Large Hardon Collider

[Ferion]

I'm not looking to be an expert on the mathematics, but I have a pretty extensive math background so I would prefer to derive at least some equations since it'll probably help me understand things a lot better. I've read some of the conceptual stuff on my own, but would much rather take a more rigorous approach than verbal explanations. I've tried looking at some of the free intro classes on MIT's website, but a lot of the notes they have posted jump all over the place so it's hard to follow along.

[Eliseos]

If you want a textbox, look for Tipler and Mosca's Physics for Scientists and Engineers.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scient...1873260&sr=8-1

There is probably a torrent for it as well since the book is rather expensive, but it has almost 1400 pages. It covers the first two semesters of calc-based physics (so mechanics/some thermo/fluids, and then intro E&M stuff), and modern physics, which covers intro QM, special relativity, radiation laws, etc.

[Woozie]

I wrote a review on the older edition of that book, lol

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-...R2LHWDRA7COIYJ

That's the book I used to teach myself physics since my school didn't have calc-based. I then got a 5 on both AP exams without ever having taken the class, just because I had read that book.

[Kryssan]

Represent.

http://www.aethernavale.net/Media/images/sliderule.jpg

[Eliseos]

Also:

[Ferion]

Thanks Eliseos, I was able to torrent the book. It's pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

[Woozie]

If you're serious about learning physics, that book is the perfect starting point. Remember to come here to this thread if you ever get stuck.

And, fair warning (I think Kaylia already mentioned this), but certain parts of that book (or any other book) will be VERY boring and other parts will be VERY frustrating (though your math background means you'll have much less frustration than most people. A lot of math is taught in physics books, meaning physics students literally learn the math they need right before they need it and thus aren't as comfortable with it). So it will take a lot to not give up on it since you don't really *need* any of this. Since you're not trying to get a degree or become a physicist or engineer, I'd recommend just skipping certain sections for now that will never be relevant to you. Since I'm not into astrophysics, I'm not sure which sections those will be. For me, I've never had to know any optics at all whatsoever, so there's a big chunk of the book I wish I had never wasted my time reading. Thermal wasn't that important for me except that I had to take a later class on it and it will be on my GRE (and certain aspects of thermal appear in every field of physics and will probably be relevant in my career someday). I guess the only way to know what sections you don't need is to ask someone who's studying/studied astrophysics.

[Eliseos]

I refuse to believe that optics is ever at all interesting. Thermal physics was decently interesting for me, but I had a pretty awesome teacher so that may have made a difference. QM, like I said earlier in this thread, was interesting for the first semester, and then it turned into a boring math exercise of perturbation theory and I couldn't stand it anymore.

[Kaylia]

but certain parts of that book (or any other book) will be VERY boring and other parts will be VERY frustrating

I'm starting to understand why physics isnt popular. We are terrible salesman...


And you're right about the method. It's okay to skip the less interesting part. If you ever need it later, you can always come back and read that section. There is no need to master everything, the essential is very often in the first few chapters.

[Woozie]

I refuse to believe that optics is ever at all interesting. Thermal physics was decently interesting for me, but I had a pretty awesome teacher so that may have made a difference. QM, like I said earlier in this thread, was interesting for the first semester, and then it turned into a boring math exercise of perturbation theory and I couldn't stand it anymore.

The thermal stuff in the intro physics was so boring to me. The actual thermal class...well, I had a terrible professor who talked much more about why the Americans are inferior to Chinese than about physics. Everyone hated him for various reasons. He was pretty much the worse professor any of us ever had. So I hated the class and learned absolutely nothing. Which is bad because that stuff will become important to me later on.

[Eliseos]

From Reddit (large atmosphere shot of Endeavor):

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...te_STS-130.jpg

[Woozie]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110404.gif

So true. I HATE trying to prove obvious stuff. We had a proof in Abstract Algebra I about something really basic, like 1 - 1 = 0 (wasn't that same statement, but something similar) and it was so hard. In a study session last week one of my students asked me to prove something very obvious about derivatives and I gave up after about 10 minutes.

Though I don't quite get the actual example from this comic. "Let X be a set containing x. Then X contains x". Am I missing something here?

[Khamsin]

Though I don't quite get the actual example from this comic. "Let X be a set containing x. Then X contains x". Am I missing something here?

Is that different than using "Let x = 1. Then x - x = 0" to prove your example?

Unless the comic was using more of an abstract example, and was talking about something like "Let X be a set containing (insert criteria of inclusion here)" and to prove that X contains (insert actual object that meets said criteria). e.g. prove that a set of real numbers contains 5, or that the set of all irrational numbers contains pi.

[Kaylia]

So true. I HATE trying to prove obvious stuff. We had a proof in Abstract Algebra I about something really basic, like 1 - 1 = 0 (wasn't that same statement, but something similar) and it was so hard.

Can't you simply uses the definition of the null element for something like this?

x-x=0
x+(-x)=0 (by definition of the operation "-")
0=0 (additive identity or additive inverse)


There had to be something in your axioms that could be used to demonstrate that. If "+" and the inverse arent in that set, there isnt much to do, but since 1 and -1 are real number, we can assume they are.

[Cadsuane]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110404.gif

So true. I HATE trying to prove obvious stuff. We had a proof in Abstract Algebra I about something really basic, like 1 - 1 = 0 (wasn't that same statement, but something similar) and it was so hard. In a study session last week one of my students asked me to prove something very obvious about derivatives and I gave up after about 10 minutes.

Though I don't quite get the actual example from this comic. "Let X be a set containing x. Then X contains x". Am I missing something here?

So you're teaching them field axioms, or some kind of structure I guess.

I suspect that if you start at first order logic, reflexivity of sets is far from a tautology.

[Woozie]

Can't you simply uses the definition of the null element for something like this?

x-x=0
x+(-x)=0 (by definition of the operation "-")
0=0 (additive identity or additive inverse)


There had to be something in your axioms that could be used to demonstrate that. If "+" and the inverse arent in that set, there isnt much to do, but since 1 and -1 are real number, we can assume they are.

That wasn't the exact problem, but it was something similar. What I mean by that is that it's one of the basic properties of arithmetics, and we had to prove it only using the definitions of a ring. I'll check my book and see if I can remember which property it was.

[Woozie]

It was one of these four:

(-a)(-b) = ab
a(b-c) = ab-ac and (b-c)a = ba-ca
(-1)a = -a
(-1)(-1) = 1

I can't remember which because they all look easy to me now, but one of those gave me and the entire class a really hard time. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the second one.

[Chun Liroy]

Last one seems annoying.

[Woozie]

If you do the first one first, the last one is easy. So I'm guessing the second or the last was the hard one. Either that or we tried to do the last one without proving the first one.

[Eliseos]

Moar of ragecomic: