Accessible/readable books on Physics

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Can anyone recommend any accessible books on Physics that are actually readable? They need to be pitched at someone perfectly capable of reading big words but almost completely ignorant of the subject (Hi!).

Ones that include biographical stuff about the Physicists would be good.

[Guynemer]

I actually quite liked Stephen Hawking's books, but I imagine you've already read those.

[Dauphin]

"The Strange Case of Mrs. Hudson's Cat" may be of interest, if you don't mind the use of Sherlock Holmes as a plot device for telling a story about physics.

[Jon Miller]

I haven't read it, but you probably want something like Evolution of Physics http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...lSecurity.aspx or History of Physics or something else like that.

Something that developes things from the historic perspective while giving insight into the people involved.

JM

[Ecofarm]

I actually quite liked Stephen Hawking's books, but I imagine you've already read those.

+1

A Brief History of Time is great (and brief). I still rely on that book for part of my understanding of atomic forces and the theory of relativity. I know, that's basic stuff but he really helps to get one's mind around it and comprehend it thoroughly.

[Heraclitus]

Can anyone recommend any accessible books on Physics that are actually readable? They need to be pitched at someone perfectly capable of reading big words but almost completely ignorant of the subject (Hi!).

Ones that include biographical stuff about the Physicists would be good.

Are you really interested in physics or do you just want the feel good "we don't need math" magical version that we see peddled as "popular science" these days?

[Ramo]

The Feynman lectures are really where to start. Hawking's books are bull****.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I actually quite liked Stephen Hawking's books, but I imagine you've already read those.

Nope.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Are you really interested in physics or do you just want the feel good "we don't need math" magical version that we see peddled as "popular science" these days?

The Maths would be a pointless waste of time. I'm looking for a vague understanding of what Physicists do, not a PhD.

[Jon Miller]

I haven't read them, but my understanding is that the most commonly referred to of Hawkings books don't provide a development of physics, rather they try to describe to people where physics is currently at.

JM

[MrFun]

There's a video called "Down the Rabbit Hole" or something along that line.

[Traianvs]

Physics and Technology for Future Presidents:
An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know
Richard A. Muller

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html

His lectures (which you can view for free on the Berkeley site) are especially worth checking out. It's physics with a humorous twist, great demos to show you the principles of how physics work and he doesn't encumber his narrative with math. To be more precise you can manage with high school math knowledge

[Ecofarm]

The Feynman lectures are really where to start. Hawking's books are bull****.

ABHOT preludes (or pre-lucids) string theory for laymen.


It's theoretical (BS?) physics, not math. Few people might recognize the difference and not mistake one as a poorly-accounted version of the other. Alas, we have our limits.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics is a 1964 physics textbook by Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, based upon the lectures given by Feynman to undergraduate students at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1961–63. It includes lectures on mathematics, electromagnetism, Newtonian physics, quantum physics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fey...res_on_Physics


Look, I'm as much a luddite as the next guy but give me a fkn break.

[Jon Miller]

Trying to understand string theory without understanding the basics is just rediculous and stupid.

If you could actually read Feynman's lectures... they are way way better than having read ABHOT.

They are very good and complete (and serious) entry level undergrad.

JM

[Ecofarm]

I've an MSc and have my Phd quals this friday. I think I could read a 1964 undergrad text on physics.