An idea for science types (books involved...)
An idea for science types (books involved...)
If anyone is up for reading the same book I am right now (Briane Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos") and discussing it here let me know.
-
Guest
Re: An idea for science types (books involved...)
Physics? I dunno... I don't know much about it and I'd be afraid to get into a physics-ignorant discussion with you... (I've seen it done before.tnf wrote:If anyone is up for reading the same book I am right now (Briane Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos") and discussing it here let me know.
)Plus, as I'm taking a backpacking trip next week, I need to find a book small enough to carry everywhere with me. Is there a condensed version? :icon26:
Re: An idea for science types (books involved...)
There is a paperback version. And as for the physics, it assumes no prior knowledge.werldhed wrote:Physics? I dunno... I don't know much about it and I'd be afraid to get into a physics-ignorant discussion with you... (I've seen it done before.tnf wrote:If anyone is up for reading the same book I am right now (Briane Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos") and discussing it here let me know.
Plus, as I'm taking a backpacking trip next week, I need to find a book small enough to carry everywhere with me. Is there a condensed version? :icon26:
Fabric of teh Cosmos is about string theory.Dave wrote:I was going to read A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, which looks like a similar book, or at least the same style, before I decided to take a couple of classes this summer.
Oh and it looks like its about 570 pages, so TB won't be reading it
Does Bryson's book cover that topic at all?
Well, I'm about 80 pages in so far, and this is a very good book thus far.
Found a great quote that addresses almost all of Kracus's random thoughts and the frustration you feel as a person educated in physics trying to answer them:
"You could spend a lifetime - in antiquity, some did - wondering what happens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that previous mysteries are not solved; instead, they're rendered irrelevant."
Substitute "previous mysteries" with Kracus's random thoughts..and you see what I mean. Kracus, it isn't that your posts are always just plain wrong (although in terms of physics many are), the thing is, in light of what we already know, they are just irrelevant (like the "when is Russia?" type of question).
Found a great quote that addresses almost all of Kracus's random thoughts and the frustration you feel as a person educated in physics trying to answer them:
"You could spend a lifetime - in antiquity, some did - wondering what happens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that previous mysteries are not solved; instead, they're rendered irrelevant."
Substitute "previous mysteries" with Kracus's random thoughts..and you see what I mean. Kracus, it isn't that your posts are always just plain wrong (although in terms of physics many are), the thing is, in light of what we already know, they are just irrelevant (like the "when is Russia?" type of question).
Dunno, I never got to start ittnf wrote:Fabric of teh Cosmos is about string theory.Dave wrote:I was going to read A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, which looks like a similar book, or at least the same style, before I decided to take a couple of classes this summer.
Oh and it looks like its about 570 pages, so TB won't be reading it
Does Bryson's book cover that topic at all?
Well, I bit the bullet. What a great book (I'm still only on chapter 1). I wonder if proving the 11 dimensions predicted by M-theory exist can resolve the "dark matter" conflict... Why science can't currently account for a large amount of volume apparently missing from observable space.
I was also intrigued by his ambiguous use of the word "Reality." Does he mean a physical reality, either touchable or untouchable (but no less real like time), or a more abstract version that also dictates why people behave in certain ways.
I was also intrigued by his ambiguous use of the word "Reality." Does he mean a physical reality, either touchable or untouchable (but no less real like time), or a more abstract version that also dictates why people behave in certain ways.
Re: An idea for science types (books involved...)
Sounds very interesting. I'll look for a copy tomorrow. I'm not high level educated in science or anything like that. But I have a knack for grasping concepts pretty easily.tnf wrote:If anyone is up for reading the same book I am right now (Briane Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos") and discussing it here let me know.
Dave: Are you referring to the string universe theory? Where the galaxies are concentrated in threadlike 'tubes' with huge amounts of empty space between?
Dave -This is the bryson book you are describing, right?
EDIT - nvm I see what you are talking about... I skipped the 'roads to reality' part because I saw most of it in the 'elegant universe book.' I started right at "universe in a bucket." I'm up to page 110. So far he's spent most of the book discussing the departure from the newtonian world - first via Einstein's special, and then general, theories of relativity, then jumps into the quantum world, quantum entanglement, the whole 'observer's paradox' (not named directly), heisenberg's stuff, all building to the crescendo where he will point out that (if I am predicting right) quantum and relativity cannot both be right, and thus we need a new theory to explain the universe on both the micro- and macroscopic levels..or sommat.
EDIT - nvm I see what you are talking about... I skipped the 'roads to reality' part because I saw most of it in the 'elegant universe book.' I started right at "universe in a bucket." I'm up to page 110. So far he's spent most of the book discussing the departure from the newtonian world - first via Einstein's special, and then general, theories of relativity, then jumps into the quantum world, quantum entanglement, the whole 'observer's paradox' (not named directly), heisenberg's stuff, all building to the crescendo where he will point out that (if I am predicting right) quantum and relativity cannot both be right, and thus we need a new theory to explain the universe on both the micro- and macroscopic levels..or sommat.
Last edited by tnf on Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: An idea for science types (books involved...)
The string theory is not quite what you describe there scourge.scourge34 wrote:Sounds very interesting. I'll look for a copy tomorrow. I'm not high level educated in science or anything like that. But I have a knack for grasping concepts pretty easily.tnf wrote:If anyone is up for reading the same book I am right now (Briane Green's "The Fabric of the Cosmos") and discussing it here let me know.
Dave: Are you referring to the string universe theory? Where the galaxies are concentrated in threadlike 'tubes' with huge amounts of empty space between?
This is the closest thing I can find to what I'm talking about.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... f%26sa%3DN
I'm sure I was pretty vague in my description.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... f%26sa%3DN
I'm sure I was pretty vague in my description.
Yea, that picture shows the "filamentous "distribution of galaxies throughout the universe - but I that really isn't the defining characteristic of string theory. Get the book and jump on board to the discussion here. But be prepared to be doing some serious head scratching at times when reading, because they way you observe the universe will be forever changed...you have to almost forget the way you've looked at things...its crazy stuff.
Yessir.. I typically start books at the beginning (unless its the preface or sommat)tnf wrote:Dave -This is the bryson book you are describing, right?
EDIT - nvm I see what you are talking about... I skipped the 'roads to reality' part because I saw most of it in the 'elegant universe book.' I started right at "universe in a bucket." I'm up to page 110. So far he's spent most of the book discussing the departure from the newtonian world - first via Einstein's special, and then general, theories of relativity, then jumps into the quantum world, quantum entanglement, the whole 'observer's paradox' (not named directly), heisenberg's stuff, all building to the crescendo where he will point out that (if I am predicting right) quantum and relativity cannot both be right, and thus we need a new theory to explain the universe on both the micro- and macroscopic levels..or sommat.
Chapter 1 is pretty much as you described the following chapters, so it's probably skippable even if you hadn't read it elsewhere
One thing I really like about the book is that it's very visual. I know a tiny bit about what he's writing about already, but his descriptions play around visually in my head like some kind of Errol Morris documentary. Someone like Morris could take this book to an incredibly cinematic level.
like this:
http://www.errolmorris.com/content/abor ... s_ibm.html
like this:
http://www.errolmorris.com/content/abor ... s_ibm.html