Cosmology Weinberg's The First Three Minutes

  • Thread starter Thread starter gmax137
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bigbang Cosmology
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relevance of the book "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg, particularly the 1988 updated edition. Participants reflect on the validity of its content in light of advancements in physics and cosmology over the past few decades. There is curiosity about how much of the book's information has been superseded and whether it might introduce outdated concepts to new readers. The experience of reconciling the original text with modern scientific understanding is highlighted as enjoyable, despite the challenges posed by numerous footnotes and endnotes. Overall, the book continues to receive praise within the community, even as its status as a general reader's text is acknowledged.
gmax137
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Messages
3,132
Reaction score
3,604
This book was recently offered (and sold) in the Buy, Sell, Trade, Giveaway Book Marketplace section of the Forum.

That inspired me to pull out my copy (1988 "Updated Edition" from Basic Books). I read this probably 30 years ago. My question is, how much of this story is still considered valid? How much has been superseded over the years? Will reading it fill my head with obsolete notions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I hold an even older edition: "First Three Minutes" revison 1. When I learned -- from PF posts -- that revision 6 included Weinberg's interpretations of CMBr data, I checked the latest edition from our public library. Had a bit of fun reconciling original text with physics and cosmology learned since the 1970's but enjoyed the experience.

If you choose this route, be prepared for reading many footnotes and endnotes in small type, going by the edition I read. Even so, Weinberg always holds my attention.
 
gmax137 said:
This book was recently offered (and sold) in the Buy, Sell, Trade, Giveaway Book Marketplace section of the Forum.

That inspired me to pull out my copy (1988 "Updated Edition" from Basic Books). I read this probably 30 years ago. My question is, how much of this story is still considered valid? How much has been superseded over the years? Will reading it fill my head with obsolete notions?
I think mine disappeared during a move. Pfers always give it praise even though it is still a general readers book.
 
TL;DR Summary: Book after Sakurai Modern Quantum Physics I am doing a comprehensive reading of sakurai and I have solved every problem from chapters I finished on my own, I will finish the book within 2 weeks and I want to delve into qft and other particle physics related topics, not from summaries but comprehensive books, I will start a graduate program related to cern in 3 months, I alreadily knew some qft but now I want to do it, hence do a good book with good problems in it first...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...
Back
Top