# You Can Take One Modern Non-Fiction Book Back To 1750 **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 13, 2014, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188 "2014-10-13T08:41:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188/21 "2014-10-14T18:57:17Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Pretty well all the chemistry, and much of the physics (most of what they didn’t know already), would be gibberish to them. They would not have the concepts. The chemical atomic theory did not arrive until 1808, so stuff about atoms, molecules, and bonds would be incomprehensible (they might know the words, but they would have different meanings). Most of the chemicals would be either unknown substances, or known under quite different names. > > An elementary science textbook, the sort of thing written today for kids beginning in science, might be a bit more appropriate, because it would actually introduce basic concepts, but they would probably dismiss it as nonsense. They would not have seen the evidence that convinced people at the time of the relevant discoveries (probably few people, even scientists, today know _why_ most of the basic concepts of science are as they are, we just accept most of it on authority), and they would have no reason to respect the authority of a book written at a level appropriate for children. Good point, but it would still be my choice. And aren’t we there to help interpret? The thermodynamics would be solid gold, though physicists would be annoyed to have to learn obtuse math tools like matrices. (In fact, they were annoyed at the time, nearly a century later.) But frankly, a history of science book might be even more useful. The problem with a textbook is that it presents only the results, without much of the background on how the principles were verified. Of course, you might need to blot out the scientists’ names! Definitely the chemistry would be difficult. Alchemy wasn’t far gone at that time. The experimental basis for atomic theory wasn’t there and wouldn’t be, for quite a while. While names & atomic weights for elements would be interesting, quite a number of them hadn’t been isolated yet, so folks would wonder what substance the texts would be discussing. How did we even measure atomic weights at first? I shudder to think of how we measured Avogadro’s number (long after Avogadro, alas.) ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188/22 "2014-10-14T19:46:24Z")
Is our time travel story accepted? If it is accepted and widespread knowledge that I traveled back through time with a book to hand down to the masses, I might bring a history book that covers 1700 to 2000. Get on the right side of history now, you primitives! Or is the goal to change history? Maybe bring back a book detailing gunpowder, military tactics, and detailed maps of North America to distribute to all the native people. In 1750 there were only the 13 colonies, right? Could a single book (even if we sat down and wrote it ourselves) turn the tide in favor of Native Americans? ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188/23 "2014-10-14T20:07:19Z")
I think your goal is whatever you’d like it to to, whether it’s to get them “on the right side of history” with a copy of _Guns, Germs and Steel_ or get the to invent the bicycle 130 years early with a copy of _Let’s Go Mountainbiking_!. Actually, the bicycle might be an interesting one. ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188/24 "2014-10-15T02:08:50Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > For example, in 1750 both London and Paris are about to deal with revolutions, though it’s much closer to home for Paris. If we give either of them technology, there’s a nontrivial chance the 1750 powers could turn things around and put down the revolutions that were successful in our timeline. You say that as if it would be a bad thing! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188/25 "2014-10-15T02:18:58Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Good point, but it would still be my choice. And aren’t we there to help interpret? > > The thermodynamics would be solid gold, though physicists would be annoyed to have to learn obtuse math tools like matrices. (In fact, they were annoyed at the time, nearly a century later.) > > But frankly, a history of science book might be even more useful. The problem with a textbook is that it presents only the results, without much of the background on how the principles were verified. Of course, you might need to blot out the scientists’ names! > > Definitely the chemistry would be difficult. Alchemy wasn’t far gone at that time. The experimental basis for atomic theory wasn’t there and wouldn’t be, for quite a while. While names & atomic weights for elements would be interesting, quite a number of them hadn’t been isolated yet, so folks would wonder what substance the texts would be discussing. How did we even measure atomic weights at first? I shudder to think of how we measured Avogadro’s number (long after Avogadro, alas.) I think a Chemistry book would be a good choice. I don’t know the book that **Pleonast** suggested, but a college-level General Chemistry text will contain the history of how things were discovered. Much of it would be extremely difficult for 18th Century scientists to fully grasp, but they weren’t exactly morons. Since the text would cover things that were discovered before and during their time, they would have at least a starting point. They would have to take a lot of it on faith, but they could use the historical information to at least infer the meaning of the things that were then beyond their ability. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-can-take-one-modern-non-fiction-book-back-to-1750/701188.md?page=1)