who has read Einstein's theory on relativity?
- Thread starter Poh SIti Dawn
- Start date
Yeah, Econ and Political Science major though. Physics is just for fun.
Last edited:
I don't think Penrose's book is a good introduction to Modern Physics. If a person hasn't covered Calculus, I doubt they'd be able to appreciate such a book. I know Penrose states that he created the book for the non-mathematician and that they could skip the math, but I believe in order to understand physics, you must understand the math. Without it, all you know are facts which aren't exactly helpful unless you know what they mean.
It is a good book for those that do have a math background covering the typical Calc.I-V sequence (paying special attention to Fourier Series and Riemannian Geometry), otherwise I wouldn't suggest it for people wanting to get into Modern Physics for the first time. (If you haven't studied Classical Physics, Mechanics and E&M, then I doubt you will be able to appreciate the book as you will find Penrose's sparse explanations lacking imo).
There is no other book on the market better than the Feynmann lectures where it concerns modern physics. Most of physics is covered in his lecture series, but I'd personally just use it as a starting point.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu
There is also Motion Mountain which covers a lot of undergraduate physics:
http://motionmountain.net
For people interested in becoming physicists, I'd follow this guy. He did win a Nobel Prize, so I think he knows what he's talking about:
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html
Last edited:
in that case
there is a video series called: THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE that is a must watch (it's mostly on youtube and the allenberg network site) the series is all about calculus and its history
You definitely don't need four years of calc to understand Road to Reality. If that much of a math background was necessary, you might as well just start with Landau's Mechanics and Jackson's EM.
Feynman covers a lot of things that are unnecessary for the interested layman going into modern physics. I chose Penrose cause he's not going to bog everyone down in the irrelevant parts of mechanics and EM. If this were a thread asking about foundational physics, Feynman would be a better choice. But we can ignore those things and go with the much easier (and it is) Road to Reality and get to relativity faster.
FluffyCorleone
Banned
pretentious circle jerk mirite
I don't really have too many strong opinions on sports, so this pedantic shyt has to come out somewhere.
Relativity isn't covered until Chapter 17 (spacetime), and in Chapter 18 (Minkowskian geometry; the meaty discussion of relativity) in the book. And, for a beginner, the way he covers it, isn't the practical way where it concerns teaching someone about relativity. If someone is going to read that, they are better off just going to the Feynman lectures and skipping straight to his discussion on relativity. It is far better for a layman as s/he could follow the logic more closely and easily.
In section 17.5 of Penrose’s book, to help his discussion of geodesic's in trying to help the reader understand 4-D and tidal effects due to gravity, he utilizes vector calculus in his explanation. I personally feel this discussion is not needed and doesn't help a person who hasn't had multivariable calculus. Also, a person doesn't need to know Minkowskian geometry (I think Penrose's discussion is lackluster in this regard as well) to understand relativity for the first time (CH.18).
Aside from that, Chapter 18 discusses relativity utilizing Newtonian energy and angular momentum (both Classical Physics 1 material), and if a person doesn't understand that material because they wouldn't have covered it without covering Mechanics, I HIGHLY doubt they would understand relativity. Chapter 19 discusses some parts of Minkowskian space utilizing tensor calculus which isn’t ideal for a person just entering the subject.
That is why I recommend Feynman. It is much more clearer than Penrose’s book, and in my opinion, makes more sense for a person just entering the field.
Here is Feynman's discussion on relativity. Tell me this isn't easier and more fluid than Penrose's:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
As for the math, it won't take someone 4 years to cover Calc.I-V. It generally takes physics majors 2 years (or, 1 year if they take summer courses), and math majors usually cover that material (from experience) in 1.5-2 years as well.
Last edited:
can you give us the reference to the article or title or book you are reading?
