The common practice to not put equations in pop science books

[robertjford80]

Please, don't start inserting equations into my pop science books. If I want to learn the Math I will pick up the college textbook on the subject. My pop science books teach me the general idea of the subject without forcing me to bash my head against a wall with math. Besides, do you have any idea how hard things like functions and stuff are to those of us with no training? I don't even understand what a function is!

I have a feeling you're joking.

 

[robertjford80]

I didn't make the rule, I just quoted it. I don't know whether they were making an assumption, or were speaking from experience as publishers of books.

You're just assuming you're right.

Ok, I admit I was assuming. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[dipole]

Yes, among other things, math is a tool. That much I agree.

Now that's going to far. (I shall not allow the sweet honor of loving math be tarnished, you. [I'm kidding. But really...])

Mathematics is also a language. Not only is it useful for organizing ideas (i.e. when used as a tool), but it is also is often useful for communicating ideas (i.e. when it is used as a language). Equations are able to show relationships succinctly and unambiguously -- often at a glance -- in a way that conventional language sometimes cannot.

The goal of the author is to communicate ideas to his readers. If, while keeping his readers in mind, a situation arises where an equation can help communicate an idea more succinctly and clearly to the reader than otherwise, all else being the same, then I say go for it.

I'm not bashing math, math is a beautiful thing to study, but a physicist is more interested in how nature works. I am very grateful to the mathematicians for all their hard work. :)

 

[collinsmark]

Something that I don't think has been discussed yet are the pros and cons of the physics related, pop science books in the first place. I firmly believe that the pros far outweigh the cons. But the cons worth mentioning. So I'll start there.

Physics related pop science books are the food and life-blood of crackpots. Have you ever heard someone say something similar to any/all of the following:

"I've read a total of three [pop science] books on modern physics. That makes me an expert in modern physics."

"I've read that quantum mechanics might indicate the existence of alternate realities/universes. Well, there's this particular, isolated tribe of people in a cut-off, remote region of southeast Asia who have a religion which involves alternate realities, and they've been practicing that religion for at least hundreds of years. Therefore they've known about quantum mechanics for centuries. This tribe's religion and quantum mechanics are the same thing!"

"Water refracts light because light travels slower in water than it does in a vacuum. That's because water has mass and I've read that when something is near a massive object, time slows down. So refraction of light in water is due to gravitational time dilation of general relativity."

"If I focus my mind and concentrate enough, I'll win the lottery since quantum mechanics says that I'll go into the alternate universe where I win the lottery."​

Pop sci books without any equations whatsoever probably have more cons in this respect. They might lead people to believe that really isn't any mathematics involved in physics at all. All they really need to do to become an expert is to read more pop science books.

I'm not going to add the crackpot link here (forum rules), but there is a product out there to the effect of:

"Buy my $200 dollar set of self-help books and CDs and improve your life through Quantum Jumping."​

This, of course, is targeted at people who have heard of quantum mechanics, but have never looked into any of the math -- have never looked into the real physics of quantum mechanics. Of course its not reasonable for everybody to actually teach themselves quantum mechanics, math and all. But if someone's only exposure to the subject is a book that has no objective equations in it at all, not even so much as an innocuous E = hf, can you really blame that person for falling for such scams?

If an E = hf keeps a crackpot away, then that's a good equation to have!

(Just as a reminder, I still firmly believe that the pros of popular science books greatly outweigh the cons.)