Difference between revisions of "Physics For the Rest of Us"

From TheAlmightyGuru
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''''Physics For the Rest of Us''''' is a popular science book that attempts to explain various theories in physics using layman's terms while also showing how these theories have shaped human culture--I think it failed at this goal. While the science education is quite good, it does little to explain how something like quantum mechanics affects our everyday life outside of the obvious.
 
'''''Physics For the Rest of Us''''' is a popular science book that attempts to explain various theories in physics using layman's terms while also showing how these theories have shaped human culture--I think it failed at this goal. While the science education is quite good, it does little to explain how something like quantum mechanics affects our everyday life outside of the obvious.
 +
 +
==Status==
 +
I own a hardcover copy of this book, and have read it.
  
 
==Review==
 
==Review==

Latest revision as of 10:31, 4 October 2017

Physics For the Rest of Us is a popular science book that attempts to explain various theories in physics using layman's terms while also showing how these theories have shaped human culture--I think it failed at this goal. While the science education is quite good, it does little to explain how something like quantum mechanics affects our everyday life outside of the obvious.

Status

I own a hardcover copy of this book, and have read it.

Review

Good

  • For most of the book, the author does a good job explaining the theories in terms I can understand.

Bad

  • Some of the theories, like quantum chromodynamics and the standard model of particles seemed glossed over and poorly explained. It would have been nice if the author spent a bit more time explaining their purpose or making analogies.
  • The author suggests that various creative movements like pointillism and modernism are the result of the artist learning about physics. This seems apocryphal, and no evidence was given to back it up.

Ugly

  • Near the end of the book, the author goes off the rails and tries to use the invalid non-overlapping majesteria argument, claiming that concepts like the soul, the metaphorical heart, and the miracles of religion are completely outside of the realm of science. Of course, anything that affects the natural world is in the purview of science, and he doesn't bother to give any evidence to suggest that the soul or miracles exist.

Links