Here is a five-hour video essay explaining that we actually live inside a superconductor: https://youtu.be/DkH1citHtgs
That is, the reason the weak nuclear force has limited range in our "vacuum" seems identical to the reason the electromagnetic force has limited range in an electric superconductor. Therefore we live in a weak nuclear superconductor. Whatever that means.
(Furthermore and even weirder, the electromagnetic force is a shadow of the weak nuclear force, the one-dimensional projection of it that retains an unlimited range even inside the superconductor, which happens because of reasons)
I have no idea why these sorts of posts are popular. Past college you're not going to learn physics by trying to self-study an entire university course. The best way to learn is just to pick a small part of physics you'd like to learn (preferably related to your job), i.e. how GPS work or some fluid mechanics etc... Then learn the physics you need for that. Knowledge accumulation can't be organized in a straight line, it happens non-linearly and generally builds upon small wins that are useful for you.
Not necessarily true. A lot of autodidacts have significant gaps. Going through fundamentals can unlock things applied across the board in the field and outside. Sometimes this approach is useful.
4) General Methods for Solving Physics Problems by B.S.Belikov - https://mirtitles.org/2015/12/07/general-methods-for-solving... This is a great book which teaches you by walking through the solutions of various physics problems using a general methodological framework.
I've found pacing to be the biggest problem with self-learning of academic subjects.
Suppose we are learning from a textbook. The things we learn in each chapter are built upon in the subsequent chapters. If we go forward before we have a good enough understanding it can make it very hard to learn that next chapter.
On the other hand if we wait to go forward until we feel we really have mastered the material up to this point it can take a long time to move forward, and that doesn't even really gain you anything.
The best way to master something is to practice it. The textbook author knows this. The author writes each chapter under the assumption that you are OK with the material from the previous chapters but have not yet mastered that material. You now need things to practice that material on, and using it while learning the material of this chapter is perfect for that.
That point where you have gotten good enough with the present material that you can handle the next chapter is almost certainly going to be a point where you do not think you are ready.
I personally recomend Halliday as an everything important in Undergrad thats not Theoretical Physics book. Use that in conjunction with your favorite Flavor of Math for Scientists and Engineers book. And you get a pretty wide understanding of Physics.
It really depends on what the individual goal actually is.
I think engineering curriculums “stop short” on mathematics just as it starts becoming interesting, more generalized and before connections start becoming easy to see and remember. Math is often handled as a bag of tricks.
A lot of engineers would do well to review mathematics at a deeper level than their undergrad days, and that can mean hitting up real analysis, abstract algebra and other topics from scratch in a proof theoretic way.
Once that mathematical fluency is achieved, it becomes possible to ingest other topics at higher levels of sophistication, IMHO.
I have never reached that level of Mathematic fluency very honestly. I came by with my very mediocre level of Math, and I still somehow managed to pass General Relativity.
I still couldn't Mathematically proof anything if a gun were held against my head. I however do apreciate the precise language of math, which I greatly enjoy for describing problems and solutions with incredible precision and little room for interpretation.
How does one know whether they actually learnt physics this way. Seems a lot of reading and structure, that's great. Not convinced about whether there is a change in understanding. Typical university/college classes have assignments, quizzes, exams etc.. don't see the equivalent.
"Solving problems is the only way to understand physics."
This is key! If you have the discipline to follow through on this, then learning via self-study is possible.
If you don't have the time or determination to do that (which is hard, by the way), the other option is basically to pursue "Physics appreciation" via popular science books (some of which are mentioned in the post). You will not have achieved understanding of physics, but you will have an appreciation for it, which is not a bad thing either. (But do not confuse the two.)
In case if any Physics learner finds this useful: Susan Rigetti's list is great if you are planning to do a late life PhD in Physics but not if you are re-learning it on the sideline of normal career as a hobby.
I've found many hard-core Physics textbooks to be off putting. Because the syllabus and its progression makes it seems like we are jumping from one special formula to another and there's just so much to learn! I was trying to search for a physics book that will try to cover as much ground as possible in fewer ideas and mental models. Roughly similar to Elon's idea that knowledge is a semantic tree and one should focus on trunk and big branches first.
Thomas A Moore did this experimental syllabus / series called "six ideas that shaped Physics". Each textbook takes one idea like "conservation laws constrain interactions". It's an excellent series, each book is relatively short and has amazing explanation. Especially look out for 2nd edition because later editions were probably "mainstreamed" by editors / publishers. The series is great choice for self learners. It uses non-standard notation and terminology at places to get the point across effectively so maybe not a great textbook lol.
2 standout examples for me : the first unit starts from the idea of interactions -> change in momentum -> to talk about change in kinetic energy. This motivates the idea of work done from first principles instead of directly throwing a definition "force . displacement". The unit on electromagnetic fields similarly has a beautiful discussion to motivate why one would use the ideas of curl and divergence.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 46.6 ms ] threadHere is a five-hour video essay explaining that we actually live inside a superconductor: https://youtu.be/DkH1citHtgs
That is, the reason the weak nuclear force has limited range in our "vacuum" seems identical to the reason the electromagnetic force has limited range in an electric superconductor. Therefore we live in a weak nuclear superconductor. Whatever that means.
(Furthermore and even weirder, the electromagnetic force is a shadow of the weak nuclear force, the one-dimensional projection of it that retains an unlimited range even inside the superconductor, which happens because of reasons)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect
Of course I've never used it and it's gone again
1) Physics for Entertainment by Yakov Perelman (2 vols) - https://mirtitles.org/?s=physics+for+entertainment Great to motivate oneself and learn to think in physics terms.
2) Fundamentals of Physics by B.N.Ivanov - https://mirtitles.org/2018/04/21/fundamentals-of-physics-iva... Nice overview which approaches physics "from atoms to matter".
3) Physics for Everyone by Landau and Kitaigorodsky (4 vols) - https://mirtitles.org/?s=Physics+for+Everyone A nice overview of all the major domains in physics.
4) General Methods for Solving Physics Problems by B.S.Belikov - https://mirtitles.org/2015/12/07/general-methods-for-solving... This is a great book which teaches you by walking through the solutions of various physics problems using a general methodological framework.
https://www.motionmountain.net/
Suppose we are learning from a textbook. The things we learn in each chapter are built upon in the subsequent chapters. If we go forward before we have a good enough understanding it can make it very hard to learn that next chapter.
On the other hand if we wait to go forward until we feel we really have mastered the material up to this point it can take a long time to move forward, and that doesn't even really gain you anything.
The best way to master something is to practice it. The textbook author knows this. The author writes each chapter under the assumption that you are OK with the material from the previous chapters but have not yet mastered that material. You now need things to practice that material on, and using it while learning the material of this chapter is perfect for that.
That point where you have gotten good enough with the present material that you can handle the next chapter is almost certainly going to be a point where you do not think you are ready.
I think engineering curriculums “stop short” on mathematics just as it starts becoming interesting, more generalized and before connections start becoming easy to see and remember. Math is often handled as a bag of tricks.
A lot of engineers would do well to review mathematics at a deeper level than their undergrad days, and that can mean hitting up real analysis, abstract algebra and other topics from scratch in a proof theoretic way.
Once that mathematical fluency is achieved, it becomes possible to ingest other topics at higher levels of sophistication, IMHO.
I still couldn't Mathematically proof anything if a gun were held against my head. I however do apreciate the precise language of math, which I greatly enjoy for describing problems and solutions with incredible precision and little room for interpretation.
https://youtu.be/kUkgKsEq330?is=uxc8zlUy0z1eng6M
Unfortunately, English version are somewhat reduced from Russian, but still.
* https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsExplainedVideos/videos
"Physics Explained"
But I am not kidding about hard math
He starts off slow and gentle but most of the videos 10 minutes in my brain is screaming and cannot keep up
Which is probably why textbooks are superior for some kinds of learning
But his videos are very well done
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Physics_Course
"Solving problems is the only way to understand physics."
This is key! If you have the discipline to follow through on this, then learning via self-study is possible.
If you don't have the time or determination to do that (which is hard, by the way), the other option is basically to pursue "Physics appreciation" via popular science books (some of which are mentioned in the post). You will not have achieved understanding of physics, but you will have an appreciation for it, which is not a bad thing either. (But do not confuse the two.)
I've found many hard-core Physics textbooks to be off putting. Because the syllabus and its progression makes it seems like we are jumping from one special formula to another and there's just so much to learn! I was trying to search for a physics book that will try to cover as much ground as possible in fewer ideas and mental models. Roughly similar to Elon's idea that knowledge is a semantic tree and one should focus on trunk and big branches first.
Thomas A Moore did this experimental syllabus / series called "six ideas that shaped Physics". Each textbook takes one idea like "conservation laws constrain interactions". It's an excellent series, each book is relatively short and has amazing explanation. Especially look out for 2nd edition because later editions were probably "mainstreamed" by editors / publishers. The series is great choice for self learners. It uses non-standard notation and terminology at places to get the point across effectively so maybe not a great textbook lol.
2 standout examples for me : the first unit starts from the idea of interactions -> change in momentum -> to talk about change in kinetic energy. This motivates the idea of work done from first principles instead of directly throwing a definition "force . displacement". The unit on electromagnetic fields similarly has a beautiful discussion to motivate why one would use the ideas of curl and divergence.