(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best astrophysics & space science books

It's no problem :) In all honestly, I'm laying in bed recovering from gallbladder removal surgery so I'm super bored and have a ton of time. It's actually kind of keeping me entertained.

Don't worry too much about your background. Your GPA isn't really bad and as long as you have some research you're well ahead of most other students who are applying. Geophysics programs will love that you have coding experience and they do prefer students with physics/math backgrounds over geology students so your background will serve you well in the application process. What languages do you know? Also, if you do well on your GRE (they mostly care about your quantitative score) you'll definitely be golden. I honestly didn't want to go to those schools, but I listened to other people tell me what to want and regretted it. I wouldn't have done well in those schools and I knew it--I'm not a competitive person and I do poorly in stressful environments. It's good that you know what you want out of a program and what you're saying is exactly what, in my opinion, should be valued. Although, just as a word of caution, if you want to go into academia the school you go to will matter. I think breadth of research in the department is also important. Some departments, especially in the earth sciences, are too industry focused and I didn't want that. Definitely talk to the grad students in the program--they're the BEST resource for finding out if you'll be happy there.

I went into geophysics because I wanted a field that was more applied than astrophysics and more stable than paloeontology (which was originally what I wanted to do). I wanted to be able to say that my work could make some small difference in people's lives. So, as for what I want to do when I get out--I want to work in environmental geophysics. I want to use computer modeling and exploration geophysics techniques to develop better solutions for finding groundwater and preserving groundwater quality. I really think that this is going to be a huge issue we face in the future, especially in developing countries and I see an opportunity to help improve the quality of people's lives. I could also see myself working on CO2 sequestration techniques and coming up with better waste-water disposal methods within the energy industry. Contrary to popular belief "fracking" does not cause earthquakes or pollute water supplies--it's waste water removal after "fracking" and other exploration techniques that is doing that. So, I could easily see myself working on developing better methods to dispose of and monitor waste water injection (hopefully also using computer models). (BTW: this is similar to what I put in personal statements if you're looking for inspiration).

The MS degree made a lot more sense for me given these goals. Money isn't too big for me, either, but I do know a lot of people stress this difference between the MS and PhD in the geosciences. If you love research and academia then the PhD is the way to go, but you have to have the dedication and drive. If you're worried about the job market, think very carefully about the PhD and academia. Post docs and academic appointments are difficult to get unless you graduate from those top schools or worked under an adviser who is very well respected and well-known in their field. And research grants are more and more difficult to come by unless you can get those appointments at top schools. That's just the harsh reality. If you want to work in industry (O&G, mining, or environmental), then you're probably wasting your time with a PhD. And, if you have no idea yet--which is perfectly fine--then the MS is the safer option in my opinion and you won't tick off your research adviser by dropping to a lower-level degree (advisers put a lot more time and money into PhD students).

As far as texts go this one is a really great intro textbook in the field. It's expensive, but you might be able to get it from a school library or find it on the internet. The first book that I read on the topic was [this one] (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Physics-Cambridge-Atmospheric-Science/dp/0521457149) and it's a really good introduction to the subject as a whole. Another good textbook is [this one] (http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Space-Plasma-Physics-Baumjohann/dp/186094079X), but it focuses a lot on magnetospheric physics and less on the ionosphere. Those are some of the ones that I used. I also used a textbook that my research adviser let me borrow that was specifically on magnetohydrodynamics and modeling, but I can't remember the exact title. I learned most of what I know from reading research journals and scientific papers because textbooks are really expensive and you can access research papers for free or email professors and ask for papers they can send you.

Easiest introduction (too simple, but a great overview):
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-plasma-physics-controlled-fusion/dp/0306413329/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404973723&sr=8-1&keywords=francis+chen+plasma

Better introduction (actually has real mathematics, this is like the Chen book but better for people who want to learn actual plasma physics because it doesn't baby you):
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Plasma-Physics-R-J-Goldston/dp/075030183X/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404973766&sr=8-1&keywords=goldston+plasma

Great introduction, and FREE:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/plasma.html

Good magnetohydronamics book:
http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-MHD-Jeffrey-P-Freidberg/dp/1107006252/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974045&sr=8-1&keywords=ideal+magnetohydrodynamics

Great waves book:
http://www.amazon.com/Waves-Plasmas-Thomas-H-Stix/dp/0883188597/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974079&sr=8-1&keywords=stix+waves

Computational shit because half of plasma physics is computing that shit:
http://www.amazon.com/Computational-Plasma-Physics-Applications-Astrophysics/dp/0813342112/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974113&sr=8-2&keywords=tajima+plasma

http://www.amazon.com/Plasma-Physics-Computer-Simulation-Series/dp/0750310251/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404974148&sr=8-1&keywords=birdsall+langdon

Then there are also great papers, and I posted some links to papers in a previous post, but if you're asking to start, you want to start with Chen (and if it's too simple for you, move onto Fitzpatrick or Goldston). I also forgot to mention that Bellan and Ichimaru also have great books for introductory plasma physics.

EDIT:

I'd also like to add that I love you because this subreddit almost never ever mentions plasma physics.

It depends on what you go into. If you want to do research, you'd pretty much have to get a PhD, and most astronomers/astrophysicists have a specialty. You could get a general degree and do something like public outreach, but to be honest, those jobs are few and far between. Sadly, astronomy is not required on any level in school so teaching is hard to get as well.

There is a bit of math, and a lot of physics. But there are varying fields within the astronomical community.

You could study stars (like James Kaler) and you'd probably want to look into helioseismology, magnetohydrodynamics, and nuclear physics to see if that's your bag.

You could study galaxy dynamics (which I'm given to understand is currently somewhat a hot topic) and you'd have to understand gravity. LOTS of gravity. There are enormous textbooks on gravity out there. Get one, and see if you like it.

Planetary geology is actually pretty fun, and doesn't typically require hairier math or physics above a high school AP course (basically, you have to like these subjects, but you don't have to be a genius at them). It's super fun, and I recommend starting there if you're interested in astronomy, but don't love math.

If you like chemistry, consider astro/cosmochemistry.

If you're an insane person, go into cosmology. It's really hard. Studying anything that's super theory heavy (like black holes, dark matter, string theory, etc.) is just math on PCP.

Not sure if you've played then, but haven't: Kerbal Space Program is the best way to get an intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics. If you like to play God you should also try the Universe Sandbox, and if you want a really really hardcore space sim you should play (or wait, it's still in alpha) for Rogue System.


As for actual books, OpenStax recently published their free astronomy book, and it's quite good for an introduction. From there, it depends entirely on what you're interested in, there's literally a universe's worth of information about
Astrophysics,
Astrochemistry,
Astrobiology,
Astrometry and
Orbital mechanics (for the aspiring galactic navigator),
Cosmology,
Planetary geology and
Cosmochemistry (careful, these last two lead to geology and meteorology which are equally disastrously addictive fields!)


Also, feel free to follow NASA's, ESA's, and JAXA's blogs. And spend a minute each morning checking the astronomy picture of the day.


Just don't end up llike me and annoy all your friends.

The Feynman Lectures are a perfect introduction to physics from high school level all the way up to degree level.

A good understanding of maths is essential to more advanced physics and there is an excellent textbook written by two extremely qualified headmaster's called The Language Of Physics: A Foundation for University Study which is what's recommended to first year University students and poses questions at the end of each chapter.

If you're looking for something a little less intimidating, then the A Very Short Introduction series have a perfect range of short (and cheap!) books on Physics: [Quantum Theory]
(https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0192802526/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9A3MSV2XSQRYF880MYP6), Relativity, Particle Physics, Cosmology, Nuclear Physics, Black Holes, Thermodynamics, Astrophysics, Light and Magnetism. These are great little books that don't blow your head off!

Physics is an extremely interesting subject to read around and I wish you the best with it :)

Sure! There are a few different places that would be a good start; and it'll depend on how detailed you want to go and what you can access from where you are...

One of the best, recent literature reviews of the subject is Complex Organic Interstellar Molecules by Eric Herbst and Ewine van Dishoeck in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics (v47, 427). Eric and Ewine are both in the top 5 or so experts in the field and write a really great article, though it is targeted at a Graduate+ level audience in chemistry/astronomy.

On the text-book side of things, Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium by AGGM Tielens is a recent, approachable text at the senior undergraduate level. You'll find it at most University libraries.

For a freshmen-undergraduate text that encompasses not just the evolution to life-essential molecules, but also the building of planets and the formation of life, How to Build a Habitable Planet by Langmuir and Broecker is a really phenomenal text. It is easy to read, engaging, and inexpensive ($22 on Amazon, currently). It may also be the most likely to be found in public libraries.

Hope these are helpful!

Edit: A comma made a break for freedom, but it has since been recaptured and given a stern lecture about proper usage.

So it sounds like you are looking for some thing at the pretty basic level?

For David Attenborough books, try something coffee-table-y like the Smithsonian Earth guide. It's about much more than geo, but it's got everything you listed above and lots of pretty pictures and interesting things.

For something more academic, but still introductory, try Understanding Earth. Easy to read yet descriptive. If you don't want to pay $120, try going back a couple of editions.

One more step up might be Planet Earth: Cosmology, Geology, and the Evolution of Life and Environment which has a few less pretty pictures and a few more maths (optional). Even though this book is supposedly "below" my educational level I still love it. I also wish I'd read it back when I was first starting down the scientific path - it really covers the basics of just about everything you'd every need to know.

Frankly I don't think anybody wants to post here because (1) most Christians here are probably post-liberal and (2) nobody wants to get flamed or have a bunch of clowns go "lol stfu faggot" to them like it's YouTube by some internet scientist.

That said there are plenty of reasons to doubt evolution theory, and science demands it, although philosophic interests will butt in and encourage conformity and faith/confidence in the theory or institution. I find that present interests in existentialism are adding social pressures to evolution theory, pressures that I see quite often on Reddit, as doubters or dissenters are shunned as foolish "unbelievers" which, regarding science, is a very disturbing thing. It looks like the sciences are being hijacked by worldviews, which according to Sir Wallis Budge is precisely how magic arts originate. That is, all magic arts start as sciences, and then they are ultimately hijacked by worldviews when people become very impressed with them, and turned into the slave of the new religion. He explained this when describing what happened with magic arts in Ancient Egypt, which began as metallurgy and architecture and chemistry and such. This very advanced people thought that their sciences could solve everything, and overextended them until they became completely guided by philosophic interests. I see this very thing when I go into the bookstore and see a book by Stephen Hawking that is asking why are we, rather than what are we. This is becoming all too common. Such are the birth pangs of a new and powerful religion, one with incredible faith and religious fervor, as the believers consider themselves not religious but completely right and on the side of truth because of their trivia and scientific stunts.

Of course, like interpretation, the philosophic interests guiding science don't actually have anything to do with science and are not really "scientific", they only bolster themselves as such and shoehorn their way into science. For example the existential musings of the Pale Blue Dot also goes the other way, insomuch that just as we marvel at it's smallness and insignificance, the opposite argument can be made, that because the earth is small and alone it is also rare and precious, like an oasis or an island at sea. The existential interpretation of sciences that will ultimately guide them really have nothing to do with scientific discoveries or facts.

Of course, people don't view themselves in perspective, so it's the ancestors and "them" who are unscientific and have faith in things. Overconfidence (faith) in the sciences and our interpretations of them to answer all life's mysteries is different if you ask the believer; it's not a belief, and that's not trust, instead it is truth and rational and real. Socrates must be rolling in his grave.

I digress.

As far as questions/doubts regarding our origins and life concepts:

As the story goes in very harsh conditions life emerged from rough amino acids that provided the information needed for life, and evolution took the reigns once life began. Life is believed to be about information, generally speaking. Now we're in an ideal situation for life awash with all kinds of genetic material and information, and yet "the beginning of life" doesn't happen again. As in, the experiment doesn't repeat itself in ideal conditions naturally or, to my knowledge, even artificially.

I would think that in such a universe I would expect to see, right now, entirely new "beginnings of life" happening, having just happened, and at various stages of their evolution up to modernity and beyond. But it seems as though we just take for granted that we were the first and the last. It seems rather convenient.

Square one...

You should have a solid base in math:

Introduction to Calculus and Analysis, Vol. 1 by Courant and John. Gotta have some basic knowledge of calculus.

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas. This is pretty high-level applied math, but it's the kind of stuff you deal with in serious physics/astrophysics.

You should have a solid base in physics:

They Feynman Lectures on Physics. Might be worth checking out. I think they're available free online.

You should have a solid base in astronomy/astrophysics:

The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy by Frank Shu. A bit outdated but a good textbook.

An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie.

Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction by James Binney. I haven't read this and there are no reviews, I think it was very recently published, but it looks promising.

It also might be worth checking out something like Coursera. They have free classes on math, physics, astrophysics, etc.

Hi, I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, concentrating on simulating turbulent transport in the divertor region and the scrape-off layer of tokamaks.

I won a bit of money from my undergrad institution, and I thought it would be fitting to use it to buy some reference textbooks for my PhD. However, although it's easy to find books, it's not so easy to find good reviews of them. I haven't done much plasma physics before but I will be having a lot of lectures on it in September, so I think more advanced books would be more useful, as I will be recommended plenty of resources for the more basic stuff.

Some of the books I've been looking at are:

• Ideal MHD - Freidberg
  
• Advanced Magnetohydrodynamics: With Applications to Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas - Goedbloed
  
• Computational Plasma Physics: With Applications To Fusion And Astrophysics - Tajima
  
• Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation - Birdsall & Langdon
  
• Plasma Confinement - Hazeltine & Meiss
  
• Waves in Plasmas - Stix
  
• Computational Methods in Plasma Physics - Jardin
  
• Visual And Computational Plasma Physics - Hsu
  
  but I'm open to any suggestions. I'm particularly interested in books about computational methods, and maybe also about scientific programming in C++.
  
  Thanks!

An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics is an excellent and easy to read book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108422160/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_omrWBbDYB9MN3

It's commonly used for introductory Astrophysics courses. If you don't have a basic understanding of Calculus it won't make much sense so, if you really want to properly understand the subject, first study basic Calculus. A good introductory Calculus book would be this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1285740629/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_JdsWBbH1KXPAN.

You're also going to want a basic understanding of Physics so one more for that:

University Physics with Modern Physics (14th Edition)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321973615/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_LfsWBbHJ83MT6

Those three books together should give you a basic understanding of Astrophysics and put your feet solidly on the road to further understanding. Read the Calculus book first (at least the first half of it or so) and then the Physics book. Then you'll be ready to dive into Carroll and Ostlie's book!

If you don't want to go quite that deep and you just want a really basic overview of the subject, you might consider finding Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time" or watching the PBS SpaceTime series in YouTube.

Edit: If the Calculus book is still a little unclear, your issue probably lies in Algebra. In that case, read this book before any of the others:

College Algebra (10th Edition)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321979478/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_MqsWBbR985C30

Good luck on your journey! Give yourself at least a year or two to get through all of them and don't forget to work the problems!

Oh - download Kerbal Space Program and play it for a while. Trust me on this; you'll develop a second sense of basic orbital mechanics ;)

Personally, I love learning about quantum mechanics and relativity.

Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g if you want to watch cool animated explanations of advanced science.

* Almost forgot Fermilab: https://www.youtube.com/user/fermilab

Stuff like this if you want to read laymen textbooks to wrap your head around QM and relativity: (Altho get the paper versions, because they have diagrams and illustrations and stuff illegible on the ebooks):

https://www.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Einstein-s-Relativity/dp/0465025269/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691164096/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Universe-Anything-That-Happen/dp/0306821443/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2

All of those are mind-bogglingly cool, as well as being actual real science!

Not OP, but I highly recommend The Quantum Universe (Amazon link) as an accessible and really informative dip into quantum physics. I really wish I'd had this or something like it back when I was an undergrad.

As for the rest of physics that's written this well, I dunno. :)

> The universe is the sum total of the energy within spacetime

I haven't seen it used in precisely that way. It used to mean "everything," but lately, in modern cosmology, it refers to a particular sphere of spacetime. So books like The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos use the term in that sense, individual spheres of spacetime.

I agree that we don't know what n is. Which is why the simulation hypothesis leads with statements like "if you grant that universes can be simulated in theory, and that technological civilizations can achieve computing power of that level...." The hypothesis is a thought experiment to see where those ideas lead. It is not offered as a proof that we are in fact in a simulation.

Scholar of universes and also non-atheist here. I believe in a God, and from the books I've read on the matter (some Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and also this book written by a neuroscientist), the possibility of a multiverse is very real. I think we live in one. A lot of the evidence for multiverses is supported by the mathematics behind string theory (read this), but it can't be proven because "strings" are 10^-35 meters long (the Planck length). (We can currently only see things as small as 10^-16 meters long--or centimeters long, I forget.)

It is all very interesting to me. In the last book mentioned, the author, a neuroscientist with presumably no idea of a multiverse, said that he saw (I forget how he worded it) "our world as one among many" when he experienced his out-of-body experience. It's a great read for sure.

Everything that I've read or learned points to the idea of multiple universes inhabited by life but no other intelligent life than that which is on our home planet.

EDIT: grammar

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking

-- This is the first book I thought of when I saw your title. It might be the most popular pop-science book of all time. And -- especially how dry and complicated the subject seems -- it's very clear and entertaining.

A Briefer History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.

The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking.

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, by Brian Greene.

These are books about physics (the way the world works), astrophysics (the way the universe works on a gigantic scale), and quantum physics (the way the world works on the tiniest scale).

I know. It sounds incredibly boring and complicated. And it is complicated. There's a quote widely attributed to a physicist named Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics." But that's what's so amazing about it. It's so weird. It's often so counter-intuitive to how we think the world and science works. You'll read about how time slows down as you approach the speed of light, or about the double slit experiment, and put the book down and think, "That's crazy. The world can't actually work like that.

These books do an amazing job of explaining incredibly complicated concepts, without using any math or equations. By the end of any of these books, you're going to understand some very complicated concepts that will probably change the way you see the world.

In his book How to Build a Time Machine by Paul Davies tackles the issue directly: Is time travel possible? The answer, insists Davies, is definitely yes, the caveat though are ironing out the kinks in the space-time continuum. Ignore the tongue in cheek title though, it's misleading and does not literally describe in detail on how to build an actual time machine, just the theoretical plausibility.

I'm also glad you brought up the impossibility according to our science because while you are absolutely right in classical physics it's not possible, once you get down to the quantum realm, all classical physics completely breaks down and that goes to the very heart of the subject itself. And we're only just now tapping into this new realm of science and with companies like D-Wave and Google exploring the possibilities of quantum computers, we might have a definite answer in the near future.

Lots of books about astronomy and astrophysics for laypeople.
Cosmos
A Brief History of Time
The Elegant Universe
Welcome to the Universe
(I haven't read the last one. Stumbled on it looking up the Amazon links for the others, but it looks pretty cool, to me.)

Take all the math and science courses you can, especially if your high school offers AP physics and calculus.

Carbon nanotubes do have the theoretical strength to make a space elevator. According to a NASA study (pdf), a tapered ribbon composed of nanotubes several centimeters long and a feasibly strong epoxy would be sufficient. Brad Edwards is the author of the study, here's his book on the subject.

The study addressed a lot of practical concerns, including meteorites, radiation, weather, construction costs, etc. It actually made a good case for being surprisingly practical.

You sound like me, and this is the best book I've read:

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Ground-Up-Introductory-Relativity/dp/0521455065/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334093050&sr=1-1

Check out the table of contents. It's very conversational without REQUIRING a ton of physics, but on each page there's usually a section dedicated to the math if you want to dive in deeper). Pretty much works it's way from Newton's Apple falling, so how we leave earth, to the solar system, to how galaxies\stars\black holes\the universe was formed and how relativity fits in everywhere.

I don't believe much, but I accept it as the best explanation for what we currently know about quantum physics.

Edit: Link for desktop: http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Universe-Anything-Happen/dp/0306821443 (I had posted the mobile link before)

This whole piece is the prevalent woo-woo equivocation of the term “observed” and used by the likes of Chopra and other peddlers of new age sophistry. Using a surface level understanding of the topic to make unfounded assertions of reality that amount to basically magic. This is a good popularization of what quantum mechanics actually mean. that shows why the OP’s sophistry isn’t backed by the science and that is easy to read.

10 years ago NASA commissioned a study on the plausibility of space elevators, and it was published as an interesting book: The Space Elevator by Bradley Edwards and Eric Westling.

The scheme they propose in that book is to put a 30–50-ton reel of very thin carbon nanotube ribbon in geostationary orbit, and start lowering the end down. As the ribbon is unreeled it is stabilized by tidal forces, and the reel recoils back, keeping the center of mass at geostationary orbit. When the end reaches the ground it is secured, and the empty reel continues to 100,000 km out to be the counterweight.

The ribbon would be the "pilot" elevator, just capable of lifting climber robots that will lay down additional layers of ribbon, building it up to whatever strength is desired.

The authors point out that the first thing you should do with a functional space elevator is to build another space elevator. Getting those 30-50 tons of initial ribbon into geostationary orbit was a very expensive endeavor now made cheap, and ribbons can break.

Yes I know what you're trying to say. However contradiction is a means of showing that a previous statement is wrong (usually by making the converse assumption). The word I think you're looking for is inconsistent. GR has shown tremendous success at predicting the consequences of cosmological events (black holes, neutron stars, gravitational waves, early universe, etc) but it breaks down when you try to describe what happens in a black hole or at the centre of a neutron star or at the big bang as all of these scenarios are on the atomic scale. Similarly the closest theorists have come to a quantum theory of gravity is loop quantum gravity and string theory and Feynman had a decent stab at a renormalizable field theory approach but ultimately failed. His lectures on it are quite good (not to be confused with the classic red books) https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/dp/0813340381. Also light is not both a particle and a wave. The probability distribution for where the particle will eventually be detected has the form of an interfering wave pattern. This does not mean the particle is a wave and vice versa and so our cognitive limitations do not apply here. Yes entropy is best understood as a statistical phenomenon. No time is not best understood as a statistical phenomenon. As I said previously time is just a method by which events can measured in relation to each other. It can be also be a parameter in the differential equations that model the evolution of the physical system of interest be it quantum or classical. The Feynman Lectures on Physics are the best place to start to gain an understanding of the fundamental physics that underpins almost everything. And they're all online http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

First time I ever read this term was in a book discussing time travel: http://www.amazon.com/Build-Time-Machine-Paul-Davies/dp/0142001864

I thought it was really awesome that in a book full of scientific jargon and theories of physics they would use the term "spaghettification" to describe being pulled into a black hole. I guess that's just the scientific term for it.... Awesome

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find.


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Yes, it does hold. Mass-energy is the typical term used when talking to laypeople, but physicists tend to use natural units (\hbar=c=k_{B}=eV=1) which means that mass and energy are equal, not just equivalent. E=m, instead of E=mc^2, since c=1. (E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 becomes E^2 =m^2 +p^2 for high velocities, for the pedantic.) So the terms are interchangeable, as long as you're using the right system of units.

The actual theory (the Alcubierre metric) is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations (the complex system of nonlinear partial differential equations that make up general relativity). However, since these are differential equations they can have many solutions, and indeed many different solutions have been found. It is not known which solution (if any) is correct for the real world. In general, it can't be known for certain until a full theory of quantum gravity is discovered. Indeed, the existence of "Dark Energy" is one of the indications that the theory is slightly wrong. It may be explainable as a modification of the theory or may actually be some sort of negative mass-energy, but at the moment we have no way to tell. Again, we need a complete theory of quantum gravity.


For anyone actually wanting to learn about this sort of thing in detail, try the following, in order:

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Post-Newtonian-Relativistic-Eric-Poisson/dp/1107032865
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Charles-W-Misner/dp/0716703440/

Both are graduate level texts (it's a graduate level theory) and require a thorough understanding of differential equations. And differential geometry, and all the more basic physics on which they build of course. The first book starts with some very good material on Newtonian gravity, but you'll still want to have had at least a year of undergraduate physics to start. The theory is simple, but the solutions are very complicated.

> How did the universe begin?

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0739344269

> Before the big bang or what ever other theories there are.

http://www.universetoday.com/79750/penrose-wmap-shows-evidence-of-%E2%80%98activity%E2%80%99-before-big-bang/

> How did the very first atom or particle was created?

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_history.html

It certainly wasn't the work of some male uber being who conveniently happened to look like us. (Why would the creator of the universe just happen to look like the evolved bipedal inhabitants of a 1g planet with an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere.) And the very idea of such a being having a male/female identity makes no sense unless there is a counterpart of the opposite gender. The idea of a "male" deity was simply a reflection of the paternalistic society that invented him.

Edit:
Carl Sagan on your question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0

Interesting problem I have is that people see me as a fake geek because I do like the whole "Geek Chic" look. I can't exactly afford to go preppy and I am a super twink (pun intended). I have a 4.0 GPA in college right now, play PC games more than I should, and spend a lot of my free time researching things that interest me. Currently I am reading The Constants of Nature by John Barrow for pleasure. As for TV shows, I could go fairly in depth about the Dr. Who universe if you asked me.

Sometimes I have people play the "You aren't a REAL nerd like me" card. Apparently, some people just see me and go "That guy is good looking! He can't be a nerd." I guess that shouldn't bother me, but it is part of my identity that people are trying to attributed to be an attention whore.

TLDR: Hot guys can be nerds/geeks too.

Edit: When I reread that, I realized I sounded like an asshole. Sorry.

I don't really know the field that well, but a long time ago I worked on Cassini and used this book which I quite liked.

There are lots of articles online about MHD generators which originally got me into magneto hydrodynamics. There are textbooks available on Amazon about MHD in stars. One particularly is my favorites are those which cover MHD effects in Binary Star Pairs.

Look up these keywords to find data:
MHD
Solar
Stellar
Interstellar
Magnetosphere
Heliospheric
Plasma
Physics
Astrophysics

https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Stellar-Dynamos-Astrophysics-Astronomy/dp/3642320929/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=stellar+MHD&qid=1558934489&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Helioseismology-Asteroseismology-Connections-Laurent-Gizon/dp/0387894810/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?keywords=stellar+MHD&qid=1558934489&s=gateway&sr=8-4

The Martian Engineer's Notebook, Volume 1

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SW09GKK

FREE July 13th & 14

>The Martian Engineer's Notebook is a scientific supplement and critique of The Martian by Andy Weir. It contains explanations of scientific concepts and detailed solutions to problems related to the challenges of Mark Watney's ordeal on Mars. Should he have survived? What did he get right? What did he get wrong? What did he get wrong, but it didn't matter? These are the kinds of questions that The Martian Engineer's Notebook seeks to provide researched and organized answers to.

>
>Volume 1 covers weather on Mars and an in-depth analysis of the resources at Mark's disposal as well as what it takes to build a farming ecosystem on Mars.

If you are interested in the real history of the world rather than dumbed-down versions, I'd very highly recommend started with this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Earth-Cosmology-Evolution-Environment/dp/0521409497/

It has a little dated info here and there, but the person who wrote it died after the first edition. Still, by far, one of the best books about the planet and it covers a lot more than the other books I've seen mentioned here.

This book was written by a rocket scientist: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Elevator-Earth-Space-Transportation/dp/0974651710

It goes through all the challenges. Carbon nanotubes are strong enough.

May I recommend The Constants of Nature?

Many libraries have it..

I think that according to our (or at least my) present understanding of physics in order to travel through time you would need to find an area of space time that loops back on itself (a wormhole) and travel through it. If you did this you wouldn't disappear and then reappear you would just move in a different direction through time relative to your desired start and end points.

Note: this is based on a very non-detailed (ie amateur) understanding of the possibility of real time travel as informed by this book, How to Build a Time Machine.

It does have to do. Generically even spin interactions are attractive and odd spin interactions are repulsive for same sign charges.

This can be seen from the form of the interaction term, gravity couples to the stress-energy tensor T^{\mu\nu}. Hence the interaction between two gravitational charges has 2 tensors like the above that you have to contract with an even number of copies of the metric, the even minus signs on the temporal part cancel out resulting in a + giving us an attractive interaction.

If you compare with the case of spin 1, the charge there is J^\mu, we only need one metric to contract the index that gives us a - sign in the temporal component resulting in repulsion.

Notice how we only make an assumption on the form of the charge to achieve this result. What you said is correct but you start assuming General Relativity which is a lot to assume since GR is the theory of massless spin-2 particles.

Feynman has a book called Lectures on Gravitation (https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Gravitation-Frontiers-Physics/dp/0813340381) that discusses this things.

Do Americans really buy their textbooks for $500? Why does it cost so much? I just looked up a standard astrophysics textbook on amazon and it costs just below $100.

Please read this, travel 3 weeks back and create your post again.

Not just black holes, but very good

FOR SCIENCE!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Universe-Anything-Happen/dp/0306821443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408573505&sr=8-1&keywords=brian+cox

This helped me

The Big Orange Book, an overview of astronomy from the basics of how we choose coordinates through planets, stars, galaxies, all the way to cosmology. It earned the nickname because of its common use in grad schools.

The Quantum Universe is a good, rigorous, but well-explained book that might be along the lines you're looking for. Possibly also Reality is Not What it Seems, but I've barely started that one so I can't say for sure.

This is tricky, because the broadly known explanation is misleading.

First the physics:

At the time Heisenberg was working on this, physicists were first figuring out experiments that could give them information and measurements about what the insides of atoms were like. And the measurements they were getting were very confusing. Everyone was trying to think up some clear mental model for what was going on, in order to help them figure out the math. Bohr had some success by thinking of the nucleus and the electron as being similar to a tiny planet and a moon orbiting around it. The problem was: his math broke down for any atom other than hydrogen, so clearly this wasn't the whole story.

Heisenberg's most important idea was something like "Give up trying to have a mental model or analogy to the everyday world, just get the math right no matter how strange it may seem and accept that's simply how things are."

Heisenberg made huge contributions to getting the math figured out. One of the things his math showed, was that certain measurements acted as as complementary pairs: the more you knew about one, the less you would know about the other. Position and momentum are the common example, but there are other pairings.

The obvious question is, why the heck should this be the case? Why does measuring momentum make us blind to position?

Enter the confusion: Heisenberg suggested that this paired measurement effect was because the act of observing was interfering with the system. This is called the observer effect, and it's commonly described with an example something like "well, to see an electron you have to bounce a photon off it, but by bouncing a photon off it you've hit it like a billiard ball, so your measurement of position changed it's momentum."

The problem is, this is just wrong. Electrons, photons and other subatomic particles do not move like billiard balls. The more refined the math got, the more certain this became. Matter acts like little waves of probability, and particles are in a sense a little bit everywhere at once.
It doesn't make sense to talk about an increasingly exact location of a particle. Not because we're affecting it by observing, and not because there's noise or error in our measuring device, but because past the plank scale, matter simply does not have an exact location.

So again, why this uncertainty in the pairs of measurement? Because that's a feature of the math that works for predicting reality. No one has come up with a better explanation since.

If it sounds a bit confusing and horrifying, you're not alone. Einstein was one of the most vocal opponents to this view, and even until his death maintained that we'd find better math eventually. We haven't, and generally speaking, particle physicists are just used to thinking this way now.

But again, outside of the physics world "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" refers to the observer effect.

If you want a good short book on this stuff that won't punish you with the advanced math, I recommend this one by Brian Cox and one of his colleges: http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Universe-Anything-Happen/dp/0306821443