The evolution of physics

What Hacker News says

1. rottc0ddAug 2024
   Not a biography but I like Einstein's book "Evolution of physics". It is supposed to be popular scifi book, and covers same topics as high school physics for layman. But, it is still good to hear his perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Physics-Albert-Einstein/dp/...
   thread
2. sonimanFeb 2022
   Koyre's From the Closed World to Infinite Universe

   Koyre is basically the orginator of the history of science. This was his popularization.

   Einstein & Infeld's Evolution of Physics

   Picks up where Koyre leaves off.

   thread
3. rramadassJun 2020
   Must read classic: The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld
   thread
4. vinaymsMay 2018
   I studied Mechanical Engineering but gradually ended up as a full fledged software engineer from one who wrote ME related programs. So I have sort of always been in the midst of mid level maths and physics, but, as it happens, I lost it all except for some fundamental concepts. I had a similar epiphany as yours in my early thirties and this is what I did and it helped me greatly.

   First of all, you have to realize that you are learning these stuff only for the sake of learning, as an intellectual challenge, rather than making a career out of it. So, you need not follow a pattern that is made for late teen students attending university. That includes not needing to religiously solve problems in textbooks, especially the numerical ones. If you have to, solve the conceptual ones. Further, you wouldn't even need textbooks.

   What you do need, however, is a perspective. Unlike university students whose primary aim is to pass the exams that matter, graduate and get a job, for which they learn by rote, what you need is to understand the reason why learning certain topics is essential. You need to learn about the topics first in order to appreciate whatever you will encounter later. For this purpose, well regarded popular science books should be your first choice. Any worthy textbook will also give a bit of perspective in the preface, early chapters or the appendix, but it can never compete with popsci books which are designed for the purpose of elucidating academically complex stuff to an otherwise educated public. Good popsci books provide enough stimulation to your mind. They prime you for further, formal exploration of the topic.

   Often times what happens is that highly technical topics such as those you mentioned look attractive from the outside but get painfully dry, boring and difficult once you pick up a text book and start studying from it. What I realized is that for many topics what I really crave is a deep understanding as an educated person as opposed to deep academic knowledge. For such topics popsci books regarded as 'hard' are better than proper textbooks. These days, with the availability of opencoursewares, you can simply watch a few lectures before deciding if its worth your time delving deep into the topics with a textbook. The textbooks are often listed in the course content, and we all know where we can find the appropriate pdf versions.

   These books worked for me. They are in my home library and I try to flip through some of them once a year.

   For maths, books like Prime Obsession by John Derbyshire, e The story of a Number by Eli Moar, Number by Tobias Dantzig, The Unknown Quantity by John Derbyshire provide good orientation for number theory, analysis & calculus and algebra. The second book might be tough to finish as its really really deep for a thin book. You might also look at books like God Created the Integers by Hawking, The Calculus Gallery by William Dunham that curate interesting and historically important results, where original works are often reproduced.

   For physics, my goto book (which I have never finished) would be The Road To Reality by Roger Penrose. This self contained 1000+ page monster builds up to advanced physics in a methodical fashion from scratch. The first half deals with all the necessary maths from elementary to advanced and the second half covers physics. It has chapters with names such as calculus on manifolds, hypercomplex numbers, the entangled quantum world, gravity's role in quantum state reduction etc which sound pretty deep and complex for a recreational learner. Beyond that, you can also read books such as The Evolution of Physics by Einstein himself, Thirty Years that Shook Physics by George Gamow to get a historical perspective on the development of advanced physics. For a midway academic treatment, you can read Feynman's lecture on Physics volumes.

   For discrete maths, books like The Algorithm Design by Skiena and Algorithm Design by Kleinberg and Tardos should serve you well. They don't push you into a maze of mathematics like Knuth books do, or a maze of source code like CLRS or Sedgewick books do, but show you the practical side of things with limited code and pseudocode. That said, Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming 4A Combinatorial Algorithms Part 1 will just blow your mind.

   Show morethread
5. sn41Oct 2013
   The problem with popular science books is that they are written by journalists untrained in science. It should be scientists who write popular works. There are several scientists who have written great works which are neither difficult, nor dumbed down - for example, Steinhaus' "Mathematical Snapshots", Einstein and Infeld's "The Evolution of Physics", Schrodinger's "What is life?" and even delightful works such as Faraday's "Chemical history of a candle".

   With the hypercompetitiveness of modern scientific careers, scientists who take time off to write popular expositions are looked down upon. The problem is not Malcolm Gladwell, the problem is the insularity of modern scientists.

   Show morethread
6. esperentMar 2021
   > Relativity doesn't say that both an Earth-centric and solar-barycentric models are equally correct

   I'm fairly sure it does. Of course, you'll get the same answer either way - the earth moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun and contributes a tiny amount of the total inertia of the system. But you can use either the sun or the earth as your frame of reference to calculate this.

   It's explained quite well on wikipedia so I'll just quote that here:

   > Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938): "Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS (=coordinate systems), not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion? This is indeed possible!"[47]

   > Despite giving more respectability to the geocentric view than Newtonian physics does,[48] relativity is not geocentric. Rather, relativity states that the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, or any other point for that matter could be chosen as a center of the Solar System with equal validity.

   > Relativity agrees with Newtonian predictions that regardless of whether the Sun or the Earth are chosen arbitrarily as the center of the coordinate system describing the Solar System, the paths of the planets form (roughly) ellipses with respect to the Sun, not the Earth. With respect to the average reference frame of the fixed stars, the planets do indeed move around the Sun, which due to its much larger mass, moves far less than its own diameter and the gravity of which is dominant in determining the orbits of the planets (in other words, the center of mass of the Solar System is near the center of the Sun). The Earth and Moon are much closer to being a binary planet; the center of mass around which they both rotate is still inside the Earth, but is about 4,624 km (2,873 mi) or 72.6% of the Earth's radius away from the centre of the Earth (thus closer to the surface than the center).[citation needed]

   > What the principle of relativity points out is that correct mathematical calculations can be made regardless of the reference frame chosen, and these will all agree with each other as to the predictions of actual motions of bodies with respect to each other. It is not necessary to choose the object in the Solar System with the largest gravitational field as the center of the coordinate system in order to predict the motions of planetary bodies, though doing so may make calculations easier to perform or interpret. A geocentric coordinate system can be more convenient when dealing only with bodies mostly influenced by the gravity of the Earth (such as artificial satellites and the Moon), or when calculating what the sky will look like when viewed from Earth (as opposed to an imaginary observer looking down on the entire Solar System, where a different coordinate system might be more convenient

   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#relativity

   See in particular this sentence:

   > It is not necessary to choose the object in the Solar System with the largest gravitational field as the center of the coordinate system in order to predict the motions of planetary bodies, though doing so may make calculations easier to perform or interpret.

   That's exactly the point I made above.

   Show morethread