Pure Science Thread

Off Topic
21

Honestly I think computer science stuff is the most interesting, from a technical perspective. Well, computer science built from the ground up at least. Basically, the idea is to find out how to get physical systems to give you the result you want. Very mathematical and logical, but very interesting. I really can’t name any specific books as what I saw of it was based on a lecture, so check this out

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/lectures/day16/day16.pdf

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Awesome! Some good stuff. I have read a few of these ‘pop-science’ books and can say that, yes, they are in fact pretty good and also entertaining. Anything by Feynnman is good because I always laught at his writing. Brian Green is good, too. Also, Carl Sagan is great to read to inspire the mind.

My problem is that I am biased toward physics related material because that is my field so I need some non job realted reading.[/quote]

22

Anything by James Hogan.

His shortie, Know Nukes, is very interesting: The Great Powers of the earth wish to deny nuclear power, the cleanest and most efficient form of power generation, to Third World countries. If these countries have cheap energy, they will become more wealthy and independent, hence uncontrollable.

Very interesting, if you truly know how the world works.

HH

23

[quote]chinadoll wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe”. It’s String Theory 101 - no equations, no final exam.

I second this recommendation. Anything about String Theory is good reads.

[/quote]

His latest book “The Fabric of the Cosmos” is also excellent. More of an overview of the current state of physics.

24

[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Honestly I think computer science stuff is the most interesting, from a technical perspective. Well, computer science built from the ground up at least. Basically, the idea is to find out how to get physical systems to give you the result you want. Very mathematical and logical, but very interesting. I really can’t name any specific books as what I saw of it was based on a lecture, so check this out

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/lectures/day16/day16.pdf

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Awesome! Some good stuff. I have read a few of these ‘pop-science’ books and can say that, yes, they are in fact pretty good and also entertaining. Anything by Feynnman is good because I always laught at his writing. Brian Green is good, too. Also, Carl Sagan is great to read to inspire the mind.

My problem is that I am biased toward physics related material because that is my field so I need some non job realted reading.

[/quote]

Wow. That was an awesome lecture. Was there a textbook associated with that course?

25

I’ve just finished reading cover to cover of the latest ‘Clinical Evidence’ issue. I also subscribe to the New England Journal of Medicine. If you have doctor friends you can borrow the latest issues from them (as far as I know the medical library’s stuff is older and to keep up I like to read the most recent literature), as these types of periodicals are quite pricey. Of course I tend to read more of the human sciences than anything else. I also tend to pull out old textbooks, but that’s no fun, the jounals and stuff are much more fun and have the interesting diseases, infections and cases. I like reading cases about medical mysteries a LOT.

But it is important to be well rounded and read books from the other sciences as well. I tend to prefer Microbiology, Pathology, Biology, Human Sciences and Biochemistry, and my weak area is Physics so I’m trying to read more Physics.

Anyway, thank you for the physics titles, they look interesting.

26

Feynman is my idol… “introduction to quantum mechanics” by French @ MIT press is good and the maths is not too hard - if u had high school maths get “mathematical methods for the physical sciences” by boas to acompany. This stuff is NOT pop science, but it is very well wothwhile investing the consederable effort in learning this as the real beauty and surprises lie in the maths behing it!

Otherwise ‘the character of physical matter’ and ‘QED’ by feynman are good.

Cool vids!

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, enough with the politics and world isuses…

My main interests lie in the fields of science and mathematics (and philosophy realted to these areas) and as such I tend to read alot in these subjects. I was wondering if anyone here has some interesting reads in any particularly obscure fields. The more obscure the better. It doesn’t matter if they are aimed at professionals in the field or lay persons.

For instance, I am working my way thru a book on genomic analysis called Discovering Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics, by A.M. Campbell & L.J. Heyer which is a text book aimed at undergrads in biology with at least two years of math and physics.

Other good stuff–in the fields of physics which I consider fun reads include The Odd Quantum, by Sam Treimann. I am also looking for some books in game theory (not D&D) if anyone has any title suggestions.

let’s nerd-out![/quote]

This thread is freaking amazing. I’ve read many of Feynman’s books, Hawking’s Brief History of Time, and one of my fav’s–Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. That was a great historical/story perspective on the developments of physics in the last century. Of course, I’m biased towards physics material because my field is in Biochemistry, so I need something non-related.

Chinadoll, you get mad points for reading up on Biochem. I think I may love you :).

Let’s see…The Big Bang Never Happened, by Brian Green (I think). Interesting read, don’t know exactly what to think.

I’m looking for material on Quantum Mechanics/Physics to read. If anyone has a good recommendation, love to hear it. I’ve only gone through Calc 3 though, and I didn’t understand most of that, even though I got a B. I am not a mathematically talented person. I can follow directions, but I work better if I have some sort of principled or physical understanding of what the math is describing. Hence biochem (which I also love). I wish I had the math capabilities to do physics.

Totally interested in quantum (my uncle works at Brookhaven), but need more learning.

28

The textbook to go with the course was Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs which is free here
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html#%_toc_start

While it’s not a bad book, to be honest I didn’t use it all that much for CS1. I got a fair amount out of lecture, but the labs were where we learned the most. Also, that one lecture is NOT representative of the whole course, although it does represent some of the higher level CS courses/research happening here.

This is the full course website. Check it out if you have the inclination.

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/

[quote]blooey wrote:
boomerlu wrote:
Honestly I think computer science stuff is the most interesting, from a technical perspective. Well, computer science built from the ground up at least. Basically, the idea is to find out how to get physical systems to give you the result you want. Very mathematical and logical, but very interesting. I really can’t name any specific books as what I saw of it was based on a lecture, so check this out

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/lectures/day16/day16.pdf

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Awesome! Some good stuff. I have read a few of these ‘pop-science’ books and can say that, yes, they are in fact pretty good and also entertaining. Anything by Feynnman is good because I always laught at his writing. Brian Green is good, too. Also, Carl Sagan is great to read to inspire the mind.

My problem is that I am biased toward physics related material because that is my field so I need some non job realted reading.

Wow. That was an awesome lecture. Was there a textbook associated with that course?[/quote]

29

Haven’t read through it, but Vol3 of the Feynman lectures is all about quantum. I haven’t taken Quantum yet (will be next year), but from what I know, it’s a LOT of math, and just by its very nature it’s not very physically intuitive. I imagine a background in Discrete math will help, as quantization means that there do NOT exist continuous functions in real life, even if we can model most “classical” mechancis via continous functions. However, the mathematics at the quantum level would probably be dictated by discrete math.

Also, special relativity is not all that hard (at my school, it is taught to freshmen), check out Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, enough with the politics and world isuses…

My main interests lie in the fields of science and mathematics (and philosophy realted to these areas) and as such I tend to read alot in these subjects. I was wondering if anyone here has some interesting reads in any particularly obscure fields. The more obscure the better. It doesn’t matter if they are aimed at professionals in the field or lay persons.

For instance, I am working my way thru a book on genomic analysis called Discovering Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics, by A.M. Campbell & L.J. Heyer which is a text book aimed at undergrads in biology with at least two years of math and physics.

Other good stuff–in the fields of physics which I consider fun reads include The Odd Quantum, by Sam Treimann. I am also looking for some books in game theory (not D&D) if anyone has any title suggestions.

let’s nerd-out!

This thread is freaking amazing. I’ve read many of Feynman’s books, Hawking’s Brief History of Time, and one of my fav’s–Black Holes and Time Warps, Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. That was a great historical/story perspective on the developments of physics in the last century. Of course, I’m biased towards physics material because my field is in Biochemistry, so I need something non-related.

Chinadoll, you get mad points for reading up on Biochem. I think I may love you :).

Let’s see…The Big Bang Never Happened, by Brian Green (I think). Interesting read, don’t know exactly what to think.

I’m looking for material on Quantum Mechanics/Physics to read. If anyone has a good recommendation, love to hear it. I’ve only gone through Calc 3 though, and I didn’t understand most of that, even though I got a B. I am not a mathematically talented person. I can follow directions, but I work better if I have some sort of principled or physical understanding of what the math is describing. Hence biochem (which I also love). I wish I had the math capabilities to do physics.

Totally interested in quantum (my uncle works at Brookhaven), but need more learning.
[/quote]

30

[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Haven’t read through it, but Vol3 of the Feynman lectures is all about quantum. I haven’t taken Quantum yet (will be next year), but from what I know, it’s a LOT of math, and just by its very nature it’s not very physically intuitive. I imagine a background in Discrete math will help, as quantization means that there do NOT exist continuous functions in real life, even if we can model most “classical” mechancis via continous functions. However, the mathematics at the quantum level would probably be dictated by discrete math.

Also, special relativity is not all that hard (at my school, it is taught to freshmen), check out Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.

[/quote]

Well, that’s not entirely true… For example, even in QM, a free particle (moving under zero potential) has a continuous energy spectrum. In fact, for any well-behaved, simple potential, the position and momentum states are continuous functions.

The unfortunate reality about QM is that you have to let the mathematics do the talking. Physical intuition will not help, and may actually impede your understanding.

Linear algebra is by far the most useful branch of mathematics to know when dealing with QM, since the quantum nature of physical systems allows us to represent states as linear combinations of basis states.

31

Get your dictionary handy and check out this one:
How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics by N. Katherine Hayles.

It’s all about the history leading up to our Virtual Age, how information lost its “body”, and the pros and cons of becoming disembodied in our daily human/machine interfaces.

Throughout the book she disusses some exellent SF examples for your additional reading pleasure.

32

Aren’t position and momentum only able to be MODELED as continuous functions?

That is: length/time is quantized, and isn’t mass as well? Sure the scale in that case would be much smaller than even an electron, but theoretically, it should be a discrete function, shouldn’t it?

That is not to say that a continuous function isn’t a good model, even for basic quantum, just that theoretically it is ultimately incorrect.

[quote]swordthrower wrote:

Well, that’s not entirely true… For example, even in QM, a free particle (moving under zero potential) has a continuous energy spectrum. In fact, for any well-behaved, simple potential, the position and momentum states are continuous functions.

The unfortunate reality about QM is that you have to let the mathematics do the talking. Physical intuition will not help, and may actually impede your understanding.

Linear algebra is by far the most useful branch of mathematics to know when dealing with QM, since the quantum nature of physical systems allows us to represent states as linear combinations of basis states.[/quote]

33

[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Aren’t position and momentum only able to be MODELED as continuous functions?

That is: length/time is quantized, and isn’t mass as well? Sure the scale in that case would be much smaller than even an electron, but theoretically, it should be a discrete function, shouldn’t it?

That is not to say that a continuous function isn’t a good model, even for basic quantum, just that theoretically it is ultimately incorrect.

[/quote]

No! If you solve Schroedinger’s equation with zero potential, you just get a classical plane wave, with no quantization of energy or momentum. This HAS to be the case, because there are no external conditions requiring the particle to be in any particular state.

You seem to be confusing the “fuzziness” of QM due to the uncertainty principle, and energy quantization. Sure, even a free particle cannot have simultaneously well-defined position and momentum, but that does not mean it is quantized.

Schrodinger’s equation can only be solved exactly for a handful of potentials, and the free particle is one of them. Therefore, it is not a model or an approximation, but an exact solution.

34

Note: as I wrote this I kept on changing my mind…

I am NOT confusing fuzziness due to uncertainty.

I am merely stating that length and time are quantized…right? Planck length?

The domain of the function would then be discrete, not continuous.

Actually n/m.

I just read the Wikipedia article on Planck Length.

There is no requirement that length be quantized. The planck length merely means that physics appears to break down below the planck length.

Wait, but doesn’t that again raise the question of quantized length?

This needs consideration…

[quote]swordthrower wrote:

No! If you solve Schroedinger’s equation with zero potential, you just get a classical plane wave, with no quantization of energy or momentum. This HAS to be the case, because there are no external conditions requiring the particle to be in any particular state.

You seem to be confusing the “fuzziness” of QM due to the uncertainty principle, and energy quantization. Sure, even a free particle cannot have simultaneously well-defined position and momentum, but that does not mean it is quantized.

Schrodinger’s equation can only be solved exactly for a handful of potentials, and the free particle is one of them. Therefore, it is not a model or an approximation, but an exact solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle[/quote]

35

Is there any such book as “Quantum Mechanics for dummies”? I find the field interesting but have no idea where to start. Neutrinos are allso very interesting, but I assume that not much is yet known about those.

36

Well, if you are arguing that the position operator of a free particle be quantized on the scale of the Planck length, then you would have in effect a grid of allowed positions. Now, these positions would have to be translation and rotation invariant. So, if I take our reference frame, and shift it half a Planck length, then our result should be the same… In other words, a free particle has no preferred reference frame, which is required to quantize position.

Basically, if you want quantized position, then you have to have positions which are not allowed. However, all positions (by definition) are allowed for a free particle.

This is purely an academic argument, because on Planck scales, position becomes poorly defined…

[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Note: as I wrote this I kept on changing my mind…

I am NOT confusing fuzziness due to uncertainty.

I am merely stating that length and time are quantized…right? Planck length?

The domain of the function would then be discrete, not continuous.

Actually n/m.

I just read the Wikipedia article on Planck Length.

There is no requirement that length be quantized. The planck length merely means that physics appears to break down below the planck length.

Wait, but doesn’t that again raise the question of quantized length?

This needs consideration…

[/quote]

37

I’m looking forward to reading[i] 'Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics"[/i] by Peter Woit. I really enjoy reading his blog so I’m curious to see what his book is like.

Tone

38

Yes, I realize the whole Planck length scale thing is academic, but at some point we’re going to be exploring that scale and have to deal with its ramifications.

The better argument is not necessarily going to win out when we get there. Hell in the intervening like 10^-20 m of length we have to explore, arguments may change entirely.

While I find your argument pretty convincing based on current evidence, there’s a still a few random little arguments in the back of my mind that I wouldn’t mind getting cleared up.

Like spontaneous symmetry breaking. The idea is that the universe was at some point symmetrical and something caused it to slide from that point. Does that mean that the universe has a preferred reference frame? Of course this hasn’t been proven, but we are pursuing evidence of this.

And isn’t there at least some mathematical system/geometry in which coordinate frames are NOT invariant? This isn’t in any way an argument, but I’m just curious.

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Well, if you are arguing that the position operator of a free particle be quantized on the scale of the Planck length, then you would have in effect a grid of allowed positions. Now, these positions would have to be translation and rotation invariant. So, if I take our reference frame, and shift it half a Planck length, then our result should be the same… In other words, a free particle has no preferred reference frame, which is required to quantize position.

Basically, if you want quantized position, then you have to have positions which are not allowed. However, all positions (by definition) are allowed for a free particle.

This is purely an academic argument, because on Planck scales, position becomes poorly defined…

[/quote]

39

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m looking for material on Quantum Mechanics/Physics to read.

Totally interested in quantum (my uncle works at Brookhaven), but need more learning.
[/quote]
Try Sam Treiman’s The Odd Quantum for a non-rigorous look at the nature of quantum behavior.

If you think you can handle the math…which three semesters of Calc should give you I recommend the text by David J. Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. His writing style is great and easy to follow–but his explanations are tricky if you don’t have a grasp of diff eq. or partial differentials but does an excellent job of describing Heisenberg Uncertainty matrix operator methods. I reference this book all the time–it never leaves my desk.

40

[quote]Lunchmeataphobia wrote:

Cool vids!
[/quote]
Super-sweet!