Help create a JREF recommended science books list?

Sometime last year people on this site replied to my request for books that are essentially "quantum physics for dummies". Stupidly I've misplaced the replies, but I think it would be good to include some suggestions here. At the time I was reading Hawking and while it was supposed to be written for the layman, I was still struggling with the concepts.

rsaavedra said:
10. "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking" by M. Neil Browne
Click to expand...

heh... I haven't seen that name in awhile. I had him for a course in college called "Great Ideas". At the time I think most of us in the course thought he was kind of nuts as he's proudly eccentric. He's also known for aggressive questioning that makes undergrads like we were very uncomfortable.

I may not have liked it much at the time, but looking back I consider him one of my best professors. Were I to ever go into teaching, I think I'd want to do a course on critical thinking. It's so lacking in society.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned but I would recommend Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestors Tale." It's long but actually easy to read.

Also, I would like to recommend "The Ascent of Science" by Brian Silver.

I actually heard about it on this website. I think it's a must read for beginning science teachers. It should be required reading in there credential program.
 
I'm realizing noone has mentioned in this thread Isaac Asimov's "New Guide to Science". I recently re-read the chapters on Elements as well as the one on Particles in this book. Asimov's account of all the discoveries related to chemistry, nuclear physics, and understanding subatomic particles is wonderfully told. Most of the milestones are actually Nobel-prize winning studies. A truly fascinating read, highly recommended.
 
Well, I see most of the books I would have thought to recommend have already been thought of. I second any and all recommendations for Oliver Sacks titles.

One I didn't spot on the list that I found to be a great read, on the subject of cognitive and social psychology:

Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
 
Wow, I think you guys covered every physics book I might have thought of, awesome! I will add the caveat that I am now very skeptical of string theory (but I'm just a darn experimentalist, what do I know ;-) )

Thanks for the recommendations in all these fields! I just started "Selfish Gene" and I hope to reread "The Origin of Species." I think at 13 I was too young to grasp the full majesty of it.

Might I throw in "Raptor Red" by Robert Bakker because dinosaurs are cool!
 
The making of the fittest - Sean B. Carroll

Great book on evolution from the DNA perspective.
 
Popular Physics:
The Character of Physical Law -- Feynman
QED -- Feynman
The Pleasure of Finding Things Out -- Feynman
The First Three Minutes -- Weinberg
The God Particle -- Lederman
The Inflationary Universe -- Guth
The Elegant Universe -- Greene
The Fabric of the Cosmos -- Greene
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity -- Smolin
The Problem with Physics -- Smolin
The Physics of Star Trek -- Krauss
A Brief History of Time -- Hawking
Black Holes and Time Warps -- Thorne
Black Holes, Geons and Quantum Foam -- Wheeler
The Emperor's New Mind -- Penrose
The Road to Reality -- Penrose
More than One Mystery -- Silverman

Real Physics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics -- Feynman
Classical Electrodynamics -- Jackson
Classical Mechanics -- Goldstein
Quantum Mechanics -- Peebles
Course in Theoretical Physics (10 Vols) -- Landau and Lifshitz
Gravitation -- Misner, Thorne and Wheeler

Popular Mathematics
Innumeracy -- Paulos
A Mathematician's Apology -- Hardy
Adventures of a Mathematician -- Ulam
Journey Through Genius -- Dunham
The Milleniium Problems -- Devlin
I am a Mathematician -- Wiener

Real Mathematics
Rieman' Zeta Function -- Edwards
Theory of Numbers -- Hardy and Wright
Algebra -- Van der Waerden
Lectures on Abstract Algebra -- Jacobson
Principles of Mathematical Analysis -- Rudin
Real and Complex Analysis -- Rudin
Complex Analysis -- Alhfors
Functional Analysis -- Rudin
Topology -- Kelley
Topology -- DuGundji
Introduction to Algebraic Topology -- Massey
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
LOL- there's some light reading for summer vacation.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you would want to read a little background first

Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups -- Warner
Manifolds, Tensor Analysis and Applications -- Abraham, Marsden, Ratiu
Differential Geometry -- Spivak
Foundations of Differential Geometry -- Kobayashi and Nomizu
 
MTW is actually pretty light-weight in terms of prerequisites. It's imposing because it covers a lot, but since it also takes the time to develop most of the computational tools, it is much more self-contained, then, say, Wald's GTR book or something.

But this also misses the point. This isn't about books that would enable you to become a master of the mathematics or physics being discussed, or even approach bachelor-degree level of knowledge. As good as some books on DrRocket's "real" subsections sare, they're not for laymen, nor are most of them are not even the best introductory books for people already in math or physics programs.

And frankly, I've doubts that anyone who says that books like Kobayashi and Nomizu or Spivak's Differential Geometry are a "little background" for MTW has actually read any of them. Their background value is questionable (how about a book that actually treats semi-Riemannian differential geometry, like one by Barrett O'Neill, and unlike Spivak?), never-mind calling either of them little. Either that, or this is an attempt to be facetious without success.
 
Vorpal said:
MTW is actually pretty light-weight in terms of prerequisites. It's imposing because it covers a lot, but since it also takes the time to develop most of the computational tools, it is much more self-contained, then, say, Wald's GTR book or something.

But this also misses the point. This isn't about books that would enable you to become a master of the mathematics or physics being discussed, or even approach bachelor-degree level of knowledge. As good as some books on DrRocket's "real" subsections sare, they're not for laymen, nor are most of them are not even the best introductory books for people already in math or physics programs.

And frankly, I've doubts that anyone who says that books like Kobayashi and Nomizu or Spivak's Differential Geometry are a "little background" for MTW has actually read any of them. Their background value is questionable (how about a book that actually treats semi-Riemannian differential geometry, like one by Barrett O'Neill, and unlike Spivak?), never-mind calling either of them little. Either that, or this is an attempt to be facetious without success.
Click to expand...

Of course I was kidding in the last post. Just as you were kidding when you called MTW light summer reading. Geez, lighten up.

None of the books in that post are easy sledding. Spivak is probably the easiest.

Taking a look at semi-Remanian manifolds is probably a good idea. Lorentzian manifolds are a special case of such beasts.

I would defend the books labeled as "real" in the original post as not only good background, but rather standard texts in the respective disciplines. They are not for casual laymen, and I hope I made that clear. On the other hand, none really require a lot of formal background, but instead demand a large dose of what used to be called "mathematical maturity". They can be and are handled by people with relatively little formal background -- but with a strong desire to learn the material and the time to dedicate to learning it. I think they are in fact quite good choices for cross-disciplinary study by people with a solid background in mathematics or physics.

There are other texts that are far more difficult than the ones listed, and that is the reason for the choices made. For instance you mentioned that Wald's book on general relativity is more difficult than is MTW. That is true, and one reason that neither Wald's book nor Weinberg's book are on the list. Similarly the series of mathematics books by Rudin were chosen because of their elegance and readability. There is also a matter of taste involved, and those with other tastes might well select other books.
 
DrRocket said:
Of course I was kidding in the last post. Just as you were kidding when you called MTW light summer reading.
Click to expand...
I didn't, but point taken.

DrRocket said:
I would defend the books labeled as "real" in the original post as not only good background, but rather standard texts in the respective disciplines.
Click to expand...
They are indeed standard texts, but about half of them make do not make a good background--not just for pure laymen, but not even as introductions for those in undergraduate math or physics programs who haven't taken the corresponding class yet.

DrRocket said:
They are not for casual laymen, and I hope I made that clear.
Click to expand...
The thread is about introductory books accessible to laymen, so even if they're extended to more serious treatments, accessibility should be preferable to completeness.

DrRocket said:
They can be and are handled by people with relatively little formal background -- but with a strong desire to learn the material and the time to dedicate to learning it.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are people that can handle books like Jackson as their first look into electromagnetism, but they should be smart enough to realize that they're far above the norm, especially when speaking to laymen that might not have even had a mathematics or physics degree. Jackson is one of those books that is essential for specialists and can be considered The Book for graduate physics students, but recommending it for anyone under that or equivalent is just silly.

DrRocket said:
There are other texts that are far more difficult than the ones listed, and that is the reason for the choices made.
Click to expand...
The list is very good in terms of what it takes to approach mastery in a subject, or even its nits and grits, but for accessibility to someone just getting their feet wet, not so much. Something like Griffiths would serve better from both EM and QM, Hartle for GTR; Peter D. Lax's book on functional analysis is also somewhat more relaxed than Rudin's, and however much I like Hardy and Wright, that book should probably be disqualified for lacking exercises alone. I could make other alternative recommendations, but I doubt that the board at large would have the interest anyway.
 
As I said a list of books such as this reflects ones individual tastes, and apparently we have somewhat different tastes. Therefore, you may way disagree with what I have to say, and since the criteria are subjective your opinion is objectively as good as mine.

I have found that there is benefit to many of the popularizations of science, particularly of physics. But I have also found that to benefit from them a couple of factors are important, at least to me. The first factor is the author, and I prefer to read only those popularizations that are written by people who have done serious research in the field that is the subject of the book. I think the depth of knowledge and experience brought to the table by such authors is important, as well as the fact that they speak from a position of known expertise, avoiding distortions that can come from simplification. The second factor is that I find it beneficial to have enough background in the foundations of the subject to be able to read between the lines, because I think a great deal of understanding lies between those lines.

One then turns to the books in the "real" category to learn the foundations of the required subjects. The intended audience in this case I believe to be relatively intelligent people, who are self-selected and self-motivated to learn the material. They are not undergraduate students in a classroom, hence under no particular schedule pressure and are not concerned with artificial tests or grades. They are also more interested in conceptual understanding (i.e. theory) than in simply developing a facility for performing calculations (what some undergraduates describe as "plug and chug" -- an abhorrent term).


Within the "real" category I have found that the classic texts and monographs provide, for me, the most direct and useful expositions. That generally means books written at an advanced undergraduate or graduate level, largely the latter. The books that I have included in my lists in the "real" categories are well known, standard treatments that I think many if not most professionals would regard as classics. There are certainly other books that would also fall meet this criteria.

The selections are not necessarily the texts that one would choose for a formal class, particularly for undergraduates. Because the purpose is not to augment a series of lectures and because there is no class participation involved, pedagogical issues, such as exercise problems are as important as they would be for a class text. What is important is accuracy of presentation and clarity, clarity in many cases coming with a certain elegance.

One need not read these deeper books in one sitting or even several consecutive sittings. They are not novels. One can read them eclectically, perhaps covering only selected topics. For a first read one might read only the introductory material. In many cases these high-quality relatively advanced texts contain an introduction that succeeds in summarizing the material often covered in an undergraduate course in only a very few pages, but a few very clear and succinct pages. In this manner they can provide an excellent and condensed introduction, and perhaps at a later time, be used to address advanced topics that the reader may encounter. Because the texts are "classics", some have been re-issued several times, I think they are of known and lasting value.

One can certainly find more "elementary" works than the ones on my list. I have never been a particular fan of elementary books, as I find many to be either so elementary as to miss the important points of a subject or to be over-simplified to the point of confusion or trivialization of the subject. You will note that there is no calculus text on the list. This in large part is due to the fact that I don't know of a really good one -- and I have dealt with a few. They tend to be rather long on computation and short on understanding.

There are certainly other books that could be equally well recommended. You mentioned Peter Lax's book on functional analysis. I do not have first-hand knowledge of that text, but given the author, I certainly would expect it to be excellent. I don't know if it is more "relaxed" than Rudin's text, as I have never found Rudin's book to be particularly frenetic. Given the nature of Lax's research I would think it might place more emphasis on distribution theory and applications to partial differential equations and perhaps a bit less on applications to harmonic analysis. I personally have always liked Rudin's style and I particularly like the series of three texts on my list that provide a nice consolidated exposition of much of analysis. But as with these books, while you can find others that might be of equal quality, the selections on the list are respected classics and you will find none better.
 
DrRocket said:
As I said a list of books such as this reflects ones individual tastes, and apparently we have somewhat different tastes. Therefore, you may way disagree with what I have to say, and since the criteria are subjective your opinion is objectively as good as mine.
Click to expand...
The thread OP defines the criteria, and while accessibility as an introduction to an individual is subjective, statistically speaking, it is no longer so. By that metric, Jackson would the worst choice on that list, as great as it is either as reference or advanced study.

DrRocket said:
Within the "real" category I have found that the classic texts and monographs provide, for me, the most direct and useful expositions.
Click to expand...
By no means do I mean to imply that they are not excellent books. I own almost all of them and think that they are very worthwhile. What we apparently disagree on is which criteria are appropriate here. There's a difference between wanting to gain understanding of the essential principles of a subject and wanting to fully master it. Your list is very appropriate to the people of the latter category--I agree fully with that--so if that was your intention, then this is just a misunderstanding of purpose.
 
Last edited:
Can someone recommend a good book about the death of the universe (I.e, the black hole period, the death of star formation, the big freeze)?
 
I've skimmed through this list and Haven't noticed 'Parallax: The race to measure the cosmos' by Alan Hirshfield.

This is a fantastic book telling the history of man measuring the stars. It details early measurements to Galileo and his pursuit of Inventing(or improving as history goes) the telescope to finally the idea of Parallax. Parallax is the apparent movement of a close object from different angles. 3 astronomers in the 1830's independantly used this idea to measure the distance to the stars. A fantastic read for anyone interested in astronomy or history or science in general!

Edited:
For a better understand than my poor definition of parallax go to wiki and type in Parallax. Great page on it there.
 
Last edited:
Some books I've read recently and think others will enjoy include What is Life? by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, and Rare Earth, by Ward and Brownlee. Both very good, I can recommend them both to anyone interested in evolutionary biology.

Another I heartily recommend is Endless Universe.
 
St_Hereticus said:
Some books I've read recently and think others will enjoy ... Rare Earth, by Ward and Brownlee. Both very good ... {snip}
Click to expand...
Ward and Brownlee (W&B) are a couple of shallow thinkers. They write interesting science fiction and try to pass it as science; they are oblivious to the shortcomings of their conclusions.

"Rare Earth" is pitched as an argument that "complex life" (whatever that is, it seems they mean human-like; hereinafter "life") is rare. However, they only have one example of "life" and that means they extrapolate from one data point (life on Earth) to the dimensions of the Universe. We do not allow such extrapolations in science.

Basically, they make arguments about Earth, in the environment of the Solar system, and claim that all the features of our environs are needed for life. Of course, they have no supporting evidence. They cannot cite similar stellar sytems that feature life, nor systems that lack one feature of our Solar system that lack life.

What they really argue is a paucity of Earth-like planets in Solar-like stellar systems. Taken that way, their analysis is interesting.

Their subsequent book concerned the future climate (and survivability by humans) of the Earth. It is equally, embarassingly overstated. They rely on computer extrapolations of continental drift and other notions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Yet, they (amateurishly) take the computer output as fact. Worse, they completely overlook the ability of our species to adapt to climate. Think about it, we (historically) have 'primitive' peoples surviving in arid deserts and arctic conditions, and everything in between. W&B seem to think that wearing shorts (or coats) all year-round is the end of life as we know it.

Unless they figure out what is going on, W&B are reasonably ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom