The Road to Reality-worthwhile for someone who knows more math than physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big Crunch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" is a challenging read, particularly for someone with a strong mathematical background but limited physics knowledge. While the book offers a rigorous overview of modern physics, it requires supplementary resources to fully grasp its concepts. For those seeking a deeper understanding of physics, it's essential to engage with multiple texts and not rely solely on one book. A foundational approach, starting with calculus-based introductory physics and possibly adding electromagnetism, is recommended for a more manageable entry into the subject. Additionally, online resources like Susskind's lectures can provide valuable insights and enhance understanding. Overall, the pursuit of substantial knowledge in physics demands significant effort and cannot be achieved through superficial reading alone.
Big Crunch
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
The Road to Reality--worthwhile for someone who knows more math than physics?

Like the title says I have a solid understanding of a fair amount of math (multi and single variable calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, differential geometry) but essentially no physics except for a high school algebra based mechanics course.

Would Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality be a worthwhile endeavor for someone like me, so as to give myself a more rigorous overview of modern physics? I realize of course that there's no substitute for many years of training in physics, but perhaps as an introduction that wouldn't be too simple or too limited?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, but don't underestimate the difficulty of the book, the "popular science" label, not withstanding.

In order to understand a lot of it, you would end up having to look at other references along the way, so don't think you can really get away with just one book if you are going to learn about physics properly. If you want a superficial knowledge of physics, you can read one book; if you want substantial knowledge, there's really no shortcut to all the hard work. Depends on what your goal is with the physics. If it is just to get an idea, you can read popular books. If it is to give a broader background for math, a lot of physics topics are nice to know, but not strictly necessary. I always thought when I took an electromagnetism class, it gave a big boost to my mathematical abilities and contributed significantly to my understanding of many mathematical topics, including vector calculus and differential forms.

If you only are willing to read one book, I would suggest being less ambitious and just starting at the beginning with calculus-based introductory physics. If you wanted two books, I would suggest adding electromagnetism on top of that.

Another thing to try might be to watch the Susskind lectures, which you can find online.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
Back
Top