variational Calculus, the best references are Landau and Lifchitz and Gelfand and Fomin. The former is really a mechanics book that incorporates variational calculus in a very rigorous manner that one would expect from a theoretical physicist. The latter is a straight-up variational calculus book. Both are relatively cheap (you can find landau for cheaper than the amazon price).
For non-commutative geometry, there is this classic paper. /u/hopffiber gave the classic references for the rest of the topics, although you should think about learning quantum field theory since all the applications of Lie algebras come from QFT and String Theory. There are some excellent notes by David Tong that you can find with google-fu.
As with most things you gotta know the basics. Start with classical mechanics. The best book is Landau's Mechanics, but it's quite advanced. The undergraduate text I used at university was Thornton and Marion. If that's still too much I've heard Taylor's book is even gentler.
Also, make sure you know your calculus.
Brush up on mathematical methods for physics. Learn Linear Algebra, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Multivariable Calculus, Complex Analysis, and Tensor Analysis. A good book would be this: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Classical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1291625026&amp;sr=1-7
E&M: http://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-Roald-K-Wangsness/dp/0471811866/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
or http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1291625100&amp;sr=1-1
Statistical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Statistical-Thermal-Physics-Frederick/dp/1577666127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1291625184&amp;sr=1-1
Quantum Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-R-Shankar/dp/0306447908/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1291625261&amp;sr=1-4
Any mechanics text targeted for the standard junior level mechanics course for majors will cover it. I used Fowles and Cassiday when I took it. I'm not really sure what else is standard. The standard text in grad courses is Goldstein, which should be approachable by an undergrad at least. If you're crazy and a classical mechanics junkie like I was as an undergrad, Landau and Lifshitz vol1 is a beautiful treatment (that you unfortunately probably already need to have seen the material once to appreciate. Oh well. Like I said: if you're crazy). The issue here is that sometimes undergrad courses will skip these (as I learned, amazed, when I was encountering other grad students that hadn't done Lagrangian mechanics before) so make sure you read those chapters and do the problems: quantum mechanics is done in a hamiltonian formulation, and quantum field theory in a Lagrangian formulation (the latter is because the Lagriangian treatment is automatically relativistici)
I never had a course specifically on waves. It's something you'll likely hit pretty well in whatever non-freshman E&M course you take. Beware though that some courses targeted at engineers will do AC circuits at the expense of waves. But the text is still useable to look into it yourself.
Another thread points out: the text was $960 on amazon-through-third-party, but directly from the publisher for $286
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002022.html
https://www.amazon.com/Munson-Young-Okiishi%C3%82s-Fundamentals-Mechanics/dp/111884713X
As for resources, I recommend:
Now, the following resource hasn't been released yet, but I think it's worthwhile to purchase because it's from the test maker themselves, and it features 2 full-length, previously administered (official) tests and several tips and strategies to score high:
idk about past exams, but you could always try collegeboard books which have 2 practice exams for each test.
Math (for both level 1 and 2) : https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Tests-Mathematics-Levels/dp/0874477727
PHysics: https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Physics-Study-College/dp/1457309211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1502221552&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=official+physics+sat
The subject tests are never released and so there are no past papers to be had. The College Board has 1 large book that contains 1 example of each type of SAT subject test.
SAT Subject Tests Book
Last year the College Board started publishing individual guides. The guides have 2-4 practice tests. There is not a guide for every type of test, but these are the most common ones.
SAT Chemistry
SAT Biology
SAT Math II
SAT Physics
SAT US History
SAT World History
Barron's in pretty accurate. If you are not satisfied, you can buy the official CB book.
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Physics-Study-College/dp/1457309211/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1WYQDZQPAJZCM&keywords=sat+subject+physics&qid=1555928863&s=gateway&sprefix=sat+subject+phy%2Caps%2C301&sr=8-2
"Computational Physics" by Mark Newman
https://www.amazon.com/Computational-Physics-Mark-Newman/dp/1480145513
There are sample chapters available if you want to try before you buy
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/cp/chapters.html
Not philosophy in any kind of traditional sense, but your description reminds me of this book on quantum physics .
Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1841882380/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_WyjrzbGTJCN7G
It has gorgeous pictures and pretty short sections that are decently easy to digest.
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Perplexed-Dr-Jim-Al-Khalili/dp/1841882380
this book gives a great overview imo
if quantum stuff is what you are into
Unfortunately no analogies come to mind that would simultaneously let you understand the concept and be able to move on to more advanced stuff without getting hopelessly lost in the shortcomings.
Quantum mechanics is really only the tip of the iceberg, and much of the material you'll find is geared for people that want/need to be able to apply concepts like spin in a mathematically rigorous manner. I would sincerely recommend Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed if you're looking for a discussion of the basics without requiring the math.
I still don't believe I truly understand quantum mechanics (and really, who does?) but having a math-heavy background made it a lot easier. Being able to attack the equations myself made it a lot easier to grasp difficult concepts, I don't even really know where to start explaining it without mathematical terminology getting in the way.
This book got me into it, I read it more than 10 years ago, but it's still relevant (it's not like quantum physics has changed a lot). It explains everything very well and it has a lot of illustration. Super easy, fun, didactic read.
I'm finishing up the tail end of an undergraduate introduction to computational physics using this book. I'm really interested in the a lot of this stuff, could anyone recommend a text book that we be a step up from this?
A few books to consider:
Backstage Handbook. ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. This one is... well... it helped me to understand some things about physics. Not all of it is relevant, and you'll have to draw some conclusions yourself as to how it all applies to audio engineering. At the very least, it's a great introduction to subatomic physics for people who aren't great with math. YMMV, but I found that a basic understanding of what sound waves actually do goes a LONG way. From there you can discern certain things like how ambient temperature and humidity will affect your mix.
The Business of Audio Engineering. Worth the price of admission, despite grammatical errors.
Mixing Engineer's Handbook. Might be worth it. Interviews with established recording engineers. Has some interesting info. Only the first half of the book is really worth reading, though.
Mixing Audio. Relevant information. Could almost act as a textbook.
That will at least get you started. I know that you're looking more for the mixing side of things, and that's great, but trust me on this. You will want to know as much as you can about all facets of theatrical/concert/special event work. THAT'S how you really get gigs.
I just read this and its absolutely amazing.
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Perplexed-Dr-Jim-Al-Khalili/dp/1841882380
I have a technical background, but I have no reason to work through the math as a casual reader. This is a great explanation of QM without delving into the mathematical aspect too far.
I dunno, the quantum world is extremely, extremely weird. Take a look into the classic double-slit experiment. If you are firing atoms through the slits and have a detector capable of sensing their passage over one of the slits, there will be no interference pattern. If you leave the detector there but turn it OFF, the interference pattern reemerges! The detector, by the way, is completely passive: it does not disturb the passing atom in any way save for being a large enough system for the atom's quantum state to "decohere" as soon as the detector's state is contingent on the atom's.
Try this book on for size. As an admitted layman myself, I found it a good overview of quantum mechanics and its implications, but I don't think anybody truly "understands" quantum mechanics.
Have you read the dancing wu li masters ? Its an oldie, but a fun and easy read.
Psychology is the social science related to human behavior.
Quantum Mechanics is the branch of physics that deals with the behavior of subatomic particles.
I'm not sure that the two subjects could be further apart.
For quantum mechanics, there are a ton of popular books on the subject. If you can ignore some of the sillier Eastern Philosophical rantings this is a pretty good introduction to quantum mechanics for someone without much education in Calculus, Linear Algebra, or classical physics.
http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Li-Masters-Overview/dp/0060959681
You might enjoy this.
Not occult in the 'requires the proper colored robe' sense, more in the 'nobody fucking knows this shit' sense.
http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0143113453/
http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Li-Masters-Overview/dp/0060959681
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Path-Kiyoshi-Kuromiya/dp/0312174918/
http://www.amazon.com/Oh-Thinks-You-Can-Think/dp/0394831292/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1402754744/
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Game-Theory-Martin-Osborne/dp/0195128958/
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-Vision-Possibility/dp/B006Q9RCV4/
http://www.amazon.com/Synergetics-Further-Explorations-Geometry-Thinking/dp/0025418807/
I don't know a single thing about you, who you are, what you are looking for, why you are interested, or why you care.
This just happens to be a great excuse to let people know about a couple books I care about.
A book is 'occult' by virtue of it containing information about which most people haven't a clue.
"Occult" anything need no special handshake.
Unfortunately, a good understanding of quantum mechanics requires a basic understanding of classical physics.
I would recommend "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukov. https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Li-Masters-Overview/dp/0060959681/ref=sr_1_1 "6 Easy Pieces" by Richard P. Feineman https://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277/ref=sr_1_1? My personal favorite is "Understanding Physics" by Isaac Asimov https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Physics-Volumes-Magnetism-Electricity/dp/B000RG7YPG/ref=sr_1_2? HTH
If you don't know much about physics I would recommend The Dancing Wu-Li Masters by Gary Zukov. That's one of the main books that got me interested in the field. Clearly written enough for a 9th grader to understand. Also, It explores some philosophical parallels to physics which I enjoyed quite a bit (don't worry, it's nothing like What the Bleep)
Also, if you'd like some insight on how a genius thinks, I would recommend Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman? It's one of my favorite books of all time. There's actually no science in this book - it's basically a collection of anecdotes from Richard Feynmann's life. He talks about his experiences in college, grad school, and working on the A-bomb in Los Alamos among other things. Incredibly entertaining stuff.
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
My first response is that probabilistic doesn't mean unpredictable - just the opposite in fact. It may not be possible to say with 100% certainty the outcome of any particular event but the predictions of Quantum Mechanics ultimately boil down to Newtons laws on a macroscopic scale leaving little doubt about the power of prediction. Besides there are quantum effects such as tunneling which happen but would be classically impossible (tunneling is when a particle with finite energy passes through a larger potential barrier). It's a fascinating subject and without a doubt a strange one.
The classical physics treatment is Griffiths: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131244051
I don't know your math background but it requires a minimum of linear algebra and ordinary differential equations. In reality you need partial differential equations as well but you can get an enormous amount out of it without them. Without knowing your specific background it's hard to tell where to start and it's such a broad subject (hell I've had over a year worth of courses dedicated to the subject not to mention subatomic physics which is basically a continuation of QM and I still don't understand it all) that starting at all is impressive.
It's worth noting that there are two completely different (but equivalent) formulations of QM developed independently. One is almost entirely formulated through matrices the other being through the schroedinger equation. I am personally not deeply familiar with the matrix formulation but if you are strong in linear algebra and weak on ODE/PDE that might be a place to start.
If starting with a text book is too much (and it sure would have been for me had I not been taking it as a course) try going through wikipedia just to see what makes sense and what doesn't. If you start doing some reading and have any questions feel free to PM me and I would be happy to answer as best I can or head over to r/physics - they are generally nice guys as long as the question is fairly specific. Best of luck!
Wow, thanks for the Reddit gold, that's awesome! It's been my pleasure to have the discussion with you. As for a good textbook, I have a few suggestions. For a pretty good broad look at optics from both classical and quantum points of view, give Saleh and Teich a look. For purely quantum stuff, my undergrad textbook was by Griffiths, which I enjoyed quite a bit, though I recall the math being a bit daunting when I took the course. Another book I've read that I liked quite a bit was by Shankar. I felt it was a bit more accessible. Finally, if you want quantum mechanics from the source, Dirac is a bit of a standard. It's elegant, but can be a bit tough.
Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics has a crash course in most of the linear algebra required to do a first course in quantum mechanics. It's not very complicated - you just need basic understanding of vector spaces, linear transformations and functionals, and inner products, with a little bit of practice using dual notation of vectors (not too much, just enough for the Dirac notation which the book explains). Griffiths' also has a good explanation of simple fourier series/transform.
The key thing is being able to do basic linear algebra without matrices since in most of the cases, the vector space is infinite dimensional. But spin is a good example where almost everything can be done with matrices.
Additionally, solving ordinary differential equations and using separation of variables for partial differential equations in 3-d quantum mechanics would help.
Group theory will be of help in more advanced classes. Dummit and Foote or Arton's books on algebra are decent introduction. They are a bit dense though. If you want a real challenge, try Lang's Algebra book. I don't know of any easier books though. My first algebra book was Dummit and Foote which can be done without any real prerequisites beyond matrix algebra, but isn't really well written.
Links to books: Griffiths, Dummit and Foote.
PS: I have ebooks of these two books in particular.
I do highly recommend Genome by Matt Ridley and A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It looks like Before the Big Bang might be a great idea too.
However, I'm noticing a bit of redundancy in your stacks and don't want you to get bored! In the presence of the other books, I would recommend Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale in lieu of The Greatest Show on Earth. (Although, if you're actually not going to read all the other books, I would actually go the other way.) Similarly, I would probably choose either to read the God Delusion or a few of the other books there.
Other recommendations: how about The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, and The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes? These occupy niches not covered by the others.
The popular expositions on cosmology all look supremely awesome, but you should probably choose half of them. Another idea: read just The Fabric of the Cosmos by Greene, and if you love it, go ahead and learn mechanics, vector calculus, Electrodynamics, linear algebra, and Quantum Mechanics! Hmm...on second thought, that might actually take longer than just reading those books :)
Fun book about this here
FWIW, the event-based metaphysics of Process Philosophy appear to be wholly consistent with Julian Barbour's theory of time. I suppose that both are basically relativism at its peak: there are very few absolutes left.
Eliminative materialism is, to be frank, just insane.
Much more consistent application of the Razor is the view that Every Thing Must Go.
I'd like to add to the list of sweeping assumptions also the credo of existential quantification that "There exists a thing (empty set or sumfink)".
I can't speak to your question, but for sure try reading "QED" by Richard Feynman. It doesn't cover the nuclear forces at all, and sadly omits polarization of light, but it is definitely accessible to the HS physics level, and has no scary math.
In fact, his explanation of why he doesn't need scary math to explain QED is as brilliant as anything else he has ever explained!
----
Also, I can recommend "Why does E=mc^2 ?" -- will look up author in a bit. The history of science is short, clear, and engaging (to me).
Edit:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760
I just read Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox. Can't say I fully understood it all (only an amateur physics buff) but found it very interesting.
Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?)
CS - CodeAcademy http://www.codecademy.com/ not bad intro stuff
Math - KhanAcademy https://www.khanacademy.org very well guided math, after you're done with that try a couple textbooks to round yourself off with the workbooks (they have odd problems solved) http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Ron-Larson/dp/0547167024/ http://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-13th/dp/0321696867/ (obliviously not free unless you know where to look, wink wink)
If you want to take the CS skills to the next level, you're gonna need a lot of practice and multiple books. More advanced/niche online classes are usually pay only.
Also, if you are willing to pay a bit, i can only but recommend this book (covers a lot of subjects in both classical and modern physics). It is filled with examples, exercises and solutions, all illustrated. It also makes a great deal of pointing out misconceptions and misunderstandings that people often make when learning about physics.
University Physics looks at you. Though, it's probably not a good bet for JEE (book is way too fat and may be discouraging for study). But the exercises were good.
I know I am late to the party but I took this info on how time is measured from my University Physics book.
Here is the mobile version of your link
I recommend "Physics of the Impossible" for a neat physics background read.
http://www.amazon.ca/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0385520697
It's great that you want to study particle physics and String Theory! It's a really interesting subject. Getting a degree in physics can often make you a useful person so long as you make sure you get some transferable skills (like programming and whatnot). I'll reiterate the standard advice for going further in physics, and in particular in theoretical physics, in the hope that you will take it to heart. Only go into theoretical physics if you really enjoy it. Do it for no other reason. If you want to become a professor, there are other areas of physics which are far easier to accomplish that in. If you want to be famous, become an actor or a writer or go into science communication and become the new Bill Nye. I'm not saying the only reason to do it is if you're obsessed with it, but you've got to really enjoy it and find it fulfilling for it's own sake as the likelihood of becoming a professor in it is so slim. Then, if your academic dreams don't work out, you won't regret the time you spent, and you'll always have the drive to keep learning and doing more, whatever happens to you academically.
With that out of the way, the biggest chunk of learning you'll do as a theorist is math. A decent book (which I used in my undergraduate degree) which covers the majority of the math you need to understand basic physics, e.g. Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Is this guy: Maths It's not a textbook you can read cover to cover, but it's a really good reference, and undoubtably, should you go and do a physics degree, you'll end up owning something like it. If you like maths now and want to learn more of it, then it's a good book to do it with.
The rest of the books I'll recommend to you have a minimal number of equations, but explain a lot of concepts and other interesting goodies. To really understand the subjects you need textbooks, but you need the math to understand them first and it's unlikely you're there yet. If you want textbook suggestions let me know, but if you haven't read the books below they're good anyway.
First, particle physics. This book Deep Down Things is a really great book about the history and ideas behind modern particles physics and the standard model. I can't recommend it enough.
Next, General Relativity. If you're interested in String Theory you're going to need to become an expert in General Relativity. This book: General Relativity from A to B explains the ideas behind GR without a lot of math, but it does so in a precise way. It's a really good book.
Next, Quantum Mechanics. This book: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat is a great introduction to the people and ideas of Quantum Mechanics. I like it a lot.
For general physics knowledge. Lots of people really like the
Feynman Lectures They cover everything and so have quite a bit of math in them. As a taster you can get a couple of books: Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces, though the not so easy pieces are a bit more mathematically minded.
Now I'll take the opportunity to recommend my own pet favourite book. The Road to Reality. Roger Penrose wrote this to prove that anyone could understand all of theoretical physics, as such it's one of the hardest books you can read, but it is fascinating and tells you about concepts all the way up to String Theory. If you've got time to think and work on the exercises I found it well worth the time. All the math that's needed is explained in the book, which is good, but it's certainly not easy!
Lastly, for understanding more of the ideas which underlie theoretical physics, this is a good book: Philsophy of Physics: Space and Time It's not the best, but the ideas behind theoretical physics thought are important and this is an interesting and subtle book. I'd put it last on the reading list though.
Anyway, I hope that helps, keep learning about physics and asking questions! If there's anything else you want to know, feel free to ask.
Was referring to this book and this one specifically. They are lectures by Feynman, yes. I'm assuming that they are pieces taken from that huge collection, but I'm not 100% sure of that. He was a wonderful teacher though, and if you have any interest in the subject, you should check it out.
Fortunately, special relativity isn't that mathematically intensive. If you took college algebra and trigonometry, it will be familiar to you. If you took calculus, it will be mathematically easy. Although the concepts are certainly difficult.
This book presents it at a very simple level.
This book and this book present some very interesting physics at a layman level. I'd suggest it to anybody curious about topics such as relativity.
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.
Any one any thoughts on "the theoretical minimum" by Leonard Susskind? Decent place to start?
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1538567639&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&amp;keywords=the+theoretical+minimum&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=41mYr5xwzeL&amp;ref=plSrch
I would STRONGLY recommend The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky. While not strictly focused on QM, it’s an excellent introduction to physics and some of the basic mathematics required.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Physics-Self-Teaching-Guide-Guides/dp/0471134473
Cool contest!
I like this physics book for college but it's slightly over 10.00, so if that is too far 1984 happened to have a price drop at the same time as prime day. Good luck all! Which deal should I take?!
Either homeschool them or send them to a mosque school. I homeschooled my kids and I support my mosque school. For physics I used Basic Physics. There is no reason why homeschooling or a mosque school shouldn't be better than public schools.
My undergrad was in pure math. My current focus is on applications of deep learning to computational genomics, but I can feel my lack of practical skills, so here I am...
As far as the study group, I was thinking of modifying the MIT program a slightly. For example, 8.01 is the standard freshman physics course there. It doesn't assume knowledge of vector calculus, linear algebra and differential equations, so it (generally) avoids lifting systems into three dimensions, or deriving equations (of motion) analytically from the diff. eqs. We can swap this course for
8.012, which does not shy away from the math. The course uses "Introduction to Mechanics". Since, I presume, most people who are up for this study group will have some kind of degree in science or engineering, swapping 8.01 for 8.012 (and so forth) may be the way to go. Thoughts?
I would assume that if you're a music major and "been good at math", you might be referring to the math of high school. In any case, it would help if you spend some time doing/reviewing calculus in parallel while you go through some introductory physics book. So here's what you could do:
Other than that, feel free to google your question. You'll find good info on websites like physicsforums.com, physics.stackexchange.com, as well as past threads on this subreddit where others have asked similar questions.
Once you're past the intro (i.e., solid grasp of calculus, and solid grasp of mechanics, which could take up to a year), you are ready to venture further into math and physics territory. In that regard, I recommend you look at posts by Gerard 't Hooft and John Baez.
Not really a physicist in the sense that I have a degree in anything but I am current an undergraduate doing research so I think I somewhat count.
The main reason why I became intrested in physics because, much to the annoyance of my friends, I never was satisfied to just accept that things work, I usually had to know why it worked. While it started off really being just interested in science in general, I became much more interested in physics when my parents got me this book when I was like 10. I was not able to really read most of it until I was older but even at that young age I could appreicate how amazing physics is. I mean if you tell a little kid that if he runs fast enough he is actually slowing down time how can't that kid just be amazed, especially before he understand how fast he would have to run to get that effect lol? Then throughout high school I always would just go on wikipedia and read through all of the astronomy and physics articles that I could understand. My high school education itself though was pretty shacky when it came to physics. I did not like much calc or physics and only a little chem so I became extremly scared to go to uni to major in physics. I went my entire first year of college undeclared since I was so scared that I would not be able to make it. I would have went longer undelcared but I needed to sign up to registar for the second year physics classes. Even though I was not offically a physics major I was enjoying college so much. Being surrounded by people who care about the same subject as I did was so amazing to me. I no longer felt weird and out of place for enjoying learning about the world. Even though I felt like i fit in better at college, even into most of my second year I was scared I would not be able to make it. Now though I feel so much better since I have started taking higher level classes and getting 3.5s or higher in them and also starting to do research. To me one of the best things about being a physics major at college(well probably any major really) is thinking about to over a year ago and how little was able to do compared to now. One year ago I had next to no understand of quantum mechanics, minimal understand of Special relativity, and only basic calculus knowledge. Now I feel so much more knowledgable about everything and I am amazed about how much math I ended up learning this last year. My research and physics classes have also helped me so much this last year with some personal issues I was dealing with this last 6 or so months, as it gave me something to focus on. Granted being in college also has caused a lot of stress. An "easy" class would only require 10 hours of home work a week to me right now. Due to this then I have gotten into the habit of getting minimal sleep and barely eatting during the school year since I just dont have time to do research, go to classes, do homework, and try to maintain an healthy lifestyle. Even though it makes me sound masochistic, I have in a way enjoyed being in that kind of life style as it makes me feel that I am actually earning what I am doing and I am doing this not because it is easy but because I want to go into physics.
Ninja Edit: just posted this and saw how long it was lol. Sorry if it seems a little ranty(dont know if that woud be the right word to use) but like I mentioned I have had some issues the past few months and think this was a nice little refection thing that I could do on myself about the past.
It is a fairly simple concept that you can easily look up and read up in more detail about (I suggest http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357 which includes a very good explanation).
It is simply a statement of probability. If you are a random human (and guess what -- you are), it is most probable that you will come into existence when there are more humans than when there are less humans (assuming you are not in some way "special"). If you don't understand this bit, don't waste your time reading further, as that is fundamental.
Gott expresses the principle in terms of confidence levels (as a percentage). e.g. We can be 95% sure we are in the middle 95% of the span of human existence, or we can say we are 50% sure were in the middle 50%. So confidence in the prediction drops as the prediction becomes more narrow.
It makes total sense, and I can't help you if you do not understand the concept (or are unwilling to read one of the many sources that describe it).
The current well-documented rise of human population is completely irrelevant to what we are describing (and is likely to be constrained by resource constraints and disease, anyway). You would have to be pretty nuts to think human population can grow geometrically forever, whilst it has a finite resource base.
Edit: You may also want to try and find this article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6427/abs/363315a0.html
>Okay, so I wouldn't bother going back in time. If there is no reason for something to happen, and you just said that I would have to go back in time because, as you admit, if I didn't have to, then it doesn't make any sense, then you accept that time travel, as described by just about every movie, is simply a silly notion.
Yeah, no. I didn't say that there wasn't a reason for the thing to happen, I said that I didn't know what the reason was.
> If my going back in time to get a car is dependent entirely on whether or not I have that car in my garage (which I think would be the criteria for any fiscally responsible person in existence)
Yeah, see, this is your mistake. Sorry, but all your fancy pants attempt at using formal logic did was make you look even more confused. You never actually explained why any of my scenarios were logically inconsistent (all three directly addressed your false assumption), you basically just moaned that you didn't like them. Probably because you don't like causal loops. Which is a failing of your mental faculties, not a fault with time travel.
If you need convincing that causal loops are not "silly", you should read up on closed timelike curves, which are what physicists call time travel when it happens within the general theory of relativity. There is a book called Time Travel in Einstein's Universe that might be of use to you. It discusses scenarios like this. They can be modelled mathematically, and so assuming ZFC is consistent, they do not lead to a paradox.
But of course, I'm sure to you the combined efforts of some of physics' finest minds are just some "lackluster explanation". Which I gather from context means "thing I refuse to understand".
> They are the least problematic because essentially magic is involved, its hand waving and saying "Yeah its there because its always been there"
No, they're least problematic because there are no causality issues at all. All this forth and back through wormholes and black holes creates a closed time like curve where the actions of an object traveling in time and interacting with itself leads back into exactly this path.
Also there's not really a bootstrapping problem. To our minds this looks like violating common sense, because we're so used to the arrow of time. However common sense never works very well with this kind of physics.
But on a quantum level such closed time like curves are formed from nothing all the time: virtual particle / anti-particle pairs forming and destroying themself, if you look at the equations the anti-particle is actually a "normal" particle moving backwards through time.
There's also an excellent pop-sci book, written by a theoretical physicist, that deals with all things time-travel, focusing on how this works in the Einstein view (general relativity) of the universe. I highly recommend reading it. The case of closed loop bootstrapping is covered exhaustively and even discussed as a possibility for how the universe may have come to be in the first place: Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357
Time Travel in Einstein's Universe.
Thanks. The HJE is usually included in a course on advanced classical mechanics. Landau and Lifshitz do a great job with it, but I actually prefer a more direct derivation.
A solid intro book to QM is Zetilli, but as others have mentioned you might want to learn some Classical Mechanics first and for that I recommend Landau or Goldstein. Landau is usually more of a grad book and Goldstein is an undergrad one.
My recommendations:
See also:
What's the Author / Title / Edition / ISBN?
Edit: Thanks OP
He posted it lower down. It's an engineering textbook.
Also I've paid 800 for a textbook 5 years ago. Law classes suck.
That said he can buy the binder ready for 170.
LOL someone is selling this book for 10 Grand
What the Fuck
I'm flabbergasted by your counselor's response. I mean, that's their job. Counselor's in my building set those up every year... complain?
As for books, it's you call, but I like Serway and Jewett. For review I've heard good things about Barron's.
Your one really difficult part is going to be lab experiments. That's going to be hard.
i can vouch for Serway & Jewett. It can be used for either of the four AP Physics very efficiently and explains things fairly well
Last I checked this was the book they were using: http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Raymond-Serway/dp/1133947271/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1419726345&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=physics+for+scientists+and+engineers+serway
Problem with "Smart Physics" the book is a joke, it doesn't explain jack. They force you to watch pre lectures that don't teach you anything, they force you to be in class for clicker questions. Smart Physics barely has any problems or any examples so as the other person said you can't practice. Look online and you will not find a single positive thing about "Smart Physics". First time I saw that book I thought it was the one they were using for non scientists and engineer because it has no rigor or substance to it.
That time I wasted watching those useless videos and time I wasted in class I could have spent reading a real book but because of the system I had to sit in class.
Physics for Scientists and Engineers explains things quite well and has a lot of problems to work on. Nice examples too.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Raymond-Serway/dp/1133947271
pardon, I meant this book https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Raymond-Serway/dp/1133947271
As far as I've seen, and can infer, it does not delve into Lagrangian mechanics. [I am still reading the book]. It more or less aims for a good basis in physics.
I have heard DJ Griffith's book requires a bit of advanced calculus. so I fear I may need to delve more into calculus before that.
I will check those two in due time :)
many thanks for the recommendations!
College board makes an SAT physics subject test book with 4 past released sat physics tests. I recommend it.
this book
I got mine on amazon it’s not too expensive.
I think you can only get the tests from a hard copy of the book (https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Physics-Study-College/dp/1457309211/ref=nodl_). If you’re taking the test this weekend you can order rn and get the book tomorrow with prime 😩😩😭.
Yep! https://www.amazon.com/Official-Subject-Physics-Study-College/dp/1457309211
Can anyone recommend books for computational physics?
I have some experience with programming but would like a book that additionally teaches a new language.
Any thoughts on:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1480145513/ref=ox_sc_mini_detail?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;smid=A2MZMG0JK9LPC2
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3527413154/ref=pd_luc_rh_bxgy_01_03_t_ttl_lh?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1
This is an interesting book with a different perspective
> Richard Feynman once quipped that "Time is what happens when nothing else does." But Julian Barbour disagrees: if nothing happened, if nothing changed, then time would stop. For time is nothing but change. It is change that we perceive occurring all around us, not time. Put simply, time does not exist.
The book Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed does an incredible job of explaining the strangeness that is Quantum Physics in mostly layman's terms. But due to the sheer and utter weirdness that is the subatomic world, there are some things that are just going to be hard to accept and/or even grasp.
Check out this book by Michio Kaku. He talks about the possibilities of this and other science fiction ideas. Interesting but light read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385520697/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?redirect=true&amp;tag=michkakutheop-20
If you check one of my links, you'll see hard covers are available.
There's even people listing the book on Amazon for $2000, $4,375, and $10,000.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/111884713X/ref=sr_1_3_olp?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1484839853&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=fundamental+fluid+mechanics+8th
Don't wait until last minute, and the bindered or binder ready pages should be exact copies of the hardcover.
>if you check the reviews you'll see that it's been printed with no diagrams, making it almost useless
No, that's not what bindered copies means. They're gonna be page for page copies of the textbook. In any case, if you shop early, the hardcover can be had for less than what you just imaged.