Best products from r/AskPhysics

It's great that you want to study particle physics and String Theory! It's a really interesting subject. Getting a degree in physics can often make you a useful person so long as you make sure you get some transferable skills (like programming and whatnot). I'll reiterate the standard advice for going further in physics, and in particular in theoretical physics, in the hope that you will take it to heart. Only go into theoretical physics if you really enjoy it. Do it for no other reason. If you want to become a professor, there are other areas of physics which are far easier to accomplish that in. If you want to be famous, become an actor or a writer or go into science communication and become the new Bill Nye. I'm not saying the only reason to do it is if you're obsessed with it, but you've got to really enjoy it and find it fulfilling for it's own sake as the likelihood of becoming a professor in it is so slim. Then, if your academic dreams don't work out, you won't regret the time you spent, and you'll always have the drive to keep learning and doing more, whatever happens to you academically.

With that out of the way, the biggest chunk of learning you'll do as a theorist is math. A decent book (which I used in my undergraduate degree) which covers the majority of the math you need to understand basic physics, e.g. Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Is this guy: Maths It's not a textbook you can read cover to cover, but it's a really good reference, and undoubtably, should you go and do a physics degree, you'll end up owning something like it. If you like maths now and want to learn more of it, then it's a good book to do it with.

The rest of the books I'll recommend to you have a minimal number of equations, but explain a lot of concepts and other interesting goodies. To really understand the subjects you need textbooks, but you need the math to understand them first and it's unlikely you're there yet. If you want textbook suggestions let me know, but if you haven't read the books below they're good anyway.

First, particle physics. This book Deep Down Things is a really great book about the history and ideas behind modern particles physics and the standard model. I can't recommend it enough.

Next, General Relativity. If you're interested in String Theory you're going to need to become an expert in General Relativity. This book: General Relativity from A to B explains the ideas behind GR without a lot of math, but it does so in a precise way. It's a really good book.

Next, Quantum Mechanics. This book: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat is a great introduction to the people and ideas of Quantum Mechanics. I like it a lot.

For general physics knowledge. Lots of people really like the
Feynman Lectures They cover everything and so have quite a bit of math in them. As a taster you can get a couple of books: Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces, though the not so easy pieces are a bit more mathematically minded.

Now I'll take the opportunity to recommend my own pet favourite book. The Road to Reality. Roger Penrose wrote this to prove that anyone could understand all of theoretical physics, as such it's one of the hardest books you can read, but it is fascinating and tells you about concepts all the way up to String Theory. If you've got time to think and work on the exercises I found it well worth the time. All the math that's needed is explained in the book, which is good, but it's certainly not easy!

Lastly, for understanding more of the ideas which underlie theoretical physics, this is a good book: Philsophy of Physics: Space and Time It's not the best, but the ideas behind theoretical physics thought are important and this is an interesting and subtle book. I'd put it last on the reading list though.

Anyway, I hope that helps, keep learning about physics and asking questions! If there's anything else you want to know, feel free to ask.

Hiya! I'm a recent physics/computer science graduate and although I can't think of any super cool handmade options off the top of my head, there are some physics books that I find interesting that your boyfriend may enjoy. One solid idea would be just about anything written by Richard Feynman. Reading through the Feynman Lectures is pretty standard for all physicists, though there are free versions online as well. There are a few others, such as The Pleasure of Finding things Out and Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. There's also a cool graphic novel that recounts the events of his life called Feynman by Ottaviani. If you're not familiar with who this guy is, he is a colorful and concise orator who won a nobel prize in physics. His biggest contributions were in nuclear physics and quantum computation, and his quirks make his explanations of these topics very interesting. The Feynman Lectures are more formal, while his personal books are a mixture of personal experience and explanation.

 
Something else that I typically gift all of my friends who are problem solvers interested in physics is the book Thinking Physics. This book is great for developing some high level intuition in every field of physics (mechanics, optics, thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, etc.). This book is great because it's broken into small digestible sections that build your knowledge as you solve more of the questions (solutions are given).

 
Good luck!

You sound like a great audience for the series I recommend to everyone in your position: Lenny Susskind's Theoretical Minimum. He's got free lectures and accompanying books which are designed with the sole purpose of getting you from zero to sixty as fast as possible. I'm sure others will have valuable suggestions, but that's mine.

The series is designed for people who took some math classes in college, and maybe an intro physics class, but never had the chance to go further. However, it does assume that you are comfortable with calculus, and more doesn't hurt. What's your math background like?

As to the LHC and other bleeding-edge physics: unfortunately, this stuff takes a lot of investment to really get at, if you want to be at the level where you can do the actual derivations—well beyond where an undergrad quantum course would land you. If you're okay with a more heuristic picture, you could read popular-science books on particle physics and combine that with a more quantitative experience from other sources.

But if you are thinking of doing this over a very long period of time, I would suggest that you could pretty easily attain an advanced-undergraduate understanding of particle physics through self-study—enough to do some calculations, though the actual how and why may not be apparent. If you're willing to put in a little cash and more than a little time for this project, here's what I suggest:

• Pick up a book on introductory physics (with calculus). It doesn't really matter which. Make sure you're good with the basic concepts—force, momentum, energy, work, etc.
  
  
• Learn special relativity. It does not take too long, and is not math-intensive, but it can be very confusing. There are lots of ways to do it—lots of online sources too. My favorite book for introductory SR is this one.
  
  
• Use a book or online resources to become familiar with the basics (just the basics) of differential equations and linear algebra. It sounds more scary than it is.
  
  
• Get a copy of Griffiths' books on quantum mechanics and particle physics. These are undergrad-level textbooks, but pretty accessible! Read the quantum book first—and do at least a few exercises—and then you should be able to get a whole lot out of reading the particle physics book.
  
  Note that this is sort of the fastest way to get into particle physics. If you want to take this route, you should still be prepared to spread it out over a couple years—and it will leave a whole smattering of gaps in your knowledge. But hey, if you enjoy it, you could legitimately come to understand a lot about the universe through self-study!

For math you're going to need to know calculus, differential equations (partial and ordinary), and linear algebra.

For calculus, you're going to start with learning about differentiating and limits and whatnot. Then you're going to learn about integrating and series. Series is going to seem a little useless at first, but make sure you don't just skim it, because it becomes very important for physics. Once you learn integration, and integration techniques, you're going to want to go learn multi-variable calculus and vector calculus. Personally, this was the hardest thing for me to learn and I still have problems with it.

While you're learning calculus you can do some lower level physics. I personally liked Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, but I've also heard Giancoli is good. These will give you the basic, idealized world physics understandings, and not too much calculus is involved. You will go through mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and "modern physics". You're going to go through these subjects again, but don't skip this part of the process, as you will need the grounding for later.

So, now you have the first two years of a physics degree done, it's time for the big boy stuff (that is the thing that separates the physicists from the engineers). You could get a differential equations and linear algebra books, and I highly suggest you do, but you could skip that and learn it from a physics reference book. Boaz will teach you the linear and the diffe q's you will need to know, along with almost every other post-calculus class math concept you will need for physics. I've also heard that Arfken, Weber, and Harris is a good reference book, but I have personally never used it, and I dont' know if it teaches linear and diffe q's. These are pretty much must-haves though, as they go through things like fourier series and calculus of variations (and a lot of other techniques), which are extremely important to know for what is about to come to you in the next paragraph.

Now that you have a solid mathematical basis, you can get deeper into what you learned in Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, or Giancoli, or whatever you used to get you basis down. You're going to do mechanics, E&M, Thermodynamis/Statistical Analysis, and quantum mechanics again! (yippee). These books will go way deeper into theses subjects, and need a lot more rigorous math. They take that you already know the lower-division stuff for granted, so they don't really teach those all that much. They're tough, very tough. Obvioulsy there are other texts you can go to, but these are the one I am most familiar with.

A few notes. These are just the core classes, anybody going through a physics program will also do labs, research, programming, astro, chemistry, biology, engineering, advanced math, and/or a variety of different things to supplement their degree. There a very few physicists that I know who took the exact same route/class.

These books all have practice problems. Do them. You don't learn physics by reading, you learn by doing. You don't have to do every problem, but you should do a fair amount. This means the theory questions and the math heavy questions. Your theory means nothing without the math to back it up.

Lastly, physics is very demanding. In my experience, most physics students have to pretty much dedicate almost all their time to the craft. This is with instructors, ta's, and tutors helping us along the way. When I say all their time, I mean up until at least midnight (often later) studying/doing work. I commend you on wanting to self-teach yourself, but if you want to learn physics, get into a classroom at your local junior college and start there (I think you'll need a half year of calculus though before you can start doing physics). Some of the concepts are hard (very hard) to understand properly, and the internet stops being very useful very quickly. Having an expert to guide you helps a lot.

Good luck on your journey!

I think you posted something similar in the math thread right? Introductory physics is really just math and being able to plug into formulas. I'd say it'd be best to get a good math foundation before tackling physics (especially calculus). As far as book recommendations ... I Googled and found a very comprehensive list ( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html).

There should be tons of stuff on Khan Academy or on YouTube for particular subjects. Sometimes this may be even more useful than just studying a book as both math and physics books can be dense. I guess I should just list the books I have. Maybe you'll find them useful. I'll list my physics and math books separately.

In general, the Feynmann lectures are considered to be like the physics bible. You can buy a hardcover boxed set of these lectures here: http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/ref=asap_B000AQ47U8_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413342403&sr=1-1. Be forewarned that the lectures were intended for physics students, so it may be best to read a general physics textbook first.

Math (in no particular order):

-Advanced Engineering Mathematics by Greenberg

-Calculus: Early Transcendentals Multivariable by James and Stewart

-Thomas' Calculus Early Transcendentals (Single Variable) by Weir and Hass

-Linear Algebra and its Applications by Lay

-Differential Equations: Computing and Modeling by Edwards and Penney

-Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics by Chartrand, Polimeni and Zhang

-A First Course in Partial Differential Equations with Complex Variables and Transform Methods by Weinberger




Physics (in no particular order):

-Intro to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths

-University Physics by Young and Freedman (prob a good starting place)

-Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler

-Analytical Mechanics by Fowles and Cassiday

-Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker

-Intro to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

-Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman

-Statistical and Thermal Physics by Gould and Tobochnik

I hope this was helpful! If not, the physics subreddit has a dedicated thread each week to learning materials and I'm sure someone over there would be glad to help you.

My understanding of music theory is rudimentary but that a huge chunk of it is expressed in terms of ratios/intervals. It tends to stay within the musical scale, but since you can directly map that to frequencies it's all ultimately frequency ratios.

I'm not sure how much music theory you could derive from the direction of physics however, as a lot of it seems to depend on what we perceive as harmonious or dissonant. Why we like certain specific ratios and whether that's determined by something fundamentally physical is a super interesting question imo. I hope someone else can reply and shed light.

If you'd like a book on acoustics, that covers the physics of how speakers/instruments rooms and perception interact, Dr Floyd Toole wrote a great one: https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092

Awesome! I recommend taking whatever physics classes your High School offers along with as much math as possible. I also suggest taking advantage of the website Kahn Acadamy. Another good site for asking questions and learning more is http://www.physicsforums.com/ it's very active and you can learn a lot there. For keeping up with physics and science, I like the site http://phys.org/

A good book I would suggest starting with, while non-technical, but is an interesting read is Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynmann. Another good resource is the Feynmann Lectures on Physics, you can read them for free online now here: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

And another awesome resource would be the Physics teachers at your school. Talk to them about what your interested in and they might be able to talk to you more about it!

If your high school doesn't have what your looking for you could also look into taking classes at your local community college as well.

You always move through time at the same rate, 1 second per second. What changes in special relativity is that we stop being able to agree on time measurements with other observers who are moving with respect to us. You can't just slap time on as an extra axis like you would with Z when moving from 2D to 3D. The very rules of geometry change when you switch from space and time to spacetime, and they do so in such a way that even though different people disagree on the amount of time that passed and the distance between things they can always agree on special quantities that are 'invariant' and we can use those invariant measurements to bridge the measurements of two observers.

In 2D when you want to know the distance between two points you can find the x position and the y position of each point and use basic trigonometry to find the distance. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 . Let's say you want to know all the points exactly one unit away from the point (0,0), you just set c = 1 and find values of a and b that still fulfill that relation. You will find that neither a nor b can be greater than 1 or less than -1 by itself, or the point will not be 1 unit away. This is relatively easy because we can freely add together the values of a and b. But what if we measured a in meters and b in miles and we didn't know how to convert those units? We could never do this basic geometric exercise, we could still refer to a given point but we could not find all the combinations where c = 1.

That is the basic problem with just tacking time on as another axis. Time is measured in seconds, and that as a unit is not compatible with meters. So we need a conversion factor in order to measure time in units of meters, it turns out the speed of light is exactly that conversion factor we need and that has some fun consequences that I don't have the time to go into. If you are interested in special relativity I highly recommend finding a copy of Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler, if you followed my argument above and have some very basic physics you should have relatively no problem with the first few chapters which should help you understand relativity much better.

All the video sources I'm finding seem... spotty, but Richard Feynman's lectures on physics are the best in my opinion. He starts out with the basic foundations modern physics and progresses into much more difficult territory. They're well written, and definitely a good read for anyone who wants a basic understanding of physics.

I have these copies of his lectures which I like because they split up the easy and the hard topics in to separate books. But this is just personal opinion, and there are many, many copies of his works out there.

I got the new millennium edition. While I was researching which one to get , a lot of people mentioned that millenium edition was glossy and had smaller print which made it harder to read. I must say it looks fine. I don't have any problems so far. The reason i picked the latest is because it was relatively cheaper (140ish vs 300+) and had over 900 erratas fixed with respect to older editions.

Bonus: Another book I started reading in tandem is Road to Reality by Penrose which is equivalent in excitement, inspiration and quality of material and gives a nice overview of math required for physics and relation between math and physics. Highly recommend.

When I first got interested in physics and before I developed the mathematical framework, someone directed me towards this book. It's great because it assumes (as far as I can remember) no real mathematical background, yet delves into the concepts very intuitively. It still sits on my shelf next to my more "serious" books. Love that book.


Side note: You should give a little bit of your background (read: mathematics) so we can better help you out.

An Introduction to Thermal Physics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201380277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_s6BfAbNNZABF5

This is the standard undergraduate text. It's the one I used. Super easy to read and the problems are fun. Best of luck!

If your goal is to understand basic concepts without the math, then a highschool physics book would most likely be the best place to start, as the highest math used is usually Algebra/Pre-calc.

That being said, without at least a calculus background it's hard to grasp some of the concepts beyond basic kinematics. Wikipedia might get you somewhere so it's a good place to start, but it could also lead you through a rabbit hole to pages upon pages of background.

I'd say if you want to tackle more advanced physics concepts then you need at least some background in math, so I'd try Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas, a book that explains the physics and math somewhat side by side, or The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose. Neither is a light read, if you don't have a head for math don't even try Penrose as he uses arguments that assume a reasonable mathematical background. The Boas book is technically a mathematics textbook, so you would do well to supplement it with a College Physics textbook (I used one by Tipler in my university courses).

Amazon Links Below:
Penrose: http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404248577&sr=1-1&keywords=the+road+to+reality+roger+penrose

Boas: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471365807/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404248599&sr=1-1&keywords=boas

Tipler: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Modern/dp/1429202653/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1NX3QE9FG7XGKWQ15NQ4

Hope this helps, good luck!

I discovered Lillian Lieber. The Einstein Theory of Relativity because it was recommended by D' Invernio in his excellent relativity textbook. It's a great little book that covers the basics and assumes very little of its readers. Einstein endorsed it.

Schuam's Guide to Tensor Calculus.

I also agree the person who recommended Nightingale.

Leonard Susskind covers Tensors in his youtube lectures on GR

A book that I personally like is "Electromagnetic Fields" by Roald Wangsness.

https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-2nd-Roald-Wangsness/dp/0471811866

I find is to be more of a predecessor to Jackson than Griffiths. It goes through the same topics, but I find in a bit more structured level (in some aspects). He does not discuss the dirac delta function (for some reason) so Griffiths is nice to supplement this book. The problems are equally challenging, some more so, and some more interesting. Check it out if you can, I think it deserves more praise.

In a similar vein, I really enjoyed Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman.

It's an autobiography of Fenyman's shenanigans. Lighter on the physics, but if he's a Feynman fan, he'll love it.

I guess this one?

However, as someone in the review states that:
> I wish I had read the original book instead of this one, or at least read it first.

I'm wondering: did you read the first book and can you maybe explain me which one would be a better read?

EDIT: Also, which book does the person in the review refer to?
Im sorry, I'm stupid. Amazon itself states that:
> hugely successful Mr Tompkins in Paperback (by George Gamow) in 1965.

Anyway, my question still stands: have you read both and can you recommend me one?

Feynman's book on QED is supposed to be great (I haven't read it). But it will in no way help you with an undergraduate QM course. (Or with most graduate courses for that matter.) QED is the quantum field theory that governs the interactions of light and electrons; it's the most accurately tested theory ever written down, and it's awesome. But it is not covered in a standard QM course, and the things he talks about (path integrals) that could be used to do "regular" QM aren't actually used at all in most courses.

For a first introduction to QM, I used Griffiths. I don't think it was great, but I don't have any complaints. Someone else linked Shankar, which is usually considered to be a graduate level text.

The third volume of the Feyman Lectures covers quantum mechanics. It takes a less mathematical, more physical approach--very grounded in experiment. I've heard people say that it's a nice complement to the traditional textbooks.

Thanks for clearing that up. I never really thought about the method these books use to educate students.

I've read some of Feynman's work before, and I like his writing style. So I think I could understand his lectures, even if they aren't the most modern method of teaching. That being said, I replied to InfanticideAquifer's wall of text with a little anecdote about what I've experienced with a more "group-friendly" approach to teaching physics. My junior-year physics teacher didn't believe in text books, so he taught us with labs. It didn't work very well because of the type of students in the class. I didn't like not having a textbook-based cirriculum, so my teacher let me borrow this book. It was pretty good. It's next year's AP book, so I'm happy about that. It includes Gauss' law, E&M, quantum, circular, etc. I have a man-crush on Gauss.

Sorry, it's late and I'm getting side-tracked.

I think I'll buy the Feynman lectures now and invest in the book InfanticideAquifer recommeded for when I start college. He and you gave some reasons why it may be a better way of learning.

First and foremost, you're going to need to get very comfortable with special relativity and quantum mechanics. QFT is heavily rooted in both subjects since it's essentially a way of reconciling the two, so you're going to need to get familiar with the formalism. For quantum mechanics, I recommend starting off with Griffiths if you haven't taken a class on the subject at an undergraduate level. It's pretty much the gold standard in undergraduate physics curricula. But that alone is not enough to fulfill the necessary background in quantum. After that you'll want to go through a graduate text such as Sakurai. You need to get very familiar with the Dirac formalism since it plays a large role in formulating quantum fields.

Special relativity isn't usually offered as a course on its own in most universities (as far as I know). Typically, it's part of a course on classical dynamics or electrodynamics. You could look for the relevant chapters in textbooks on those two subjects (such as Griffiths electrodynamics) or just go with the introduction that pretty much every QFT textbook has at the beginning. The main thing here is that you'll have to get used to working with tensors since they show up in Lagrangian densities, which are principal objects of study in QFT. This is also where classical field theory comes in, as classical fields are also described by Lagrangians.

Those are the main areas of physics that you need to know coming into the subject. As others have mentioned, you'll want to understand Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics as well as classical E&M since a lot of the formalism involved in QFT stems from those subjects. Most people are introduced to quantum through the Hamiltonian formalism, and while you can do calculations in quantum without understanding where the formalism comes from in classical mechanics, you might be confused as to why the calculations work the way they do. You can also do calculations with a Lagrangian in QFT without really understanding what actually is, but again, if you truly want to understand the material it won't get you quite far enough. It is a graduate subject, after all. So you'll probably struggle to understand the material without having a solid undergraduate background in physics, but it's not impossible. It's also the kind of subject that requires multiple attempts to understand it. I took one semester of it as an undergraduate and there were a lot of gaps in my knowledge at the time, so I found it quite difficult. Then I took another class on it again after going through first year graduate courses in classical mechanics, quantum, and electrodynamics, and I had a better feel for the subject.

Maybe try applied math programs. Some of them seem to have astrophysics faculty https://www.princeton.edu/gradschool/about/catalog/fields/applied_mathematics/. You'll probably have an easier time getting in with your background and can take the math GREs. In a physics BS you would at least have the knowledge of these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X,

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-4th-David-Griffiths/dp/0321856562/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396384599&sr=1-1&keywords=griffiths,

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396384599&sr=1-2&keywords=griffiths,

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396384625&sr=1-1&keywords=schroeder+statistical+physics.

The more you know from those books, the better. Although an applied math program, probably wouldn't expect you to have read all of them. Also try x-posting to /r/askacademia. I'm sure someone there could be more helpful.

Enjoy the course! I'm an amateur with an interest in relativity. Most tests of GR are tests of the Schwarzschild metric. Check out Orbits in Strongly Curved Spacetime. The BASIC code for plotting orbits in Schwarzschild geometry is the 2nd link in the 1st reference. Also I highly recommend the books Exploring Black Holes and Relativity Visualized.

Max Tegmark likes to engage in these slightly fringy topics. As I understand he does standard work in physics and occasionally go into areas like this. It's highly speculative, but, as far as I can tell, his reasoning is generally pretty solid.

In terms of additional evidence for (or against) such a universe, I think your best bet is to look at the anthropic principle. Sean Carroll in his book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time discusses an alternative theory that Boltzmann had and I think his objections might apply here. In the most extreme sense of Tegmark's argument every cubic meter of space is in a random state and by simple chance of an infinite universe one of those cubic meters are going to contain "you". This is similar to Boltzmann's view where our universe was a low entropy fluctuation of an infinite universe in thermal equilibrium (of course, now we know of the big bang and our view of the history of the universe is very different). The counterargument to such a universe is that of so-called Boltzmann brains.

If, indeed, the universe contains an infinite number of cubic meters and an infinite number of "you"s, the question you might ask yourself is what universe you should see around you? The vast majority of "you"s would see nothing. There is so much structure around you, other humans, planets, stars, galaxies, etc that the idea that you're a result a random state in the universe is extremely problematic.

Interdisciplinary connections spring up from generality. You'd be hard pressed to find a spontaneous connection between something like particle phenomenology and an unrelated field.

To illustrate this idea of generality, consider the methods of statistical mechanics, which are so general that they can be used to describe everything from black holes to ferromagnets. However, the methods have also been used to model neural networks and social dynamics (the latter being accurate enough to successfully recreate historical events.)

What makes statistical mechanics more general than other branches? Probably the fact that it's almost more mathematics than physics, specifically a branch of probability theory regarding highly correlated random variables.

With this in mind, perhaps you'd benefit from focusing your attention on the mathematical ideas that drive physics rather than physics itself. Take the calculus of variations which, whilst developed for problems in classical mechanics, has found applications in mathematical optimisation. Another example being brownian motion, the mathematics of which have been generalised to higher dimensions and applied to finance. The mathematics behind relativity is differential geometry, which has been applied to too many fields to list.

I'd recommend having a look at Mathematical Methods for Physicists by Arfken, Weber and Harris for a broad overview of the methods.

I need more info regarding his level of knowledge. As someone who went through the same struggles that this student is going through, I can recommend a lot of books but it depends on how much they know. In terms of cheaper books, If they've completed 18.01-18.03 and 18.06 plus 8.01-8.04 then the book "Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose is a good option. It's a huge book so it should keep him busy for a while and gives a very comprehensive treatment of various topics in mathematical physics.
here's the link:http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Reality-Complete-Universe/dp/0679776311

Epstein also has a great book called Relativity Visualized that goes great with Thinking Physics.

Special relativity tells us it couldn't work. That theory is very well tested in labs, so we have good reason to believe it's valid. I think with your curiosity you'd like the book Relativity Visualized. There are few equations. Mostly the author appeals to your intuition. You'd gain an excellent understanding of relativity.

The theory tells us that the speed of accelerating objects (e.g. particles in a particle accelerator) can ever more closely approach but never reach the speed of light.

I haven't read this, but this is from the Kip Thorns, the science adviser on the film

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378

Also if it is half as good as his previous book, you're in for a treat

www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Time-Warps-Commonwealth/dp/0393312763/

Griffith's Electrodynamics has a decent introduction to special relativity. Otherwise, Hartle's book is geared towards the advanced undergrad. Also, Schultz is good too.

To be honest it's really hard to learn without doing the coursework. But yes such books exist; for example http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311. You'll have to supplement with other things, but that should be a good backbone. There is also this list: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html.

Feynman. Anything you can find on him. "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" is a brilliant introduction. It is aimed at college level but there's a significant portion of general audience material. A book was written that is a subset of the Feynman lectures that concentrates on the non-mathematical (which apparently means "easy") parts.

Edit: Okay, perhaps not anything you can find.

Moreover, special relativity is just within the minkowski metric and assuming no gravity.

But connection of mass and energy, as OniLinkMinus pointed out, is just a corollary.

if you can, read http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Time-Warps-Commonwealth/dp/0393312763/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373498223&sr=1-2

its in between Carrol's Spacetime and Geometry and Greene's popularized science books in terms of accesibility and accuracy. I think this will explain a lot.

What level are you? If you're physics degree level then I'd suggest Feynman's Lectures on Physics as an excellent introduction. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1408125805&sr=8-5&keywords=lectures+feynman

I'm pretty sure you have to use Tensors... and I can't do that. :)

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Mr. Tompkins in Paperback is exactly her speed. It's by George Gamow with a posthumous second edition. Explores modern physics through a series of short-stories involving a pudgy British banker (Mr. Tompkins himself). Mr. Tompkins keeps falling into alternate universes where the physical constants are macroscopic (e.g. 10m/s for c, or 1 J•s for h). Great for building intuition and wonder.

You might want to look at this book. It's high level enough and Feynman does a good job explaining it.

Hardcover boxed set of the Feynman Lectures

This should keep you busy, but I can suggest books in other areas if you want.

Math books:
Algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-I-M-Gelfand/dp/0817636773/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251516690&sr=8
Calc: http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-4th-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098918/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356152827&sr=1-1&keywords=spivak+calculus
Calc: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/048663518X
Linear algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Modern-Introduction-CD-ROM/dp/0534998453/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255703167&sr=8-4
Linear algebra: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B00A73IXRC/ref=zg_bs_158739011_2

Beginning physics:
http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827

Advanced stuff, if you make it through the beginning books:
E&M: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-Edition-David-Griffiths/dp/0321856562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653392&sr=8-1&keywords=griffiths+electrodynamics
Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Dynamics-Particles-Systems-Thornton/dp/0534408966/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653415&sr=8-1&keywords=marion+thornton
Quantum: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0306447908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375653438&sr=8-1&keywords=shankar

Cosmology -- these are both low level and low math, and you can probably handle them now:
http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Three-Minutes-Universe/dp/0465024378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356155850&sr=8-1&keywords=the+first+three+minutes