Science and math books with nice covers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the aesthetics of book covers in the fields of math, physics, and related sciences. Participants share examples of covers they find visually appealing or unappealing, encouraging others to contribute images or links to covers they admire.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express that serious science books often have boring covers, with exceptions for those related to the Universe.
  • Examples of attractive covers include Deligne et al.'s "Quantum Fields and Strings" and Schwartz's "Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model," noted for their comic and abstract art styles, respectively.
  • Bright colors are favored by some, while others mention covers that induce stress or discomfort.
  • Participants share a variety of book covers they appreciate, including those from Spivak's series and works by Walter Greiner, with some noting the artistic contributions of Emil Smejkal.
  • There is a humorous exchange about the relationship between book covers and the content, with some participants joking about judging books by their covers.
  • Discussions also touch on personal backgrounds and preferences regarding math and formulas, with some expressing a preference for narrative over mathematical presentation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally share a variety of opinions on book covers, with no clear consensus on what constitutes an attractive or unattractive cover. Multiple competing views remain regarding personal preferences and the impact of aesthetics on the perception of scientific literature.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention needing specific mathematical knowledge to engage with certain books, indicating a potential barrier to entry based on cover aesthetics alone.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the intersection of art and science, as well as those looking for visually appealing science literature, may find this discussion valuable.

  • #61
Love this retro look!

51huJPaC53L._SX395_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Adesh and pinball1970
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #63
51Zh%2BaXwmdL._SX379_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Not only is this one of the coolest covers on any of textbooks I have, it is also the best book on classical mechanics that I have ever read!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, Greg Bernhardt and pinball1970
  • #64
CJ2116 said:
View attachment 259408

Not only is this one of the coolest covers on any of textbooks I have, it is also the best book on classical mechanics that I have ever read!
How come you have not taken part in some of the interpretation threads?
 
  • #65
pinball1970 said:
How come you have not taken part in some of the interpretation threads?
Do you have a link to a few of them?

To be honest, I'm not sure that I would have much (if anything) intelligent to contribute to the discussions, but I do really enjoy reading what other people have to say!
 
  • #66
vanhees71 said:
Well, when I studied, I took a lot of math lectures with the mathematicians, and for them it was utmost a sin to use such mnemonics. All symbols were written in plain symbols, no matter what it was. Already in the Linear Algebra lecture it was quite unusual for us physicists. So when I did my problems, I first wrote it in the physicists' notation with all ornaments around the symbols to understand what I'm calculating. Then I translated the result into the mathematicians' notation.

The most awful thing with this respect was that in Hilbert-spaces they uses almost the Dirac notation (of course with round parantheses instead of left and right wedges), but they made the first argument of the scalar product linear and the 2nd one semilinear, which of course immediately obsoletes the almost ingenious automatism getting things right with the Dirac notation ;-)).

Of course, for the mathematicians the physicists' way to (over)simplify things must be also odd. My functional-analysis professor once stated that physicists come away with that almost always only, because the separable Hilbert space is allmost like a finite-dimensional complex vector space, but only almost, and that's why sometimes you have debates about eigenvectors of the position or momentum operator and the like, which simply lead to nonsense since a distribution is a distribution and not a function ;-)).
I just now seen your post.

Well also the definition of function differs between pure/applied mathematician and logicians.
Some argue that only single-valued mapping is a function, while others (mainly logicians) expand this notion for multi-valued functions and even partial functions.

There are quite a lot of definitions out there, and many books to read in maths, physics, engineering and logic. :oldbiggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #67
CJ2116 said:
Do you have a link to a few of them?

To be honest, I'm not sure that I would have much (if anything) intelligent to contribute to the discussions, but I do really enjoy reading what other people have to say!
I'm not a physicist so I am out of depth on this.
I asked a question based on on my understanding and I thought it was something I could keep track of. Search strontium ion
 
Last edited:
  • #70
I'm Greece, we use extensively books by the University of Crete publications. Their covers and binding are always gorgeous, minimalistic and similar in style to each other so they look great on a shelve. We can chose from a certain list of books that we can get from free, and many students pick the ones from UoC simply because of their aesthetic value lol.
You can browse their page here to see what I mean (I am referring mostly to the series of white books with colored outlines, though most of their other books also look pretty nice):
https://www.cup.gr/books/thetikes-epistimes/mathimatika/
https://www.cup.gr/books/thetikes-epistimes/fisiki/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jasonRF

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K