No Big Bang

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, I didn't.

I said that any explanation which can be understood by the lay public of any theory more complicated than Newtonian mechanics is going to be necessarily fundamentally meaningless.

Before college students who have an interest in physics chose this particular major, they had to start somewhere in learning about physics -- in other words, they had to be introduced to the basics of physics.

How did you and others even begin to learn about physics? You have to start somewhere.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Here's the problem: lay people cannot understand the basic theories/methodologies driving physicists to reach certain conclusions. They can't even understand the proper definitions involved in stating those conclusions.

Thus, when a text is written for the general public the concepts contained within are necessarily reduced to outlines of their true selves. Precise statements of terms are reduced to common language. Derivations are reduced to analogies. Approximations are stated flatly as fact, because explaining the circumstances under which they hold true would be equivalent to explaining the full theory in all its mathematical glory.

Every time one of these simplifications is made it reduces the value of the information contained in the text. Popularised physics texts have so many simplifications that they truly impart no physics knowledge upon the reader.

No physicist could recreate the theories contained inside one of those popularised books based on the information contained within. A properly written paper or review article of 50 pages on the same subject would literally contain thousands of times more information than would the popularised text. A single equation might contain tens of times more information.

Ok -- I missed this post when I posted.

So, given your explanation then, how did you and others begin to learn physics? You had to start with the basics, right?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MrFun


Ok -- I missed this post when I posted.

So, given your explanation then, how did you and others begin to learn physics? You had to start with the basics, right?

I think that you miss the point - you hve to learn and accept some nasty math wich isn't included in the bascis.

[Ramo]

You don't start with Cosmology or Quantum Field Theory. "Popular physics" type books on these subjects are next to worthless.

FWIW, Feynman gives a pretty good semi-qualitative overview of 19th century physics in his "Feynman Lectures" series.

I suppose that Taylor and Wheeler (in "Space-Time Physics") give a remarkably good semi-qualitative overview of GR too.

On another note, I'd like to add that Landau & Lif****z are the biggest badasses ever. Their books (at least on mechanics, classical e&m, and fluids) pwn all others. Despite being translated from Russian. Soviets

[Jon Miller]

Quick good satrt would be Fyenman's Lectures.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun


Ok -- I missed this post when I posted.

So, given your explanation then, how did you and others begin to learn physics? You had to start with the basics, right?

Yes. The basics are calculus, Newtonian mechanics, geometric optics, electrostatics, error analysis and circuits.

Then comes linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, complex-variable calculus, special relativity and thermodynamics.

Then comes partial differential equations, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Then comes differential geometry, topology, general relativity and quantum field theory.

And after you learn all these I will teach you cosmology and particle theory.

I didn't learn those things at the beginning, but at the end.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes. The basics are calculus, Newtonian mechanics, geometric optics, electrostatics, error analysis and circuits.

Then comes linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, complex-variable calculus, special relativity and thermodynamics.

Then comes partial differential equations, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Then comes differential geometry, topology, general relativity and quantum field theory.

And after you learn all these I will teach you cosmology and particle theory.

I didn't learn those things at the beginning, but at the end.

suppose you were going to do something other than be a physicist for a living. Would you consider the understanding that doing all of this would provide to perhaps still be worth it? Was finally gaining the best understanding of cosmology and particle theory worth all of the hassle even if it had only been for it's own sake?

I'm seriously considering undertaking the challenge to understand the rest of the steps in your list that weren't covered in my education even though I think it would take me decades to finish doing it in my own time.

[KrazyHorse]

It depends. You have to enjoy the learning. Simply being able to say "I understand this" does not make it worth the investment of time.

If, however, you look on the learning itself as a hobby, an enjoyment, then it is worth it. Physics is beautiful when you understand it. It's such an unbelievably simple subject at its very basics, yet layers upon layers of complexity emerge.

Don't be afraid to ask me any questions as you go, if you choose to.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes. The basics are calculus, Newtonian mechanics, geometric optics, electrostatics, error analysis and circuits.

Then comes linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, complex-variable calculus, special relativity and thermodynamics.

Then comes partial differential equations, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Then comes differential geometry, topology, general relativity and quantum field theory.

And after you learn all these I will teach you cosmology and particle theory.

I didn't learn those things at the beginning, but at the end.

I see

[Lorizael]

KH, JM, et al: how useful/useless would you consider the popular science magazines, Scientific American and the like, to be in helping to educate people on things physics-related?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
FWIW, Feynman gives a pretty good semi-qualitative overview of 19th century physics in his "Feynman Lectures" series.

Feynman's books

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael
KH, JM, et al: how useful/useless would you consider the popular science magazines, Scientific American and the like, to be in helping to educate people on things physics-related?

Pretty useless.

They're entertainment, nothing more.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes. The basics are calculus, Newtonian mechanics, geometric optics, electrostatics, error analysis and circuits.

Then comes linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, complex-variable calculus, special relativity and thermodynamics.

Then comes partial differential equations, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Then comes differential geometry, topology, general relativity and quantum field theory.

And after you learn all these I will teach you cosmology and particle theory.

I didn't learn those things at the beginning, but at the end.

Yay,

I am level 3 and a half !!!

Then I decided that pure fysics was nothing for me. So Physical Metallurgy and solid state physics it was...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Pretty useless.

They're entertainment, nothing more.

Should I cancel my subscription to Science?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis


Yay,

I am level 3 and a half !!!

Then I decided that pure fysics was nothing for me. So Physical Metallurgy and solid state physics it was...

I've atrophied to level 1.