Teach Me Your Ways, Science F@gs

[Dirtydutch 8]

Dutch's scientific education is disturbingly lacking, at best. I'm kinda' interested in stuff I used to avoid as a Christian, like fairly elementary evolution, and physics, and just pretty much science in general. Just because it's the obvious one, I'm thinking about buying A Brief History of Time. Is that still considered standard and up-to-date? Is there something better? I've also heard good things about Elegant Universe, but don't know if those two even overlap. Any suggestions would be appreciated, and in exchange for your nerd-help, I'll teach you how to pickup girls and do your bangs in a manner that allows to to simultaneously look sensitive and rebellious.

[checkymcfold 0]

Dutch's scientific education is disturbingly lacking, at best. I'm kinda' interested in stuff I used to avoid as a Christian, like fairly elementary evolution, and physics, and just pretty much science in general. Just because it's the obvious one, I'm thinking about buying A Brief History of Time. Is that still considered standard and up-to-date? Is there something better? I've also heard good things about Elegant Universe, but don't know if those two even overlap. Any suggestions would be appreciated, and in exchange for your nerd-help, I'll teach you how to pickup girls and do your bangs in a manner that allows to to simultaneously look sensitive and rebellious.

hawking is the champ. definitely start there.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Those two overlap a bit. I would tend toward starting with Hawking since Elegant Universe becomes mostly about String Theory, and does so pretty densely. It's comprehensible, but it's a very specific field and probably wouldn't satisfy what I'm guessing are general questions and interests.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And since when is the religious forum the religion/science forum. I just think that's a bit funny.If you have more specific ideas about what you would like to learn, I can try to fine a more specific book. I think a lot of times people really don't know what's out there in terms of science and physics and stuff. If you read a general book such as A Brief History of Time, you may figure out what sort of questions interest you and I can lead you in a more specific direction.

[Speed Limit 0]

String theory ruled the lives of my friends and I for a bit....then it got disproved.NOW THERE'S M-STRING THEORY! hahaseriously.Hawking.

[scram 1]

Those two overlap a bit. I would tend toward starting with Hawking since Elegant Universe becomes mostly about String Theory, and does so pretty densely. It's comprehensible, but it's a very specific field and probably wouldn't satisfy what I'm guessing are general questions and interests.

STFU or you'll be burned as a witch.

[Dirtydutch 8]

If you have more specific ideas about what you would like to learn, I can try to fine a more specific book. I think a lot of times people really don't know what's out there in terms of science and physics and stuff. If you read a general book such as A Brief History of Time, you may figure out what sort of questions interest you and I can lead you in a more specific direction.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking; start there and see what I'm into. Thanks, guys.

[crowTrobot 2]

greene actually has a much more general book "the fabric of the cosmos" that is excellent - similar in coverage to brief history and more up-to-date (2004). if you go with brief history i'd also read hawking's follow up "a briefer history of time" (2005)

[LongLiveYorke 38]

greene actually has a much more general book "the fabric of the cosmos" that is excellent - similar in coverage to brief history and more up-to-date (2004).

Yeah, Fabric of the Cosmos is a good start, actually. I think it's more general than Hawking and obviously more up to date. You could also start there, both are pretty good.

[speedz99 145]

String theory ruled the lives of my friends and I for a bit....then it got disproved.

It got disproved?

[Balloon guy 158]

It got disproved?

You hear about Pluto?

[SBriand 4]

You hear about Pluto?

I liked Pluto. He was truly a man's mouse's best friend.

[crowTrobot 2]

It got disproved?

no, although it is falling out of favor somewhat because nobody has come up with a way to formulate it so it makes testable predictions.

[crowTrobot 2]

I liked Pluto. He was truly a man's mouse's best friend.

pluto is dead in a murder suicide with goofy. saw it on drawn together so it must be true.

[Speed Limit 0]

It got disproved?

Yeah it did get straight up disproved, I have professors that worked closely with it, it's just that the math related with it didn't quite fit, so they just turned around and created a new theory.

[Buckeye Hughes 0]

String theory ruled the lives of my friends and I for a bit....then it got disproved.NOW THERE'S M-STRING THEORY! hahaseriously.Hawking.

I'm a proponent of the G string theory myself.

[crowTrobot 2]

Yeah it did get straight up disproved

not strictly correct. there are many problems that have been discovered with the different types of string theory that have caused it to fall out of favor in many circles, but the concept itself has NOT been "straight up" disproved. that's actually one of the problems with it - nobody has come up with a way to either prove or disprove it as a unique theory.

I have professors that worked closely with it, it's just that the math related with it didn't quite fit, so they just turned around and created a new theory.

M-theory is an attempt to unify different types of string theory. it is not a "new" theory as much as it is an extension of string theory, building on it.

[Petoria 0]

I hate when people talk about M-theory, String Theory, and all these other topical theoretical physics concepts.The beauty of a theory, in my opinion, is only as elegant as the mathematics that governs it. As such, trying to speak intelligently about string theory is tantamount to charlatanism. I understand that Stephen Hawking has helped in the struggle to get funding for massive physics experiments because he has made people more aware of the subject. In that sense, it's a good thing. From the other side, though, they make it sound like physicists are getting paid to lean back in a swivel chair and say deep things. In reality, the mathematics that they navigate is beyond the comprehension of anyone without a doctorate in the subject and even some with the doctorate.Have your fun with these trendy physics books if you want, but many physicists consider them the punchline of a good joke. If you really want to learn about the subject, first pick up a calculus book.

[crowTrobot 2]

I hate when people talk about M-theory, String Theory, and all these other topical theoretical physics concepts.The beauty of a theory, in my opinion, is only as elegant as the mathematics that governs it. As such, trying to speak intelligently about string theory is tantamount to charlatanism.

that just sounds elitist. greene certainly conveys the basic concepts behind string theory quite intelligently without relying heavily on math. obviously many nuances can't be fully conveyed to the general public, but the big picture certainly is.also a lot of physicists would argue that the real beauty of a theory is its ability to make and be verified through testable predictions, while (at least in the case of string theory) many think any "elegance" to the math is likely to be irrelevant to physical reality.

If you really want to learn about the subject, first pick up a calculus book.

that would be pointless. even for the average math-inclinded person it would take a full college education in advanced math subjects just to BEGIN to understand the math behind string theory and other highly technical theories covered by these books. a basic calculus book is pretty useless by itself.that is why hawking, greene etc produce these books in the general simplistic way they do - it is the only way to make these subjects accessible to the average person, and for the most part they do a very good job of it.anyway for someone who might want the same type of astro/particle physics book that covers all of the same subjects and more, AND also gets heavily into the math behind these theories, try penrose "the road to reality".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I hate when people talk about M-theory, String Theory, and all these other topical theoretical physics concepts.The beauty of a theory, in my opinion, is only as elegant as the mathematics that governs it. As such, trying to speak intelligently about string theory is tantamount to charlatanism. I understand that Stephen Hawking has helped in the struggle to get funding for massive physics experiments because he has made people more aware of the subject. In that sense, it's a good thing. From the other side, though, they make it sound like physicists are getting paid to lean back in a swivel chair and say deep things. In reality, the mathematics that they navigate is beyond the comprehension of anyone without a doctorate in the subject and even some with the doctorate.Have your fun with these trendy physics books if you want, but many physicists consider them the punchline of a good joke. If you really want to learn about the subject, first pick up a calculus book.

You'll never get the same feeling that you get when you actually chug through the equations and derivations. Yet this certainly doesn't mean that one can't get a certain feeling of satisfaction and knowledge from reading general audience physics books. As as you said, it certainly doesn't hurt the science community to have people interested in and learning about physics, if only in a general and superficial way. I don't think that it's necessary to go through all of the math of a theory to appreciate it. I can talk in a general way about how electricity and magnetism come about as interactions with photons, and I don't need to teach you quantum field theory for this to be interesting to you. You will never really understand it if you don't solve a few Feynman diagrams yourself, but that's icing on the cake.