Lay person looking for new pop physics books

[Huck Mucus]

I have some old Hawking and Thorne, et al books. I'm wondering if there are any good, new books written for lay people. I'm interested in light, energy, matter, time, entanglement, etc. I'm also curious about anything new from the Webb telescope. I prefer hard copies. Thanks for any leads.

 

[DaveE]

The problem with this genre is that "lay people" covers a very wide range of interests and background knowledge. So you may have to chart your own course.

I think Sean Carroll does a good job in the "physics for poets" arena; mostly QM.

 

[Huck Mucus]

I am not a scientist. I was trained in history, politics, philosophy, law, and I was an attorney by trade. I took Sagan's "Cosmos" in the 80s and read, and enjoyed Black Holes and Time Warps (Thorne 94), Theory of Everything (Hawking 2003), Brief History of Time (Hawking 1998) and a few others, all about that time frame. I read mainstream (not science) news when something happens but I don't follow physics consistently. I go and come back every few years. This is one of those times when I want to catch up. I'm bored with doom and gloom and want to see what you people have been up to. No chalk board equations. I'm not Young Sheldon. Just curious. I was hoping one or more of your "stars" might have published some cool new books for the masses. If this board is full of gatekeepers who think lay people are dangerous with a little knowledge, don't worry. I'm not in a position to do anything with the little knowledge I might glean from a pop physics book. I suppose I could just go the book store and rely on luck or the recommendations of sellers, but I thought I'd ask you all.

 

[gmax137]

Does it have to be "new"? "QED" by Feynman is good.

 

[Huck Mucus]

Does it have to be "new"? "QED" by Feynman is good.

Thanks. I will check it out. I guess "new" is not necessary but I'd prefer it not be superseded or debunked by new discoveries.

 

[phinds]

Thanks. I will check it out. I guess "new" is not necessary but I'd prefer it not be superseded or debunked by new discoveries.

Pop-Sci often talks about thing 100 years old and gets them wrong. Rarely debunked by new discoveries since it isn't actual science to begin with. It's entertainment designed to get people interested in science.

As a lay person, you'll learn more science here than by reading pop-sci books. To learn the actual physics usually takes some advance math although you can sometimes get a good grasp of things at a superficial level without the math.

 

[gmax137]

Pop-Sci often talks about thing 100 years old and gets them wrong. Rarely debunked by new discoveries since it isn't actual science to begin with. It's entertainment designed to get people interested in science.

I think this has truth to it, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here's a few I can see on my shelves that I thought were worth reading. In no particular order:

The Revolution in Physics, deBroglie
Through Space and Time, Jeans
Inward Bound, Pais
The Relevance of Science, Von Weiszacker
Gamma, Havil
Symmetries and Reflections, Wigner
The Nature of the Physical World, Eddington
Reflections of a Physicist, Bridgman
Relativity, Einstein
The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose
The Image of Eternity, Park

Now some (most) of these are quite old and dated. They are not this month's "Isn't QM Weird!?"

As a lay person, you'll learn more science here than by reading pop-sci books. To learn the actual physics usually takes some advance math although you can sometimes get a good grasp of things at a superficial level without the math.

This is a very good point, especially if you're reading authors who churn out a book every year or two.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Smashing physics

 

[Frabjous]

The issue is that as one learns more, popularizarions become less satisfying.
The last good thing I read was a Von Neumann biography
Bhattacharya The man from the future
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1324003995/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have been happy with several books from the Very Short Introductions series
https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/v/very-short-introductions-vsi/?type=listing&subjectcode1=1804195|SCI00010&lang=en&cc=us

A couple that have withstood the test of time for me
The Quest for Absolute Zero by Mendelssohn
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Mendelssohn&bi=0&bx=off&cm_sp=SearchF-_-Advs-_-Result&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&rollup=on&sortby=17&sts=t&tn=Quest absolute zero&xdesc=off&xpod=off

The Maxwellians by Hunt
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801482348/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Some harder books
Where does the Weirdness Go by Lindley
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465067867/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Sneaking a Look at God's Cards by Ghirardi
https://www.amazon.com/dp/069113037X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Schmitz Particles fields and forces
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3030987523/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Huang Fundamental forces of nature
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9812706453/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's said "a translation is like a mistress - either beautiful and unfaithful or ugly and faithful". One could say something very similar about popularizations. Finding one that is clear and simple and doesn't cut any corners is like finding a unicorn.

The reason I am not recommending anythng (apart from the fact that I don't have the time to survey everything that is out here) is that I don't know where on the accessibility vs. accuracy spectrum the OP really wants to be. I'm not even sure the OP can say, more than "I know it when I see it", because someone who can judge the accuracy of popularizations doesn't need to be reading popularizations.

In the old day, one could go to something called a bookstore and leaf through a few pages of a book and decide if it was in the right spot or not.

 

[phinds]

The issue is that as one learns more, popularizations become less satisfying.

someone who can judge the accuracy of popularizations doesn't need to be reading popularizations.

 

[Huck Mucus]

Thank you to all those who were responsive to my request. With these and a PM list, I have a lot to consider.