Books on physics

[Nietzsche]

Hello,

I've recently become more interested in particle physics, cosmology, and other areas of physics. However, while being a science geek my scientific knowledge is more or less about biology and meteorology. Very earthy things.

I'm pre ordering a book called induction in physics that's coming out in July, but, I'd also like to learn about stuff like string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc. However, I am TERRIBLE at math, and many books I have seen are math heavy.

Are there any good books that introduce things like that, on a very beginners level?

[billl]

Hi, N.

I am a big fan of the sort of book you seem to be looking for. I think I know what you're looking for, anyhow... I could recommend 2 or 3, but this one (which you may have heard of) would, in my opinion be the best of the ones I've read:

Fabric of the Cosmos , by Brian Greene
http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205

I suggest looking it over at Amazon, looking for other people's opinions etc. to check if it might be a good one to try for you. By the way, he had an earlier book that became a TV show (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html) about string theory (and maybe only string theory, but I'm not sure). It was quite popular (I just saw a bit of the TV show), but after reading Fabric of the Cosmos, I wasn't too interested in the earlier book. It spends a lot more time on a narrower subject (though I'm sure a certain vastness is revealed in the depths), and most of it is dealt with, albeit in less detail, in the later book which I am recommending.

[mal4mac]

Greene's earlier book was "The Elegant Universe". Not a bad read, but remember that Greene is definitely in the string camp, so expect bias.

"Fabric" is quite long. I stalled in reading it about six months ago, but might get round to finishing as it wasn't too bad a read.

But I'd recommend starting with "A Briefer History of Time" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow - it's an update and simplification of "Brief". Hawking is not so wrapped up in string, so gives a broader view (and it's short...)

If you find yourself becoming cynical about all this string stuff try "The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next" by Lee Smolin. Or even better: Dickens :)...

[Nietzsche]

Thanks, I'll skip Induction in Physics and the other stuff, and start with "A Briefer History of Time" . Thanks for the recommendations.

[Vautrin]

Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein


Preface

"The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics." -- Albert Einstein

[mal4mac]

Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein


Preface

"The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics." -- Albert Einstein

I read this in the first year of my physics/maths degree and found it fairly tough going. You certainly need to be prepared to handle the kind of mathematics a first year physicist can handle - certainly not beyond Nietzsche I'm sure - but he did ask for a 'very beginners level'. It's available at:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

I do think it's best to read the best minds you can find in this area, and Einstein is certainly that. But the book is a bit hard and it's pre-string.

Given the state of chaotic stupor physics is now in (read Smolin!) it's difficult to say who the "best mind" in physics is at the moment. If you had a truly great scientific mind you'd be probably be working in another field right now. Genetics or climate science? Hawking has the best overall reputation over the last few decades. Greene is minor league. Of course Hawking isn't Einstein, but no one is. Feynman and Heisenberg have written great popular books on Quantum mechanics - but don't expect to understand it after reading them. The biggest flaw of Hawking's book is that it isn't very amusing, so I'd turn to Feynman after that! He not only explains physics really well, he's funnier than P.G.Wodehouse...

Popular books by the greatest scientists are the best to read in popular accounts because they are not afraid to show their weakness, and the dirt under the carpet... because they are so strong, showing weakness is a strength.

For instance, Feynman says he doesn't understand Quantum Mechanics, and Hawking says he can't properly visualize more than two and half dimensions. That's the kind of thing you want to hear when you're trying to understand these subjects ... not have some dumb science writer trying to pretend he understands everything about these subjects and leaving you feeling inadequate because you can't understand what the half wit is harping on about...