The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

[ibsurvivorin2010]

Anyone reading this book?

Currently 30 pages in and I'm finding it pretty great. Wish I'd read it when I was still in the IB.

I did Physics SL and literally did not understand any of the stuff at all. Double-slit experiment, Bohr's model of the atom, Planck's constant - all of those things are explained here so clearly that even the dummest person gets them.

Don't you think textbooks in general should approach this way of writing? I mean non-fiction books do it so much better: they engage, they're funny, they're simple. That's what you need, especially with something as complicated as physics.

[aldld]

I haven't read The Quantum Universe but I'm assuming it's similar in nature to The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene or A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking?

While I really enjoy popular science books such as these, that's really what they are, popular science books. The intended audience is not people who are taking a course on the subject, but instead mainly for people who are reading about science just for fun. In particular they generally avoid mentioning equations and other mathematical details, which you would need to know if you're taking a course on the subject.

Also, unfortunately, students often simply don't have the time to read through all of this and would rather instead get straight to the core concepts. So I don't think this style of writing should necessarily replace current textbooks, but instead it could be used to introduce and/or supplement the material for students who are interested.

I mean there are some edge cases though, for example QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman is another great popular science book that I enjoyed, and this one is actually based on a series of lectures given by the author. However even here the content was adapted from the lectures for a general audience so you get some of the same issues that I mentioned.

[flinquinnster]

I haven't read the "Quantum Universe" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, but I did read their book on "Why Does E=mc²?", which was pretty fascinating as well. It took some of the basic concepts behind relativity and explained them in such a way (over many, many dozens of pages) that was pretty much impossible not to be interested in and possibly understand. It also managed a (somewhat dodgy/longwinded?) derivation of the famous equation, which I appreciated. These people are not only 'good' at physics, they can write! That is a very important quality for a scientist - you can't just be like a comedian and get along with hugely inflated communication skills and limited mathematical/scientific skills, but you have to be good at both in this case.

I have to admit I like reading about science in popular science books for the "layperson" more than I do learning about physics from our textbooks, which is probably a lesson to textbook writers to attempt to engage their audiences (desperate students) more by using simple and understandable analogies with humour. I think that it's great to have books written by scientists in simple language that is intended to be an introduction to physical concepts - because often conceptual understanding is more important and harder to come by than the more mathematical understanding - so I guess I do agree with you in that respect that often these non-fiction books enable a better understanding and are more interesting than textbooks for physics.

However, I would definitely fail (not sure about you, but I think this is generally applicable) a physics exam if I relied solely upon the understanding from these books to learn physics. Whilst conceptual understanding is an important part of physics, the application in terms of problem-solving and and more often than not, mathematics, is crucial to actually making physics useful in "the real world". Also, popular physics non-fiction tends to focus on the more 'interesting' and modern aspects of physics like relativity or quantum - which leaves a bit of a gap for more basic physical concepts, so this is another issue. It tends to get you involved in this epic narrative-like overview of an area without providing much specific detail.

I think that both IB and "populist" science writers are guilty of dumbing things done. I apologise if I sound as though I'm unfairly criticising the IB physics course, but I think that the course manages to 'dumb things down' as well as making the physics somewhat uninteresting. Or maybe that's my annoyance and resentment of the way we're going through the physics syllabus in our class coming through. At least I enjoy reading these books on physics compared to our IB textbooks - and I would do so voluntarily. I think that anything that raises interest and gives some background understanding in an area is great, particularly when it's enjoyable as well.