Reddit mentions: The best molecular physics books

For Quantum Physics I cannot recommend Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide it has enough maths to make it worth reading, but the equations etc. are in supplemental boxes with explanations and investigations so you can ignore all the maths if you want. It tends to focus on the applications of quantum physics in semiconductors, superconductors which is good to learn about as it is easier to comprehend than the really tricky philosophical implications.

I would also recommend The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, because it has more philosophical stuff in it, and although it is broader and not just about quantum physics but includes relativity and stuff too, it is an awesome book and you won't regret reading it.

For evolutionary biology I would recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, it is a Science book so don't worry if you don't like his aggressive atheism as if I recall correctly it doesn't rear it's head in the book at all. It is especially good if you enjoy Computer Science as he makes some analogies between life and programs which are obviously easier to appreciate if you have some experience (Dawkins was a programmer for many years).

I don't know what paleo-anthropology is so unfortunately I can't recommend anything there, but I would be extremely happy if you could enlighten me and perhaps recommend some texts. (Not terribly helpful, I know :P )

I personally quite like Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's works, Why Does E=mc^2 and The Quantum Universe which talk about relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. I found these very accessible when I was doing my A-Levels (which I think is the equivalent of American High School) and they require absolutely no knowledge of maths.

If you're more interested in Grand Unified Theories (which I assume is what you're thinking of when you talk about two forces being the same force) then the only thing that comes to mind is The Elegant Universe which I've never read personally but I have heard very good things about it. It's about String Theory which is one possible GUT theory of everything (not quite the same as a GUT, see the reply) but does cover a few other areas as well.

Another book which I've heard good things about, but again haven't read myself, is In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat which has more of a focus on quantum mechanics.

Personally I would read both of Cox and Forshaw's stuff first because they are both very short so won't take long to get through. Then you can move on to one of the others, which are both a bit longer.

If you ask nicely on /r/physics or something similar they might also be able to suggest other things you would like.

Edit: There might be a Feynman Lecture or two that interests you as well but bear in mind that these are aimed at undergrads.

Edit2: I also just did a quick google search of site:reddit.com/r/physics books which threw up some pretty good results.

Edit3: String theory n'est pas un GUT, pardon my french.

What you've said is mostly close enough that the difference doesn't matter much to a layperson. However this bit:

> Light does not pass through time (which doesn't make sense to me, but I read that somewhere) which is why it is always moving through space at the speed of light.

Is a bit off while also being a very interesting topic. I imagine the source of this statement is related to the fact that photons will always travel at the speed of light, relative to all observers. In other words, if I were to travel towards you at 0.5c, then shine a light towards you, the light would travel away from me at c while simultaneously (from your point of view) approach you at c, not 1.5c.

In essence, if you assume it to be true that the light moves away from me at c, and towards you at c, the only way to reconcile the two statements is that we experience time differently.

This incidentally is a really good starting point for learning about General Relativity (I heartily recommend the book Why Does E = mc² (and Why Should We Care?) if you find this interesting as it does a way better job of explaining it than I could).

One good example from that book is a thought experiment where you have two observers. One observer is on a train. He has with him an extremely precise clock that simply bounces photons from one plate (bottom) to another (top). For this observer, the photons are going completely vertically as long as the train is NOT accelerating. It critically does not matter whether the train is moving relative to the ground or not, only whether it's accelerating or not. However, to the observer on a platform as the train goes by, the position of the photon as it bounces off the bottom plate, is not directly below the point at which it hits the top plate. It's very close, as the train is not traveling at relativistic speeds, but it's definitely not directly above (picture it as a right angled triangle where the light just traveled the hypotenuse).

This means that even in something traveling relatively slowly, the light has traveled further for the observer on the platform, than for the observer on the train, despite being exactly the same photon traveling at exactly the same speed (c). How much further the light traveled depends on the relative speed. One of the interesting things about this though is that the time dilation effect is actually real and measurable even at relatively slow—certainly achievable—speeds. In fact, it actually effects things we use every day. Flights for example are fast enough that it's measurable, but more interestingly, GPS would not work for more than a few days at a time if the satellites we put in orbit for it to function did not take this effect in to consideration!

And will remain in a super-position state until OP collapses the probability function by observing the screen!

As a sidenote, anyone interested in quantum theory should check out Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum/Kuttner, a general summary of the contradictory ideas that drive quantum physics. I've read others such as Beginner's Guide to Quantum Physics and The Mathematical Principles of Quantum Mechanics, but found that the Rosenblum/ Kuttner is by far the most clear and easiest to understand without a physics/ math background. Another great one is Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian, which gives a great account of the historical beginnings of quantum physics as a scientific field (focusing on Einstein of course). Very well-written, andectotal, and an awesome read for anyone interested in the history of science.

Come join /r/quantum! We need more posts!

I think you are on the right track. Take Physics C AP and Calculus BC your senior year and maybe continue taking programming. These classes will help you get ahead of your peers in College, especially Physics C which covers a great deal of material for a high school physics course. Also, apart from taking the right curriculum, I think the most important aspect of majoring in any field is having an interest in it. If your high school offers scientific research, like my high school did, I would enroll in the class. If you are lucky, you may be able to do some research in a nearby college, something that will definitely boost your college app and give you important experience. Also, I have some physics book recommendations that I highly recommend that you read at your age.

Check out these three books written by George Gamow. He has a talent in explaining difficult physics concepts to those who may not have that advanced of a scientific background.
One Two Three...Infinity, Thirty Years That Shook Physics,
Gravity

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112

I'm currently reading this. It's called "E=mc2 and why should we care". It's by Brian Cox and another chap who make the equation easy to understand and why it is what it is. Although it's not strictly cosmology, it does make it easier to understand certain theories. Also, it's nicely written.
There's some great books out there by Brian Cox (if you're familiar with him?) about the universe etc...

Happy Hunting and I hope your friend goes far

>This is also the first time I'll be TA'ing any undergraduate course,

What the hell? They didn't start you on a Physics 101 type course? Generally these things work on seniority, don't they? Older grad students get the higher level courses?

That's really a tough question because understanding things like decoherence and entanglement is actually pretty hard, an involves pouring over books like Ballentine's book, which is quite high level. Maybe the best way to skirt the problem is something like Leonard Susskind's Theoretical Minimum lectures and just skip the math stuff if you already know it?

I've never read it, but I know people who know there stuff who have said positive things about this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851683690/ref=pd_sim_14_14?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1851683690&pd_rd_r=0BTNV7MGS50VZ6GCMRJK&pd_rd_w=Bfwu2&pd_rd_wg=IzuQb&psc=1&refRID=0BTNV7MGS50VZ6GCMRJK

It also allegedly does something which I'm a big fan of: taking the emphasis off thought experiments and live/dead cats and putting it onto the actual value of QM as the cornerstone of modern technology and the architect of the digital age.

Though my most earnest advice would be to just stick to what you know and deflect the things you don't. It really is very hard and you don't want to spread misinformation. I routinely talk to professors, who work in fields where ostensibly they should know a fair bit about QM, but they often know very little beyond the "shut up and calculate". And I don't just mean interpretation stuff, but just stuff like passing from QM to CM and vice versa, Poisson brackets and correspondence, equivalence of pictures, connection to QFT, path integrals, etc.

You might be interested in the book Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. It does a good job of explaining, without getting too technical (you can actually skip the few math parts if you want, but they keep it simple), what that speed limit is and where it comes from.

I highly recommend it if you are really curious about this. It is very enlightening and easy to read.

Brian Cox writes some good books like this. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Why does E=MC2

But following the links of related titles will probably help you a lot.

The elegant universe is also a really good book... somebody else mentioned it, just want to say that I support that thought. :)

How much do you know about physics already?

Quantum mechanics deals with phenomena completely outside of our everyday experiences so none of it will make much sense to you unless you have a pretty decent grounding in both (1) certain areas of mathematics and (2) those areas of physics that are more accessible to our everyday intuitions.

That’s why QM is only taught after the student has gone thru classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and linear algebra.

Sure, you can read books that are popularisations of physics but what you’ll learn in those is a modicum of the real thing.

If that’s all you want, then I would recommend Gamow’s Thirty Years That Shook Physics as a starting point. It’s an excellent introduction to some of the ideas of quantum physics, with an emphasis on its historical development.

But if you want to study QM, then your answer to my question at the top will dictate the kinds of recommendations you’ll get.

For instance, an excellent introduction for the physics undergraduate student is

Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles by Eisberg and Resnick.

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!

I can't speak to your question, but for sure try reading "QED" by Richard Feynman. It doesn't cover the nuclear forces at all, and sadly omits polarization of light, but it is definitely accessible to the HS physics level, and has no scary math.

In fact, his explanation of why he doesn't need scary math to explain QED is as brilliant as anything else he has ever explained!

----

Also, I can recommend "Why does E=mc^2 ?" -- will look up author in a bit. The history of science is short, clear, and engaging (to me).


Edit:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760

You can get to e=mc^2 using pythagous' theorm and a helping hand from a professor.

This book does a good job of it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002TJLF7W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

As LibraryLass says, we can't create energy. The energy is already there, in the form of mass. We just turn it into another useful form - heat (and then into electricity, if it's inside a generator).

But splitting atoms doesn't cause this heat to automatically be released. The reason we get so much heat is because, after splitting atoms, we're left with new atoms - and, crucially, the new atoms weigh less - have less mass, in science-speak - than the old atoms! This tiny bit of difference in mass is why we get so much energy out. We haven't created energy - it was there, in the form of mass. It no longer exists as mass, it's just changed to another form. That's because the new atoms, in total, contain fewer "neutrons" - one of the very tiny things that makes up atoms - than the old atoms.

This is not like any chemical reaction. However much mass you start with in chemistry, you always end up with the same amount (although some of this mass might have started or ended as a gas in the atmosphere that's difficult to weigh).

So how much energy is equivalent to a tiny bit of mass? Well, Einstein worked out that E=mc^2 - energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The speed of light is a really big number. When we square it, it becomes even bigger. So just a tiny bit of mass is equivalent to a lot of energy.

As for why E=mc^2 - that's not really something that can be done properly in ELI5. I've just read half a book explaining it, and I still don't quite understand the last chapter. But let's just say that if you search this forum for "relativity" and "spacetime" you'll read lots of weird things. Einstein played around with the maths surrounding these weird things - and when he started thinking about momentum and how that fits into his weird spacetime world, his famous equation just kind of popped out of there, after solving many pages of formulas.

Two good introductions to physics and science in general:

Bill Bryson (popular and quite funny): A Short History of Nearly Everything

Brian Cox (slightly more serious, but still a fairly easy read): Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)

Even our solar system is shockingly large. The larger the distance the quicker we must travel, the quicker we travel the slower time for us traveling at high speed becomes. Even if we could travel to Pluto it would be a 1-way ticket.

Currently in our understanding of physics there is no possible way for a human being to travel that far. The best book I have read on he subject is Why Does E=mc2 and Why Should We Care? It basically says, "Space travel? haha, keep dreaming!"

I just read Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?) by Brian Cox. Can't say I fully understood it all (only an amateur physics buff) but found it very interesting.

A Short History of Nearly Everything

The Hole In The Universe

Universe on a T-Shirt

Light Years

Before The Big Bang

Why Does e=mc^2? (and why should we care?)

Your Inner Fish (about evolution)

And just because it was one of my first pop science books, I'll add The Telescope. Which is of course, about telescopes. It's a lot more interesting than it sounds!

I'm currently reading Why does E=mc^2 by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw and, whilst my brain is melting into a small puddle, it clearly does...

I won't pretend I understand most of the maths (even when they try to explain it in simple terms) but experimentation clearly shows the theory to be correct.

It always seems to me that these loons don't understand how scientists think at all. Scientists love being wrong! Every time they're wrong, it opens up a new thing for them to explore.

This book is really good for explaining all this stuff, and it never gets any more complicated mathematically than using Pythagorus

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Brian-Cox/dp/0306819112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397213085&sr=8-1&keywords=why+does+e+mc2

"Why does E equal MC squared?"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306819112

Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?)

For a bit more detail, check out:

Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory by George Gamow

The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory by Max Planck

There are a few decent books out there for beginners:

• Biology: A Self-Teaching Guide, 2nd edition
  
• Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide
  
• The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time
  
• Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems
  
• Cosmos
  
• The Selfish Gene