My professor of the theoretical mechanics lecture just told me

>>8453289
I've been working on something related to the illumination problem, which was first solved by Roger Penrose, the question is: are they the same person? We'll never know, isn't this the thread where we post irrelevant events that occurred in our irrelevant life?

>>8453377
it is now, thank you

>>8453377
seems like it is the same guy tho

File: seriously overrated.jpg (17KB, 228x346px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 228x346px

>>8453289
It's basically pic related, but for physics students instead of CS students.

I won't go so far as to make the unscientific claim that it's good, but I will at least make the empirical claim that it is underrated in comparison to GEB.

>>8453289
There's some brainlet in the Amazon reviews who says he has a physics PhD and even he struggled through the book.

Are all physicists like this? They couldn't cut it for pure math so they decided to go into a field where you don't actually have to understand anything?

The Road to Reality is a load of shit. If its science related, over 1000 pages, and you can't learn from it then its shit. Go read university physics with modern physics, become informed instead of wasting your time with this shit. In fact go out into the garden and fucking burn it along with all those hawking/michio kaku fun science crap, what a fucking waste of time.

>>8453289
The first half of this book is great. Visualization of mathematical things you may (or may not but should) use all the time in physics.
Once he starts talking about PHYSICS around chapter 20 he gets too opinionated and falls into pop science.

I go back to the chapters on fiber bundles and gauge connections often.

>>8454387
Huh, that sounds nice. Never really did get my intuition to click for fiber bundles.

>>8454158
slick trolling

>>8454173
Why the garden?

I..is that the proper place to burn books?

>>8453289
The book is good, but not for the audience it was intended for.

>>8454158
>There's some brainlet in the Amazon reviews who says he has a physics PhD and even he struggled through the book.

Well to be fair, an experimentalist would never have to learn anything about some of the topics discussed later on in that book.

>>8453289
It sucks unless you are of the intended audience that knows a lot of math and physics. A LOT. I'm serious. He's writing as if you are comfortable with all of undergrad math and physics, plus some grad courses. On Amazon you'll notice that most of the reviews are from people who aren't in this audience. I think that Penrose has lost his touch with reality and is incapable of connecting with an average person. He actually advertises this book as something a person who knows no math nor physics could use to obtain an understanding of modern theoretical physics. However, the book is useful for intuition if you know what he's talking about.

>>8453377
>We'll never know
... if we never look into biography, fgt pls

>>8454173
>implying brief history of time and the universe in a nutshell arent good.
Not everyone knows advanced math and science must be taught to the general public, so people dont become like dumb americans who still believe in creationism.

>>8453289
It's good to learn what things you need to learn to do theoretical physics, and amusing if you already know everything in the book already. But you can't really learn from it.

File: facetime.png (62KB, 1272x578px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1272x578px

>>8453289