4 ms·

off-topic a bit: does anyone have suggestions for paths for the layperson toward being able to reason and intuit about this stuff at one level beyond pop physic

by wcarss 9y ago

off-topic a bit: does anyone have suggestions for paths for the layperson toward being able to reason and intuit about this stuff at one level beyond pop physics claptrap? I have heard "the theoretical minimum" suggested in the past, but I haven't heard from anyone who has actually used it to go from zero to say, general relativity, only people who think it sounds good. It also seems like a steep investment -- I just want to have a decent enough grasp to separate sense from nonsense and hold a picture in my mind. One related thing I have wished existed was a good place to ask questions about and discuss topics like this while learning them, but it seems like in theoretical physics, everyone (including myself) has an infinite number of different stupid questions and misconceptions, to the point that we drown each other out, and answers to our questions often have little cross-applicability. So, would love ideas for either!

whatshisface 9y ago
The only well-traveled path to understanding physics starts at "highschooler with a lot of confidence in their math skills," and it takes four years minimum. Anything else is going to be a long shot, just by virtue of the fact that nobody's doing it (for the most part). Nobody has ever discovered a way to truthfully map physics concepts into English sentences that you can understand without having to have explored the entire definition tree.
- dictum 9y ago
  Concurrently, every attempt to map physics concepts into English is met by a barrage of "well, actually".
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    That's because the mappings always fail - not so much a concurrent thing as a consequence. (For comparison, you can say everything about Roman troop organization in English, because that's native to how the information exists in the first place. You won't get any "well, actually" about the size of a legion, because it involves words and concepts that everyone already knows.)
- shullbitt0r 9y ago
  Can we talk about how real the perceived mismatch between other "social", "humanitarian" sciences and the "natural" sciences is?
grondilu 9y ago
> has an infinite number of different stupid questions I think teachers often welcome any question. On coursera for instance teachers are usually available to answer students (via a mail-like interface though, don't expect to chat with them via Skype or anything). There are several courses on general relativity.
fao_ 9y ago
Feynman's lectures of physics are good for layman explanations, however they quickly feel lacking without the maths background, which you can fill in with The Theoretical Minimum. There's actually a video lecture series of the Theoretical Minimum series that you might find more approachable, that is if you haven't heard of it: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81 https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81 (Here for the general relativity playlist: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D, and here for the full list of playlists: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive) You say you haven't heard from anyone who has used it to go from zero to say, general relativity. You might want to look into the adult alumni of the class. EDIT: You might also find another HN post interesting, it's currently at the top of HN classic: "Learning classical mechanics through Haskell", here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192 (And a direct link to "Classical Mechanics via Scheme", https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...)
- amelius 9y ago
  A small note. The "Theoretical Minimum" is not just a book, it's also a website with video lectures for the complete material. See: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses
  - fao_ 9y ago
    I... I already linked to that?
- whatshisface 9y ago
  Feynman's lectures were delivered to an audience of graduates and faculty who had signed up for an introductory course because Feynman was teaching it. Reading the Feynman lectures without the math background will end up confusing you horribly - I know this because I've found them not-exactly-light reading even though I already (supposedly) know what they're about!
IntronExon 9y ago
Www.physicsforums.com has a ton of resources you may find useful.
cratermoon 9y ago
This was referenced recently here on HN: https://physicstravelguide.com/start https://physicstravelguide.com/start It's incomplete but there's some good stuff there.
21 9y ago
There are for-hire physicist you could pay for consultations: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-f...
dwaltrip 9y ago
Start with YouTube -- "Crash Course Astronomy" and then "PBS space time". Both programs are very well done, and give fairly rigorous yet entertaining overviews to cosmology and the related physics (PBS space time is the more rigorous one). Crash course is great because it touches on almost all major cosmological phenomena. For some of the videos, you may want to rewatch certain parts for understanding, or supplement with some brief research via google. This route provides a gentle, productive ramp as you make sure you really want to dive deep. I've done that and, ideally, I'd like to now buy some college physics books. However, I may have to delay this next step for quite a while due to some other higher priority goals... We will see if I get back to it. There is too much interesting shit and important things to do in the world, heh.
tzs 9y ago
I've not read this yet, but have paged though it a bit at a bookstore, and it looks like it has potential: "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311 https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/...
- tzs 9y ago
  Can anyone explain why this is getting down voted? As far as I can tell from examining it quite a bit at the bookstore, and from several reviews, it looks like it satisfied the request. Is there something about it that I have missed?
Balgair 9y ago
Honestly, the best place to do so is an astrophysics undergrad followed by an astrophysics grad program with a good PI. It'll get you there faster and better than any library or self-taught schedule. If you need to choose the self-taught route, look at a course catalog and then research the books they use. For Example: http://astro.cornell.edu/undergraduate-studies.html http://astro.cornell.edu/undergraduate-studies.html
abecedarius 9y ago
Thinking Physics: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable-Practical-Reality/dp/0935218084 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable-Pract... It's a little bit like The Little Schemer in that it often asks you a question and expects you to try to answer it before turning the page (or turning it upside down). The problems tend to go like "if you did this, would that (A) increase (B) decrease (C) stay the same" or "(A) increase by one (B) double (C) quadruple" -- to minimize technical machinery while still engaging you with genuine problems, not vague analogies. The same author has a book on relativity which looked very good from the first couple of chapters I read.

by wcarss 9y ago

whatshisface 9y ago

The only well-traveled path to understanding physics starts at "highschooler with a lot of confidence in their math skills," and it takes four years minimum. Anything else is going to be a long shot, just by virtue of the fact that nobody's doing it (for the most part). Nobody has ever discovered a way to truthfully map physics concepts into English sentences that you can understand without having to have explored the entire definition tree.

dictum 9y ago
Concurrently, every attempt to map physics concepts into English is met by a barrage of "well, actually".
- whatshisface 9y ago
  That's because the mappings always fail - not so much a concurrent thing as a consequence. (For comparison, you can say everything about Roman troop organization in English, because that's native to how the information exists in the first place. You won't get any "well, actually" about the size of a legion, because it involves words and concepts that everyone already knows.)
shullbitt0r 9y ago
Can we talk about how real the perceived mismatch between other "social", "humanitarian" sciences and the "natural" sciences is?

grondilu 9y ago

> has an infinite number of different stupid questions I think teachers often welcome any question. On coursera for instance teachers are usually available to answer students (via a mail-like interface though, don't expect to chat with them via Skype or anything). There are several courses on general relativity.

fao_ 9y ago

Feynman's lectures of physics are good for layman explanations, however they quickly feel lacking without the maths background, which you can fill in with The Theoretical Minimum. There's actually a video lecture series of the Theoretical Minimum series that you might find more approachable, that is if you haven't heard of it: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81 https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=189C0DCE90CB6D81 (Here for the general relativity playlist: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D, and here for the full list of playlists: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/archive) You say you haven't heard from anyone who has used it to go from zero to say, general relativity. You might want to look into the adult alumni of the class. EDIT: You might also find another HN post interesting, it's currently at the top of HN classic: "Learning classical mechanics through Haskell", here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16453192 (And a direct link to "Classical Mechanics via Scheme", https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm_edition_2/book.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/...)

amelius 9y ago
A small note. The "Theoretical Minimum" is not just a book, it's also a website with video lectures for the complete material. See: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses
- fao_ 9y ago
  I... I already linked to that?
whatshisface 9y ago
Feynman's lectures were delivered to an audience of graduates and faculty who had signed up for an introductory course because Feynman was teaching it. Reading the Feynman lectures without the math background will end up confusing you horribly - I know this because I've found them not-exactly-light reading even though I already (supposedly) know what they're about!

IntronExon 9y ago

Www.physicsforums.com has a ton of resources you may find useful.

cratermoon 9y ago

This was referenced recently here on HN: https://physicstravelguide.com/start https://physicstravelguide.com/start It's incomplete but there's some good stuff there.

21 9y ago

There are for-hire physicist you could pay for consultations: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-f...

dwaltrip 9y ago

Start with YouTube -- "Crash Course Astronomy" and then "PBS space time". Both programs are very well done, and give fairly rigorous yet entertaining overviews to cosmology and the related physics (PBS space time is the more rigorous one). Crash course is great because it touches on almost all major cosmological phenomena. For some of the videos, you may want to rewatch certain parts for understanding, or supplement with some brief research via google. This route provides a gentle, productive ramp as you make sure you really want to dive deep. I've done that and, ideally, I'd like to now buy some college physics books. However, I may have to delay this next step for quite a while due to some other higher priority goals... We will see if I get back to it. There is too much interesting shit and important things to do in the world, heh.

tzs 9y ago

I've not read this yet, but have paged though it a bit at a bookstore, and it looks like it has potential: "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose [1]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311 https://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/...

tzs 9y ago
Can anyone explain why this is getting down voted? As far as I can tell from examining it quite a bit at the bookstore, and from several reviews, it looks like it satisfied the request. Is there something about it that I have missed?

Balgair 9y ago

Honestly, the best place to do so is an astrophysics undergrad followed by an astrophysics grad program with a good PI. It'll get you there faster and better than any library or self-taught schedule. If you need to choose the self-taught route, look at a course catalog and then research the books they use. For Example: http://astro.cornell.edu/undergraduate-studies.html http://astro.cornell.edu/undergraduate-studies.html

abecedarius 9y ago

Thinking Physics: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable-Practical-Reality/dp/0935218084 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Understandable-Pract... It's a little bit like The Little Schemer in that it often asks you a question and expects you to try to answer it before turning the page (or turning it upside down). The problems tend to go like "if you did this, would that (A) increase (B) decrease (C) stay the same" or "(A) increase by one (B) double (C) quadruple" -- to minimize technical machinery while still engaging you with genuine problems, not vague analogies. The same author has a book on relativity which looked very good from the first couple of chapters I read.