Other What are you reading now? (STEM only)

[Borg]

This is the textbook that will be used in my weekly ML study group. Lots to learn.

Bayesian Methods for Hackers: Probabilistic Programming and Bayesian Inference.

The study group is also going through this book:
A Student's Guide to Bayesian Statistics by Ben Lambert.

This morning, I ran across an online tool that he created to examine various distributions that will come in very handy. There are even tabs that include use cases and code examples in multiple languanges!
It's called The distribution zoo.

 

[vanhees71]

Just for curiosity, what is "probabilistic programming"?

 

[Borg]

Just for curiosity, what is "probabilistic programming"?

I hadn't thought about it but here's the wiki article.
Probabilistic programming

Probabilistic programming (PP) is a programming paradigm in which probabilistic models are specified and inference for these models is performed automatically. It represents an attempt to unify probabilistic modeling and traditional general purpose programming in order to make the former easier and more widely applicable. It can be used to create systems that help make decisions in the face of uncertainty.

 

[gleem]

Just finished Carlo Rovelli's"Reality is not what it seems: The Journey to quantum gravity"

A good non technical introduction to loop quantum gravity wrt its issues and objectives. How LQG devalues the concept of time as we commonly experience , eliminates singularities and the rising importance of information theory . Interesting excursion into the concepts of matter and space through the ages.

 

[fluidistic]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...tter-physics/F0A27AC5DEA8A40EA6EA5D727ED8B14EModern Condensed Matter Physics
By Steven M. Girvin and Kun Yang

Girvin and Yang's book was mentioned by @fluidistic in the STEM Bibles thread.

Could you please give a very brief review of your experience with that textbook please?

 

[WWGD]

Reviewing Stats, from a more practical/applied perspective with Montgomery's applied stats for engineers. I like his "Mind Expanding " exercises and the fact that he includes them after the more conventional ones. Always something new you can learn or some tweaking or improving of your existing knowledge and understanding.

 

[gleem]

Just finished Jim Baggott's The Quantum Story" (2016). Well worth the read for anyone not familiar with the historical developments of quantum theory from Pauli to the Standard Model and beyond. It follows the developments as physicists dived down the quantum rabbit hole. It explores the good ideas and the not so good ideas.

Especially interesting are the anecdotes, personal comments, interactions and competition of these physicists , e.g. L. Susskind's happenstance meeting with Gell-Mann in an elevator telling him of his "string theory" only to have Gell-Mann laugh at the idea.

It is interesting to note that about 93% of the book is devoted to the period from 1900 to 1970 while only 7% was needed for the next 50 Years. A familiarization of group theoretic approaches would be helpful to appreciated the the way that QFT developed.

Oppenheimer in a letter to his brother in 1934 lamented at the lack of recent progress in theoretical physics . Rabi in 1947 thought the last 18 years was the most sterile of the century.

 

[Mondayman]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198539487/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The best biography of R. P. Feynman, I've seen so far.

Good book. Have you read Climbing the Mountain by the same author, about Julian Schwinger?

I just ordered it, cost me an arm and a leg. Dont know why it's so expensive.

 

[vanhees71]

Oppenheimer in a letter to his brother in 1934 lamented at the lack of recent progress in theoretical physics . Rabi in 1947 thought the last 18 years was the most sterile of the century.

Well, this was compensated right at this time in the 2nd half of the century starting with the measurement of the Lamb shift, which triggered the entire development of the 2nd period of QFT. The first period was already very early in the "Dreimännerarbeit", where Jordan already quantized the em. field in addition to the electrons, but at that time the idea was not appreciated, because some eminent physicist thought that was "too much", and indeed it's well known that you get very far without quantizing the em. field; at the time the only thing not explained was the necessity of spontaneous emission to kinetically derive the Planck radiation law a la Einstein 1917). The 1st and 2nd period of the QFT development is most comprehensively described in Schweber, QED and the Men who made it (though this book is full of unfortunate typos in the formulae :-().

The reason, why there's not so much after 1970 may be that the last breakthrough in the foundations was Bell's work in the mid 60ies, which has of course then lead to a complete new field, which I'd call "quantum informatics", which is of coarse closely related to quantum optics, but that are applications of QT, which has been more or less settled in its foundations already around 1925-1927.

Also the Standard Model was completely formulated around this time. I'd say the last fundamental building block was 't Hooft and Veltman's proof of the renormalizability of Higgsed and un-Higgsed gauge theories (1971) as well as Asymptotic Freedom (Gross, Wilczek, Politzer) of non-Abelian gauge theories and the establishment of QCD as the description of the strong interaction.

 

[Demystifier]

Oppenheimer in a letter to his brother in 1934 lamented at the lack of recent progress in theoretical physics . Rabi in 1947 thought the last 18 years was the most sterile of the century.

 

[Auto-Didact]

I'd agree with them. Basically, after the Dirac equation - with a few sprinkles spread in between since then - contemporary theoretical physicists seem to have actually mostly lost their way. This is reflected by them focussing far too much on highly specialized details and so end up completely and hopelessly missing the big picture general view of physics; for all that QT has achieved, it is clearly still a severe disappointment from a foundational perspective.

It is no wonder at all that theoretical physics is in such a rut today; since the 60s practically no one has been trained in how to go from a specialist to a generalist view, so practically no one explicitly teaches that method anymore either. Mastery of some skill isn't possible if the school of thought which teaches that skill is systematically wiped out from academia, especially while the skill hasn't gotten properly documented beyond merely being describes as a form of tacit knowledge.

Instead most physicists seem to think that they can somehow just master these old methods without any specific training whatsoever. Then when the time comes, instead of them being able to rise to the occasion and meet the main challenges of their time, they instead reliably end up unnecessarily bogging themselves down in irrelevant technical details at pretty much every step of the way, while constantly falling over themselves; this is clearly seen by them being unable to distinguish even the most basic matters of what is practice from matters of what is principle.

 

[Rolacycle]

I’m reading “ Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”

May not be exactly within boundaries of (stem) category ... classic tho

 

[gleem]

Read "The Quantum Story" and report back. A lot in the book reveals the back and forth of the advancement of physics, the scoffing, ignoring, until a new direction was accepted. I think Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math: How beauty leads Physics Astray" is a statement reflecting the silent observation of many physicists who are afraid to say wait a minute maybe we should back up and rethink this problem. In the past, current thinking had been so strong (biased) so as to sweep new concepts aside unnecessarily delaying physic's advancement.

The book recounted the contribution of solid state physics to QFT when at that time Gell -Mann had referred to it as "Squalid State Physics" a disdainful comment at best for this branch of physics.

Is particle physics better than condensed matter physics? Does such an attitude reflect a problem?

 

[martinbn]

I think you are getting off topic.

 

[pinball1970]

Well, this was compensated right at this time in the 2nd half of the century starting with the measurement of the Lamb shift, which triggered the entire development of the 2nd period of QFT. The first period was already very early in the "Dreimännerarbeit", where Jordan already quantized the em. field in addition to the electrons, but at that time the idea was not appreciated, because some eminent physicist thought that was "too much", and indeed it's well known that you get very far without quantizing the em. field; at the time the only thing not explained was the necessity of spontaneous emission to kinetically derive the Planck radiation law a la Einstein 1917). The 1st and 2nd period of the QFT development is most comprehensively described in Schweber, QED and the Men who made it (though this book is full of unfortunate typos in the formulae :-().

The reason, why there's not so much after 1970 may be that the last breakthrough in the foundations was Bell's work in the mid 60ies, which has of course then lead to a complete new field, which I'd call "quantum informatics", which is of coarse closely related to quantum optics, but that are applications of QT, which has been more or less settled in its foundations already around 1925-1927.

Also the Standard Model was completely formulated around this time. I'd say the last fundamental building block was 't Hooft and Veltman's proof of the renormalizability of Higgsed and un-Higgsed gauge theories (1971) as well as Asymptotic Freedom (Gross, Wilczek, Politzer) of non-Abelian gauge theories and the establishment of QCD as the description of the strong interaction.

Something Deeply Hidden – Sean Carroll (again) I got half way through then misplaced the book in Dumfries.I picked it up again some weeks later at my dog ear and I started to tread water so I am starting again.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Read "The Quantum Story" and report back. ...
Is particle physics better than condensed matter physics? Does such an attitude reflect a problem?

Will do.

I think you are getting off topic.

To get back on topic, currently reading:

For my current theoretical research in dynamical systems, I'm doing a comprehensive literature review of the mathematical literature going back three centuries. Curiously, any which way I approach the topic, it noticeably brings me back to one single source again and again.

As a result, I decided to finally pick up a book that was recommended to me awhile ago: Euler: The Master of Us All, by William Dunham, 1999.. I'm currently still reading it.

In any case, during this literature review, I've changed my mind about the rankings of who is the best mathematician of all time, which previously had Gauss on top. I think the opening quote of this book summarizes both my current opinion as well as the book quite well: "Read Euler, read Euler! He is the master of us all." - Pierre Simon Laplace

 

[vanhees71]

I’m reading “ Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”
View attachment 258194

May not be exactly within boundaries of (stem) category ... classic tho

Hm, I'd rather apply the natural laws as known by engineers and mechanics than some Zen Buddhism to maintain my vehicles

 

[martinbn]

Hm, I'd rather apply the natural laws as known by engineers and mechanics than some Zen Buddhism to maintain my vehicles

You don't know the book, but it is not about Zen nor motorcycles.

 

[PeroK]

Hm, I'd rather apply the natural laws as known by engineers and mechanics than some Zen Buddhism to maintain my vehicles

One aspect of the book is the contrast between two characters: one of whom rides a motorbike that requires a lot of maintenance and loving care and attention; and the other rides a BMW that never breaks down. I think I know which bike you'd prefer!

 

[vanhees71]

As a theoretician, I'd prefer the BMW. You know, it's a desaster when theoreticians try to do something practical or even physics experiments (remember poor de Haas, who was persuaded by Einstein to get the "right" gyrofactor of 1 rather than making the discovery that it's different; today we know it's about 2, and this was discovered shortly after Einstein's and de Haas's publication) ;-)).

 

[Mark44]

I’m reading “ Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”
View attachment 258194

May not be exactly within boundaries of (stem) category ... classic tho

I found this so interesting when I first read it back in about 1975, that I wrote notes in the margin, something I don't usually do. A reprint or new edition came out in 2000, so I bought a copy for my bookshelf.

 

[Mark44]

I'm reading "The Mapmaker's Wife, A True Tale of Love, Murder, and Survival in the Amazon," by Robert Whitaker. The book chronicles the quest by a group of French academicians in 1738 to measure the length of one degree of arc of the Earth's circumference at the equator. At the time, Rene Descartes and other scientists believed that the Earth was a prolate spheroid, sort of like a football (an American football). Newton's calculations led him to believe that shape was that of an oblate spheroid.

I'm about halfway through the book now, and the group, led by Charles Marie De La Condamine, has made very accurate measurements and maps of the area around Quito, which was a city in the Peruvian Viceroyalty, long before the existence of separate countries such as Ecuador and others.

The group in the book made significant advances in astronomy, mapping, and botany (bringing knowledge of cinchona, the source of quinine, as well as rubber, back to Europe), and numerous other areas.

The mapmaker's wife of the title, traveled 3,000 miles from Quito across dangerous passes in the Andes and down the Amazon to rejoin her husband, one of the Frenchmen in La Condamine's party.

 

[vanhees71]

I just got Weinberg's newest textbook. A gem again, as expected:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1108415075/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Mondayman]

I just got Climbing the Mountain, a biography about Julian Schwinger by Jagdish Mehra. It is the counterpart to The Beat of a Different Drum, the biography of Feynman. I'll probably reread these books when I have a basic understanding of QED.

I also have The Maxwellians by Bruce Hunt. It's about the development of Maxwell's equations as we know them, going from Maxwell's Treatise to the work of FitzGerald, Heaviside, Lodge, and Hertz. Electrodynamics is by far my favorite subject, and I can't wait to tackle Jackson and Landau.

 

[Klystron]

I picked up a thin mathematics text on a whim from the library, "Infinite Ascent" by David Berlinski. Despite a roguish take on historical greats, the book is readable and informative. Each brief subject -- geometry, analytical geometry, calculus, etc. -- follows the typical curriculum we learned in school but with an altered perspective.

 

[Mondayman]

Just picked up a new book on Feynman and another on Dirac. This is my current STEM list:

Dirac: A Scientific Biography*
Feynman and His Physics*
The Beat of a Different Drum*
Climbing the Mountain*
Subtle is the Lord*
J. Robert Oppenheimer
The Genius of Science
QED and the Men Who Made It*
Inward Bound*
Oliver Heaviside
The Maxwellians
QED
Lost in Math

The ones with * are technical and don't shy away from the mathematics.

 

[Auto-Didact]

I'm reading Peter Woit's QM textbook:
Quantum Theory, Groups & Representations

Gotta say, I'm enjoying it way more than I had anticipated. This is probably my favourite textbook on QM.

 

[Auto-Didact]

I'm reading Peter Woit's QM textbook:
Quantum Theory, Groups & Representations

Gotta say, I'm enjoying it way more than I had anticipated. This is probably my favourite textbook on QM.

For some context, I originally learned QM via Griffiths in conjunction with the Feynman Lectures. Over the years I have reviewed a few other standard texts (Sakurai, McIntyre, Shankar, Ballentine and Nielsen & Chuang). All of these have their strengths and weaknesses, but none of them seem to be able to achieve what Woit already manages to largely achieve in the first few chapters.

In my opinion, with respect to being able to convey, not merely mathematical technique and physical theory, but also a deep understanding of the subject matter at an unexpectedly unified and sophisticated mathematical level, Woit's book seems to be superior to all of them. This seems to be especially true when approaching the matter from the perspective of an advanced undergraduate intending to go into either mathematical physics or theoretical physics (with a double major in mathematics and physics).

The reason for this praise is that this book is not merely the first book on QM that I have read so far, that has actually achieved such a sense of clarity for me - similar to what MTW did for GR for me - but so far the only book on QM that I have ever read that has achieved this; i.e. no single other textbook - not even more advanced texts on QFT, nor (post)graduate level monographs on other interpretations of QM, not even Landau & Lifshitz - were able to achieve that. This is simply the closest thing I have ever seen to a legitimate first principles treatment of the subject, from the perspective of foundations (NB: opposed to many illegitimate first principles treatments... I won't name names).

More colloquially, I feel like so far all other books have made me merely accustomed to QM, while this is the first time I feel that a single author in a single work has actually managed to treat QM as a form of an application of pure mathematics, and that in a format understandable for undergraduates. Is my perspective on this book typical or generalizable? I don't know; all I know is that Woit seems to have achieved something which as far as I can tell no one else in history has.

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know this book. What difference in treatment makes it so unique for you? Is it only about "interpretation" or is it about the "no-nonsense mathematical and physics aspects"?

 

[Auto-Didact]

I don't know this book. What difference in treatment makes it so unique for you? Is it only about "interpretation" or is it about the "no-nonsense mathematical and physics aspects"?

Nothing to do with interpretation, the book virtually makes no statements on interpretations. The difference instead is that it seems to be written with a specific audience in mind instead of generically for physics students, i.e. it is tailormade for the 21st century (aspiring) mathematical physicist, mathematician or mathematics-oriented theoretical physicist instead of for any (aspiring) physicist more generally.

By 'mathematics-oriented' I am not so much speaking about mathematical skill, specific content (e.g. specific mathematical topics/theories) or chosen methodology (e.g. axiomatic or numerical methods), but instead about the overall writing style and presentation of the material. Canonical texts in foundational physics where the research has reached a certain stage of maturity has a specific presentation style - usually as a consequence of being tidied up by the mathematical physics community; both Newton's Principia and MTW are written in this style.

On the other hand, so far all textbooks on QM I have read are specifically not written in this mature style, but instead written in a distinctly schizophrenic 'half mathematics, half physics' style, which unfortunately has become quite characteristic of texts on QM since von Neumann & Dirac. More concretely, the typical style of QM texts pretends to be a rigorous mathematics text but then with unjustifiable caveats, i.e. a distinctly non-foundational style; this actually indicates that the field of research in question is still quite premature.

In contrast, the style Woit utilised in writing his book is very different than the typical QM textbook style, but more importantly also doesn't quite resemble modern pure mathematics texts. It instead resembles quite closely modern applied mathematics texts with one major difference: the mathematical content actually belongs to 'pure mathematics' and not to 'applied mathematics'. This particular mixed style i.e. 'application of pure mathematics' was - prior to the 20th century - the characteristic style of mathematical physics, which is precisely why I love this book; the sophisticated mathematics is just icing on the cake.