4 ms·

If somebody hypothetically knows nothing of Feynman or physicals, would this be a good starting point? Or would you suggest this book as a follow-up to somethin

by unalone 15y ago

If somebody hypothetically knows nothing of Feynman or physicals, would this be a good starting point? Or would you suggest this book as a follow-up to something simpler and more immediately engaging?

irahul 15y ago
You don't have to know anything about Feynman or Physics. The book assumes a basic knowledge of Mathematics and Science, and that's all you need to understand it. But be warned - this isn't an easy book, and you can't skim through it. This is an extremely dense book; it builds on what it already has told you, which makes sense because "Observe, Reason, Experiment" is how you do science. To reason/deduce, you need to have a base and then you take it from there. When it introduces concepts that can't be deduced, it tells you that. Also, it clearly says analysis/logic alone isn't a killall - sometimes you just go the numerical method road(which is somehow similar to brute-force algorithm most of the times), and it gives you results which analysis alone can't. I am reading it a very slow pace, because the book is packed with information with no superfluous content, and many a times I have to stop to think about what it's telling me. I would recommend you read the first chapter "Atoms in motion" first. Well, I already knew everything is made of atoms(duh), but still, it presented things to me in a very engaging way. Some gists to give you a preview: Everything is made of atoms; water is made of molecules which are atoms in a bond; molecules are held together by mutual attraction; molecules always jiggle; the jiggle is represented as heat; you heat water - you increase the jiggling; increased jiggling loosens the mutual molecular attraction and some molecules escape, and you get steam. And molecules which escape are the ones which are jiggling badly; because the ones which aren't jiggling hard won't be breaking the mutual attraction; and when high energy molecules escaped, the net energy of the system is lower. Oh, and now you know why you feel cold when your sweat evaporates.
eschutte2 15y ago
I'd read Six Easy Pieces first.

by unalone 15y ago

irahul 15y ago

You don't have to know anything about Feynman or Physics. The book assumes a basic knowledge of Mathematics and Science, and that's all you need to understand it. But be warned - this isn't an easy book, and you can't skim through it. This is an extremely dense book; it builds on what it already has told you, which makes sense because "Observe, Reason, Experiment" is how you do science. To reason/deduce, you need to have a base and then you take it from there. When it introduces concepts that can't be deduced, it tells you that. Also, it clearly says analysis/logic alone isn't a killall - sometimes you just go the numerical method road(which is somehow similar to brute-force algorithm most of the times), and it gives you results which analysis alone can't. I am reading it a very slow pace, because the book is packed with information with no superfluous content, and many a times I have to stop to think about what it's telling me. I would recommend you read the first chapter "Atoms in motion" first. Well, I already knew everything is made of atoms(duh), but still, it presented things to me in a very engaging way. Some gists to give you a preview: Everything is made of atoms; water is made of molecules which are atoms in a bond; molecules are held together by mutual attraction; molecules always jiggle; the jiggle is represented as heat; you heat water - you increase the jiggling; increased jiggling loosens the mutual molecular attraction and some molecules escape, and you get steam. And molecules which escape are the ones which are jiggling badly; because the ones which aren't jiggling hard won't be breaking the mutual attraction; and when high energy molecules escaped, the net energy of the system is lower. Oh, and now you know why you feel cold when your sweat evaporates.

eschutte2 15y ago

I'd read Six Easy Pieces first.