I want to take this time to really speak out against the current practice of not including equations in pop science books. This is nonsense. If you read a standard pop science book there will actually be quite a lot of jargon. Anyone who can handle that heavy amount of jargon can obviously handle an equation here and there. I like to understand natural phenomena in terms of equations. If I see an odd phenomenon I like to reduce it to an equation. My favorite example is why does the cork fly off an empty champagne bottle when put next to a fire. Easy, the ideal gas equation, temperature goes up and so too does the pressure, since the volume is held constant, PV = nRT. I'm rereading Davies' the Cosmic Jackpot. The first time I read it I understood maybe 33% of it, this time around I understand 80% of it but that's because I've got about an additional 500 hours of physics training. Anyone who's had 500 hours of training can obviously understand an equation. It's not equations that make pop science books difficult, it's the jargon and the concepts.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# The common practice to not put equations in pop science books

Loading...

Similar Threads - common practice equations | Date |
---|---|

Which kind of knowledge is admired and practically useful? | Nov 26, 2017 |

Why do some people not get the Common Cold? | Jan 1, 2015 |

Most common myths and misconceptions infographic | Nov 10, 2014 |

Why is separation of earth and sky so common in different mythologies? | May 1, 2014 |

Most Commonly Mispronounced Mathematicians | May 2, 2013 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**