Thinking is hard work

Whew! First, from 3 Quarks, there was this, and then this, and then I asked (only half-joking) if they were joking, and Abbas Raza promised a plain-language explanation -- and kept his promise. So now there is this, from Cosmic Variance. I have read it, and the comment thread, and my head is full (I feel all this pressing against the inside of my skull) but I think I -- maybe -- almost -- understand.

I used to imagine a course I would love to take: Physics for Poets. I don't mean, exactly, a dumbed-down physics -- though I realize this would be somewhat unavoidable -- but physics explained in comprehensible language. I think Sean Carrol could teach that course. So could Erin.

There's an idea -- in your spare time, you two could get together and teach the rest of us physics! A pleasant online diversion. I suppose we should have a philosopher in there, too. Any volunteers?

I have tried over and over to read Stephen Hawking's first book, A Brief History of Time, pencils and highlighters to hand, but I've never made much progress; and each time I try, I have to begin again at the beginning. Everything I learned from previous readings seems to fall out of my brain.   

And you can see why this is so difficult for me. I passed, but I shouldn't have. Seven out of ten? Certainly not an A+.

 

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 7/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

This humiliating experience via Burningbird. So much for joining Mensa.

Now I feel compelled to disclose that I did quite well on my GRE's. OK, not so well on the math part, but very well on the verbal. And the year I took it they were trying out a logic section (did they keep that, I wonder?) and I aced that. I not only aced it, I loved it.

So I really should be able to get this. No?

Comments

[John B.]

SB,
Along the lines of "Physics for Poets": I don't know if you listen to Writer's Almanac, but go here and read the poem for 3 February.

As for the Cosmic Variance link: that was a marvelous piece of writing. Thanks for leading me there. I especially liked the bit about the equations "to make it look like science." It reminded me of something Feynemann (sp?) once said: "We just draw arrows on chalkboards--that's all we do."

[belledame222]

I read that right after I read the above kitty post (squee!), and for a split second I read it as "physics for pets."

[Erin]

His name was Feynman, and if you really want to understand physics, try Six Easy Pieces.

Otherwise, you can do what I do ... have smart friends and bug them as needed. I would be proud to count myself in your circle ....

[John B.]

I am always on the lookout for smart friends. I thank you.

[SB]

Thanks, Erin -- I will find that book. I bet the local used book store has it. Easier than Hawking, eh?

And I will keep asking you questions.

[Erin]

Much easier than Hawking. I found Hawking a difficult read. Many scientits are; Feynman is an exception.

James Gleik and Timothy Ferris are two non-scientists who write splendidly on science
Also, John Gribbon's In Search of Schrödinger's Cat will also tell you all you are likely to need to know about Quantum Mechanics. I read it in HS, and didn't learn appreciably more about Quantum Mechanics in six years studying physics. Some math, is all.