What is it about Physics...

So, can you recommend a veeery basic book about physics to someone who wants to teach herself?

 

Feynman was really good. His lectures left out the math because the actual problems were given and solved in separate class sections.

Every community college offers a 'concepts of physics' class in addition to the algebra and calc based classes. I would suggest tracking down the text to one of those classes and reading it. I read one once. It took ~6 hours, and most of the problems can be solved in your head.

That said,http://www.amazon.com/dp/product/0062731009?tag=priuschatcom-20 was pretty good on concepts too.

 

Armchair Physics! Gotta love it. There's only one reasonable response to someone like that. They clearly haven't even thought all the way through the problem or they'd see the extremely simple error. So instead of trying to explain, you should be super supportive and encourage them to put together a prototype. Agree with them that all the "closed-minded" industry folks are too stupid to see what's in front of their noses, and that he should spend all his money pursuing this because it will be a goldmine.

Ah, simpler times! Don't you think it's irresponsible of people to create so many new chemical elements? I mean seriously, what is anyone going to do with a crazy thing like "Krypton" other than fight Superman?

 

That sounds perfect for me, because I am missing the math part of my brain. Fortunately, my analytical skills are pretty good...Just a hopeless math 'tard.

 

You can buy recordings of Feynman's lectures on iTunes too.

The assistant prof. that taught my quantum mechanics course worshiped Feynman to the point where our lectures were basically us watching videotapes of Feynman's lectures at Cal Tech. Either that or he was just lazy.

 

"A Brief History of Time" is well worth reading, but it's probably not the best book to start off with.

 

I personally think the problem is less with people not understanding physics, but more with people never being taught simple concepts and how to think critically.

Now the disclaimer i suppose is that i have engineering degrees, so this stuff has always been easy for me and im probably hard wired for it or something....BUT: I have always been exasperated by how scared people get of 'physics', 'calculus', or even 'algebra' at the mere mentions of the words. On a basic conceptual level, none are really hard to understand and are in fact quite logical...its when you start adding equations and symbols that people run for the hills. Many of these concepts could be explained to elementary school students, but once you say 'its calculus', people shut off and think its too hard for them.

I really wish, instead of 'teaching to the test', as is done now, with memorization of facts and figures valued above all, schools should focus much more on teaching the concepts. A whole lot of people have heard of 'E=mc^2'...very few have any idea what it means. It should be the other way around, people should understand the concepts behind the physics and the equations and specifics should be left to specialists in the field. That way, people can be taught to apply those concepts to think critically (engine powered off water? breaks fundamental concepts of thermodynamics. Hydrogen powered cars? The energy to make that hydrogen must come from somewhere...).

People in this country are consistently fed 'facts' from all directions, whether its commercials on TV (saw one that said the average termite eats wood 24/7...which of course implies EVERY termine does....sounds like BS to me) or 'news' being put forth by the media, but people are not taught to question the information they receive and critically think about the validity of what is being said and discussed based upon learned concepts of how the world works. It is this ignorance that I think it the real problem, and what gets me hyperventilating as well Who needs a drink?

 

I just read through this entire thread. I'll admit I skimmed some of the more detailed explanations. While I have, I think, a basic understanding of most physical principles I don't pretend to understand all of the bits of particle physics. Some rant about the education system and its failings, which are many. I also believe that for some, their brains just aren't wired for problem solving.

You can teach them all the steps and they can go through them without a miss but they have no idea why they are doing them. If something doesn't fit the steps, they have no idea what to do next.

I spent 30 years fixing IBM equipment. We had a new kid come on board who graduated at the top of his class. Aced every test available. He could go through a machine and make every adjustment down to the last .001 of an inch. The customers loved him. There was only one problem: he couldn't "fix" anything.

After a couple of years he moved into sales and was a great success. He could read his customers like a book. Knew exactly what they needed for their situation.

The point is that there will always be folks who will get this and some who don't. The good thing is that those that don't will be good at something the rest of us just don't "get".

I once had a boss that could put together a business plan that was a work of art. I didn't get 90% of it. Try to explain to him how a transistor could act as an amplifier and his eyes just glazed over.

Viva la difference......

Bob

 

Different strokes for different folks, sure, but we're talking first about fundamentally easy concepts, like the first law of thermodynamics: energy can't be created or destroyed.

I agree that some people are just not "teachable" in some areas, but I also agree that our education system doesn't do a great job in identifying people's strengths and playing to them.

For example, I have a pretty good head for math but my high school math teacher made me hate and fear math. 6 years later in college I finally took a calculus class and the professor was fantastic. I loved it! But now I'm a math-cripple: I have to look up basic trigonometry to get things done, and I have to spend extra time reasoning through problems to understand them. I do animation for a living, and believe it or not, math and physics are really useful for that.

 

People who didn't take or like science in school but now want to know a little more about it should try reading "Physics for Poets" by Robert H. March (described here but not available directly from Amazon):
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Poets-Robert-H-March/dp/0070402485

It describes basic concepts about as painlessly as can be done.

Another possibility is any of the collections of science essays by Isaac Asimov:
Amazon.com: Science - asimov: Books
He was a master of clarity. Some of the collections suffer from not having an overall organization or theme. On the other hand each essay is an easily digestible bite.

For a short essay on the state of the teaching and knowledge of science see
It's Time to End 'Physics for Poets' :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, Views and Jobs

 

More than a quarter century ago I found physics classes fascinating, but those chemistry classes took some thought, and statistics took me, not the other way around. I'll bet there are lots of people who went from high school directly to college. Unless you know EXACTLY what you want to do/be when you grow up I have always maintained one should take a break between HS & C. People should work menial jobs, travel the world, get a taste of what life is like WITHOUT a college education. I firmly believe many would see the light of the value of making the most of continuing higher education during this time. Then, when they actually go to college there would be less partying, more scholastic interest and more value placed in courses like physics, chem and stats. These courses would then be recognized as roads to a more fulfilling life rather than one more class to 'get through' asap.

 

I think they should teach Physics using real world examples - like teaching momentum by showing what happens when a 45,000 lb semi hits a 3,000 lb automobile at 60 mph. That might stop a few people from passing and then cutting off a semi so they won't miss the next exit.

 

I have to question your mentioning of "cheap" Fusion. Other than the explosion of a nuclear bomb, we haven't figured this one out, at least how to control it. Many countries and corporations have been working diligently at it for decades. Once we do control it, I'm not sure how "cheap" it will be. I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power (fission), having worked in the field for 19 years. I am not an expert on fusion, but from the basic knowledge I have, my gut feeling tells me that the implementation of fusion as a usable energy source will require a lot of the similar expenses as fission (shielding, contamination control, extremely expensive materials, extremely expensive control and instrumentation systems, disposal, training and operational costs.) So, I'm not sure why you said fusion will be cheap. I'm not saying that it won't be a viable clean energy source in the future, just wondering about the economics.

For now, we should concentrate on being proponents of currently available "clean" energy sources, including nuclear fission, solar, wind, geothermal, hydrodynamic, and continue to improve on these technologies to make them more efficient and more economical. Sometimes, we are compelled to implement solutions based upon necessity more than economy. I think the world is approaching that situation now, with all the focus on global warming and environmental damage. So, I guess "cheap" is very relative, especially in the context of current global conditions.

 

I agree with you. The "conventional" approach to fusion (with tokamaks) is technically extremely challenging. And, what many people overlook: it is not necessarily clean. The reaction itself is clean, but for example a deuterium-tritium reaction produces high energy neutrons that bombard the reactor structure and make it radioactive.

One big advantage of fusion is that it has an inherent safety valve: the reaction conditions are so difficult to maintain that every accident would immediately stop it. No risk of a runaway reaction like with fission.

Of course, there may be a disruptive alternative fusion technology just around the corner. Maybe with focussed lasers on pellets, or maybe cold electrolytic fusion

 

<joke> You don't seem to have enough of a background in physics for me to bother with an explanation. </joke>