# Best all round physics book for the non-physicist? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 9, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264 "2009-06-09T22:49:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/21 "2009-06-11T13:35:40Z")
[Physics for Poets](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Poets-Robert-H-March/dp/0070402485) by Bob March. I’ve taken this course by the author. Outstanding book, and Professor March is a really pleasant, genial fellow. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/22 "2009-06-11T13:46:25Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > That certainly has got to be the highest rated “pop science” book I’ve ever seen on Amazon. I’ve added it to my Amazon Wishlist, and may give it a go after I finish reading my current one. Let me know what you think of it, okay? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![A\_Man\_A\_Plan\_A\_Canal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/839c29/32.png) [@A\_Man\_A\_Plan\_A\_Canal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_Man_A_Plan_A_Canal)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/23 "2009-06-11T16:26:20Z")
If you want a laugh, try “Physics is Constipated” by Milton W. Monson. An unintentionally hiliarious book (written in all caps, no less) by a nutjob who thinks that all the mainstream physicts are WRONG! AMAPAC ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/24 "2009-06-11T16:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > While it isn’t the book I would teach introductory mechanics from, it is a good illustration of the complexity of common natural phenomena. It is that, but that’s not what the OP is looking for. Walker never intended his book to teach physics even to the students it was aimed at – It was supposed to provoke thought and challenge expectations. As originally issues, the book didn’t have “Answers”. That was put in later , I suspect at the publisher’s request. Walker wanted the students to look up the original articles he cites (or just to think about it – at least one entry has _no_ citations). The answers he does give are extremely brief and not terribly satisfying. Which, I think, is what Walker wanted. But as an introductory text or an “all-round physics book”, The Flying Circus of Physics would be a frustrating experience. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/25 "2009-06-11T18:06:57Z")
_The Music of the Spheres_ by Guy Murchie. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/26 "2009-06-11T20:21:37Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > As for the math, yes it really helps to understand the physics. > > Buttt, for a lot of the basic understanding, you really dont have to be able to DO the math. So much as understand what it means. Solving alegbraic equations or integrating or differentiating can get downright hairy. Understanding the mathematical theory behind those things can get pretty difficult for some folks as well. But if you can just understand WHAT those things mean or represent (which IMO much easier), that would go along way towards understanding what the physics textbook is trying to explain. I have to strongly disagree with this. While very basics of mechanics and energy can be understood with minimal math–basically, a bit of applied geometry–an amount of knowledge significant enough to really understand and interpret new physical phenomena requires a conceptual understanding of applied mathematics including trigonometry, differential and integral calculus, wave and frequency analysis, differential equations, statistics, and vector analysis. I’m not talking about even doing problems, but just understanding why phenomena works the way it is. You’re not going to get past Ampere’s law in electrodynamics without calculus, and you can’t really get into any kind of understanding of complex mechanics without dealing with gyroscopic effects, which are definitely non-intuitive; you have to be able to read through the equations in order to understand the phenomena. Now, if what the o.p. wants is just to have a list of factoids about physics, then pretty much any pop science book will do (as long as the factual matter is actually true), but this won’t give a grounding to understand phenomena from first principles. To do that, you really need to be able understand the math that describes the concepts. This is especially true with a field like electrodynamics or general relativity, where normal intuition flies out the window, and in order to really understand the behavior you have to build a new intuitive sense. OTOH, having a mathematical understanding of quantum mechanics, while helpful in doing actual problems, isn’t critical to understanding the concepts since even the people who are trained to do the calculations have no sense for why they work, just that they do. That makes QM a nice fodder for pop science books because it is just as wild and wacky to physicists as it is to the general public. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/27 "2009-06-11T20:29:43Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I have to strongly disagree with this. While very basics of mechanics and energy can be understood with minimal math–basically, a bit of applied geometry–an amount of knowledge significant enough to really understand and interpret new physical phenomena requires a conceptual understanding of applied mathematics including trigonometry, differential and integral calculus, wave and frequency analysis, differential equations, statistics, and vector analysis. I’m not talking about even doing problems, but just understanding why phenomena works the way it is. You’re not going to get past Ampere’s law in electrodynamics without calculus, and you can’t really get into any kind of understanding of complex mechanics without dealing with gyroscopic effects, which are definitely non-intuitive; you have to be able to read through the equations in order to understand the phenomena. Yes, the “fancier” the physics, the fancier your mad math skills needs to be. But there is a big middle area between really light NO math pop science and nobel prize winning physics. My integrations skills suck big time these days. They were never very good to start with. Much past F=x and I’ll be stuggling to work the problem. But I DO understand what integrating means. And its not that hard IMO for other folks as well to get that part. You explain something by using integration and just tell me what the resulting math function is and it will get me a long way. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/28 "2009-06-11T20:52:00Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > I would love to be able to pick up and read an accessibly written physics book. “Pop science book” I believe is the term. One that explains tricky concepts in simple terms. I’m not scared of basic maths, but definitely no complicated functions and formulas. I’m going to take it down quite a few levels below most of the works being discussed in this thread. But based on what you wrote in the OP, these two just might be right up your alley. The first is a general science book that contains copious sections on physics. The second I’d classify as a general-knowledge book that takes on several fundamental concepts of physics and offers about as simple of explanations as possible. I’m going to be lazy, and just give Amazon links and the first comments on each. [_ **Who’s Afraid of Schrödinger’s Cat?** _](http://www.amazon.com/Afraid-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Guide-Science-Thinking/dp/0688161073) > [@](#): > > Quantum physics does not sit lightly on the brain. In fact, Schrödinger’s cat, a feline in an opaque box who’s paradoxically both dead and alive, was created by Erwin Schrödinger to help people conceptualize the quantum possibilities of both/and, instead of the more common either/or. Still, the new science doesn’t find an easy mental perch. Ergo, the need for, and elegant achievement of, this book. > > The main text is made up of short essays on specific ideas, forming an encyclopedia of the new sciences, but the book starts off with four clear and engaging overview essays. “Kinds of Being” introduces ancient, classical, and quantum physics, followed by “Order in Science and Thought,” which surveys ideas of complexity, such as chaos, evolution, and games theory. “The New Sciences of the Mind” is next, attempting to answer questions like “What is a mind? What is awareness? Must a mind, to be a mind, be conscious?” and “The Cosmic Canopy” is the last of the introductory essays, dealing with high-energy phenomena in cosmology and particle physics. Once you’ve chewed these chapters over, you’re ready to access the nearly 200 specific questions and concepts in the A-to-Z, which makes up the bulk of the book, starting with Absolute Zero and wending its way through Entropy, Lamarckism, and Planck’s Constant, Quantum Gravity, Reductionism, and Supersymmetry to Wormholes and Wrinkles in the Microwave. > > The book is excellently cross-referenced, and the advanced ideas of science are discussed intelligently and explained concisely, cutting through the jargon to bring the fascination of the concepts into lucid focus. [\*\*\*Eureka! 81 Key Ideas Explained \*\*\*](http://www.amazon.com/Eureka-81-Key-Ideas-Explained/dp/0760713898) > [@](#): > > Good concise explanations for a number of scientific, philosophical and economic principles. Each section teaches the major gist of a key idea or principle without getting deep into detail that would require previous knowledge. If you have a broad span of interests (particularly scientific) you’ll enjoy this book. Several economic principles are covered. I found them particularly interesting due to my complete lack of a background in economics. Whatever you know, you can learn a great deal from this book. > > … > > This book contains an interesting compilation of concepts from Philosophy, Science, Psychology, Economics and other disciplines. Since 81 ideas are covered in 240 pages (allowing only 1-6 pages for each), the author limits the discussion to just some basic concepts, which is all that many readers may want. There is an extensive list of references for those who want to delve deeper. I am not enough of an expert to comment on the accuracy of the sections, but from what I know of a few of them they looked reasonable. Ideas such as what is meant by " an Ontological Proof", “the Categorical Imperative”, “a Quantum Leap”, “the Pleasure Principle”, “the Paradox of Value”, “Less is More” and 75 more concepts are summarized. The book should be a good reference summary for the concepts that are covered - enough for a cocktail party, but not for a detailed answer for an exam in a philosophy, physics, psychology or economics course. The virtue of the book is in its breadth of coverage, not the detail of its coverage. There are illustrations and the writing is clear and entertaining. This book should whet the appetites of many readers, directing them to additional studies. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/29 "2009-06-11T21:11:04Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > Thanks everyone. The Feynmann recommendations have led me to buy myself a copy of [Six Easy Pieces](http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Brilliant/dp/0465023924/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244680770&sr=8-2). I’ve already finished the first chapter, and am so far feeling relatively at ease with it. > > Incidentally, I have read Bryson’s Short History of Nearly Everything. I quite enjoyed it, but am in no position to comment on its scientific accuracy. A bit off-topic, but you really, really need to read his autobiographies too. He’s hilarious, and he led a very interesting life. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/30 "2009-06-11T21:24:30Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > A bit off-topic, but you really, really need to read his autobiographies too. He’s hilarious, and he led a very interesting life. Yes. Yes. YES! There is virtually NO math in those. Honest! It been a theorectical bummer of mine that he wasnt someone I ever knew. Just seems like a neat guy with a great attitude that would very fun and pleasant to be around. In the back half of one of his books, his role in the Space Shuttle Challenger investigation is quite interesting as well. You can probably get those books in paperback on ebay for a pittance. He probably would have been a killer doper 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/31 "2009-06-11T22:29:27Z")
I loved Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s **Death by Black Hole**. Hilarious, readable, and informative ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/32 "2009-06-11T23:46:19Z")
I’ll third the Feynman autobiographies. I do not think that Hawking’s books for the general public are worth the paper they are printed on. If you are reading a science book for the general public and you feel confused or stupid, you are reading the wrong book. Put that book down and get a better book. Many people who read Hawking’s books thought they weren’t smart enough to understand Hawking’s ideas. No, Hawking just did not explain them clearly. Other authors have. Speaking of whom, I like George Gamow’s books. The contents are somewhat dated now, but he covers the basics nicely. He wrote well for the general public, IMO. He has fun with his books, and it shows. When he wrote Thirty Years that Shook Physics, I’m pretty sure he knew all the people he wrote about personally. On the other hand, I read his books after I’d taken some physics courses, so take my opinion with a pinch or so of salt. For some reason I did not enjoy the updated Mr. Tompkins book as much as the original (updated by another author, as Gamow had passed away). ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/33 "2009-07-16T07:52:37Z")
I got through Feynmann’s book, [Six Easy Pieces](http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Brilliant/dp/0465023924/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247730867&sr=1-1). It was a bit light on, but was reasonably digestible. A couple of the chapters were a bit toooo general, more of a commentary on how physics relates to other disciplines, but it was just so refreshing to read a physics book written by an author who has at least a reasonable understanding of the audience’s knowledge and abilities. After careful consideration, I have now purchased [Thinking Physics](http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Practical-Lessons-Critical/dp/0935218068) by L.C. Epstein. I based this choice on the glowing Amazon reviews, after **user\_hostile** brought it to my attention. Can’t wait for it to arrive! ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/34 "2009-07-16T21:47:14Z")
Well, **straggler** , I was @ Border’s the other day and saw a copy of it. Now issued as a 3rd addition, this one has a little commentary by Epstein in the back. Manage to dig up my old copy and look at it every few weeks when I’m looking for puzzles to solve. Let me know what you think. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264/35 "2009-07-16T23:16:29Z")
Asimov’s _Understanding Physics_ is out of print, but you can get inexpensive used copies. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0880292512/ref=dp\_olp\_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0880292512/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used) Plus, your local big bookstore might have copies in the bargains section. It’s a good text, but it only goes up to lasers, so you’ll have to look elsewhere for more up-to-date information. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-all-round-physics-book-for-the-non-physicist/499264.md?page=1)