Is the book in the title by Roger Penrose any good for somebody with a strong interest in physics but with limited (high school) mathematical training? I had once posted a thread here many years ago about whether there exists a list of what could be considered the "first principles" of physics from which all physics equations could ultimately be derived. From glancing at the cover and back, this book seems to be the closest thing to what I am looking for. It claims to explain most of physics from the ground up, starting with the mathematical axioms which underlie all the equations that follow.
I have that book. It's great. I'd recommend it. I also recommend Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos.
I would suggest treading Leonard Suskinds "theoretical minimum" also for a math primer necessary to understand more fully.
Thanks hardalee, I don't know if you have read Road to Reality or if anyone else has read both these books, but which do you think is the easier to read first to get the fundamental maths?
I have read both. The "theoretical minimum" will give you the math to better understand the entire field, thought I do not claim to do so myself. The "road to reality"' is more interesting to read.
Thanks, although I thought there was a lot more introductory math in the opening chapters of the >1000 page Penrose book. Are you saying the math might be easier for a relative layman to understand in the "theoretical minimum"? If so, then I will take your advice and read it first Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You could do worse. Penrose was Hawkings mentor. I like Penrose's books and writings on the topic of artificial intelligence. Be that as it may, Penrose is still being shunned by cosmologists because of the Penrose rings, which, like the BICEP fiasco, turned out to be little more than an instrumentation artifact. Leonard Sisskind is s string theorist (and also, very likely a relative, a second cousin or something, on my wife's side of the family). I have enjoyed several of his lectures (yes, occasionally even among string theorists, you can find some capable physicists. It was Sisskind who supposedly first floated the idea of a multiverse as something of an inside joke, to determine just how gullible some of his colleagues were. Although it is a fact that Brian Greene's books are a credit to some of his video productions, he can't seem to restrain himself from extending purely mathematical theories into territory that is well beyond the limit of its bindings to reality. Usually, this is not to good effect. I cannot even read his stuff. Read his books if you feel you must, but don't imagine most of what he describes is anything but fiction. Don't skip Sean Carroll. With the exception of "From Eternity to Here", most of his books are excellent, as is his blog, "Preposterous Universe", and he is about to release "The Big Picture". I can't wait. Sean is not afraid to discuss philosophy when it is appropriate, but he is a real scientist. I do enjoy Lee Smolin's books, but you should understand, he is considered by many to be "on the fringe." Don't be shy and come back with questions about things you read and for more reading material, a lot of which are listed in the introductory treads for most of the forums here.
I think you should steer clear of Penrose, Hawking, Greene, and Carroll. And Susskind. I think you'd be much better off with Feynman.
I'd say it's important what branch of physics is more interesting for you. Cosmology is a good choice because it incorporates all the great theoretical models. My favorite nonmathimatical book on cosmology is Alan Guth's book introducing his inflation idea while covering much of the modern history associated with the science of cosmology. My other favorite is gravitational physics and my favorite nonmathimatical book would be Kip Thornes Black Holes and Time Warps where he discusses the great theories, esoteric stuff derived from GR, while covering much of the modern history of gravitational physics. And finally Bernard Shutz Gravity from the ground up. In the book he covers with math up to calculus and has a great computer program for modeling the physics. You access the computer program on the net.. Pretty cool. Anything Roger Penrose rights down is pure scholarship from a modern icon of physics. Nothing replaces the scholarship associated with the text of the modern physics. For Bernard Shutz computer models you don't need much math beyond arithmetic.
Thanks Brucep, actually what I want to do this time is try learning some of the mathematics rather than steer clear of it, and that is why these two books were mentioned. They both seem to be more than just the usual popular modern physics books and have some substance to them. Also, both claim to be very accessible to people who have only studied physics in school and help introduce beginners to some of the mathematical ideas used in modern physics (e.g. complex numbers etc).
Sounds good to me. My favorite book on GR was written to introduce undergraduate students to GR. Instead of starting with the field equations it begins with the metric solutions to the field equations. All the math required to do the analysis of problems presented in the text is up to and including calculus along with the principle of extremal aging [least action principle]. Exploring Black Holes by Edwin F Taylor and John A Wheeler. Great book to start on. There's some course lectures along with course materials at the MIT site. Then there's the Feynman lectures. Good fortune.
They're mainly mathematicians and/or popscience pseudoscience celebrities or wannabees rather than serious contributors to scientific progress. For example Sean Carroll will tell you there's an evil twin universe where time runs backwards. Susskind isn't quite as bad, but he will tell you about the elephant that goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. Greene will tell you all about strings that have no experimental support, Hawking will tell you about M-theory and branes, Penrose will tell you about quantum consciousness, and so on.
It depends what you're reading it for. It's not good for learning physics from scratch, that's for sure. For that, you'd do much better buying any general first-year university level textbook on Physics.
I just picked up hardcover set of the feynman lectures at an estate sale. Second printing 1964. I had to shove a couple old ladies out of the way when i saw those on the shelf.
Sounds good, zgmc. I see some interesting stuff in charity shops from time to time. And you can get some really good books on Amazon for one penny! You typically have to pay for postage though, which is maybe £2.80. But I like buying books for a penny!
