Re: The Road to Physics Knowledge
- From: srp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:38:58 -0700
On 15 oct, 15:18, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192458630.520287.225240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15 oct, 08:44, Nelson <nbm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Booksurge, an editor that belongs to Amazon.com group had just
released my book called "The Road to Physics Knowledge".
This book is directed to high school physics and at the end readers
can find the solution for all the exercises, step by step. At the end
there are two parts dedicated to explain, without the mathematics,
quantum and the two relativistic theories.
You can find the book atwww.amazon.com.
Good move.
Too few write for the initial popularization level.
I did the same, but with entry level math allowing linking with
college level refs.
Many in the community would love that everyone believe
that physics cannot really be understood without high
level math.
Makes them feel wanted, I guess.
André Michaud
Physics cannot really be mapped or modeled without the mathematical
physicist doing it! Interpretation of the resulting mapping or modeling,
including for its translatable quality among other qualities, is something
else entirely. It's when they start thinking they are the only ones who
should be able to see and understand their resulting maps or models that
they've cut their throats. It was Einstein who said if he could not explain
it to his wife in terms she could understand, it was wrong. Not that she
would have understood it, mind you, but that it must be translatable into
other terms than just the originating mathematical to get all possible
insights and inputs the mathematical physicist alone might not have seen or
thought of.
Like anyone else, the physicist needs input to function well and sometimes
it will come from the strangest places ("But Mama, the emperor has no
clothes!").
GLB
I agree with you.
Many physicists however, after learning physics through
mathematics of course, do not go further, which causes them
to end up observing nature only through the established math,
not taking into account that all has not yet been understood,
and that what has not been understood is not available to be
observed through the established math description.
Very few even consider going further, which means leaving
the safe and reassuring established mathematical path to
start exploring out of the box.
Before something further can be described, with math or
words, it must first have been non verbally understood.
A case in point is Newton, among others. He developped
his own brand of calculus so he could describe what he
already generally understood, which then allowed him not
to leave any stone unturned.
At the intro level however, I think that very little math is
required to get a genuine general understanding, if the
author is good at explaining, even to understand what
integration and differentiation are about and how they
generally apply to particles motion, mass and energy.
André Michaud
.
- References:
- The Road to Physics Knowledge
- From: Nelson
- Re: The Road to Physics Knowledge
- From: srp
- Re: The Road to Physics Knowledge
- From: G. L. Bradford
- The Road to Physics Knowledge
- Prev by Date: Re: The Road to Physics Knowledge
- Next by Date: Ionization optimization
- Previous by thread: Re: The Road to Physics Knowledge
- Next by thread: Re: THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND MANKIND
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
