/sci/ - Science & Math

definitely not my most advanced book anymore, but still one of my favorites

>>11365513
So far, favorite general reference math text

every /sci/anon should read this
skip player piano

>>11365519
I love that book too, it's like Griffiths is a good friend teaching you electrodynamics.

>>11365513
It's everything physicists need to know about vector calculus in like ~100 pages.

>>11365513
For entertainment: Infinite Jest
For an understanding of science: Beyond Method

>>11365513
Surfing Uncertainty for a book about sentience.
Dune series is good and also relates to the theme in Surfing Uncertainty of predictive prescience.

>>11365513
Récoltes et Semailles, La Clef des Songes. The Bible.

>>11365513

>>11365513

>>11365513
>>11365513

>>11365513

>>11365513
>>11365513

>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513

>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513

>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513
>>11365513

>>11365698
youre a disgrace to physics

>>11365513

>>11365527
Nice way to earn money

just finished the first part of three. very creative, even if it gets a tad wonky towards the end at times.

Read Schopenhauer

>>11365513
Calculus by Spivak

>>11366522
Have you actually read those first two books? If so, what is your impression of them? I can hardly read french, but I tried reading Récoltes et Semailles once and it struck me as very bitter and cynical book.

>>11365513
I like this book.

>>11369059

>>11367879
hmm this sounds interesting. Is it approachable for a mathlet?

>>11365513
the most based book you find rn.

>>11366542
i never understood this meme. i have never seen anybody reply to it or question it. what is your goal?

>>11368741
'Into Energy Flow The Thermodynamics Cool And Life'
What could they mean by this title?

>>11365513

Find a flawm I dare you.

>>11371478
I swear this book took me further than any math course I had.

>>11368379
>sci-fi
Permutation City and Diaspora
Three Body Problem trilogy is absolutely awesome though
>tfw no AA gf
>tfw no Sophon mommy

>>11371403
Is this actually any good?

>>11365513
All knowledge is structural.

>>11365513

>>11365513
You won't finish the book

Great book on a giant in locomotive engineering. If you are familiar with G.J Churchchad, you'll love this book. The scientific and philosophical depth of anecdotes about him is insane for as poorly known as he is.

>>11373450
t. tommy hall

The Basic Writing of Bertrand Russell

I just ordered this off Amazon and am not very familiar with maths or science in general, hoping these essays will shed some light onto the subject.

>>11374881
based

Also anything by arnold v

Great fun!

>>11374852
why?

>>11375424
based on observation that most people don't finish the book

>>11371478
was about to post this

>>11375035
Excellent choice, anon. Russell is great.
>>11373463
Based

>>11376887
Image didn't attach for whatever reason

>>11368337
No need to eat.
https://libgen.is/search.php?req=The+Princeton+Companion+to+Mathematics&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def

>>11365513
Please, never ever read what /sci/ recommends because its 99% shit

>>11365513
garbage, read smullyan instead

>>11371478
Tell me what a flawm is and I'll find you one.

>>11369309
Don't be like reddit, anon -_-

>>11371478
I swear that if you're a math or physics student this book can change your life

>>11371478
The author uses it to promote his objective collapse interpretation of QM, saying wavefunctions are real waves, linking state reduction to gravity, matter can exist at two places at once etc.very trippy stuffs.
I mean you have to reach the later half of the book to see that his view diverges from mainstream physics, some would call him a crank.

>>11381467
That is entirely speculational and communicated as such in the book you shill. What he promotes a bit is twistor theory, while saying there's no evidence for it, just like string theory.

>>11381588

Twistor theory is chapter 33, what I'm talking about starts around Chapter 30 `Gravity’s role in quantum state reduction`, what he wrote on foundation of QM is kinda both outdated and unorthodox but it seems they can easily fly off the radar of people who don't understand QM at this level and use this book as entry point to learn physics (lol)

A few quotes from the book:

>30.1 Is today’s quantum theory here to stay?
>...the laws of present-day quantum mechanics are in need of a fundamental (though presumably subtle) change.

>These reasons come from within accepted physical principles and from observed facts about the universe.

If there were observed facts that would prompt a change in the foundation of QM, that would be a huge breakthrough. In fact he next tell you QM is 100% experiment supported, and the problem is that it's too young

>Quantum mechanics, despite its extraordinary exception-free experimental support and strikingly confirmed predictions, is a comparatively young subject, being only about three-quarters of a century old

>I find it remarkable how few of today’s quantum physicists are prepared to entertain seriously the idea of an actual change in the ground rules of their subject.

By observed facts he means the unresolved issue about time asymmetry in fundamental laws. Most physicists (except for Penrose) agree that the elementary dynamical laws of the Universe are CPT-symmetric or very close to T-symmetric laws, so they can't explain the asymmetry from the thermodynamic point of view. However Penrose would take this as evidence that arrow of time is a consequence of gravity so he can insert gravity in state reduction lmao

>Is it so unreasonable to believe that this linearity might be an approximation to some more precise (but subtle) non-linearity

non linear QM and the idea that QM is approximation for some more accurate description was pretty much demolished by a simple deformation argument https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6917

>>11381694
>submitted 2013
Yes, we'll after the book was published. I don't quite get what you mean. He never makes it seem that his Newton-Schrödinger states are well-researched or fact. It's all openly hypothetical and he simply makes you think about the consequences of entertaining such ideas.

He doesn't say that it's a problem that it's too young, just that it is very young compared to classical physics. He also doesn't say people need to change the foundational rules of QM, he says it's remarkable to him that many physicists do not entertain such an idea.

I fail to see the big flaw here. I'm at work right now, so I can't quote sections currently.

This book is really good. Smil is one dry fucking martini, but the way he builds your understanding is top notch.

>>11368379
>even if it gets a tad wonky towards the end at times.
do yourself a favour and don't read the rest

>>11371478

That book is stupid. It makes you think it has all the information, but just goes too fast for you to understand. Problem is it skips over some essential parts when explaining stuff and that's why you don't understand.

>>11383211
>it makes you think it has all the information
Then that's the reader's fault. See it as supplementary to your math endeavors. It helps you see the bigger picture.