What level of scientific knowledge do I need to read and appreciate this book?

Today I opened this book in the library and got scared.

probably not much, just watch a few documentaries on physics.

anything by stephen hawking, neil degrasse tyson, coral sagan, brian greene, michio kaku, brian cox, or morgan freeman would be fine

ofc the tryhards here will tell you you need some shit 4 year physics degree but they are just trying to justify their own shit life choices.

morgan freeman explains the double slit pretty well

his thoughts on how it might relate to god are also interesting

>god

No place in Veeky Forums for that nonsense bud. Get that shit out of here.

Link to Freeman's talk though?

you still think of god as a person rather than a concept? huehuee

If you can get it at your local library or book store it will not be a technical book. There may some equations or concepts that are confusing, but on a whole pop sci is written with a relatively uneducated audience in mind (between high school and undergraduate level)

>nonsense

I wish the children would stop parroting this. There's nothing fundamentally nonsensical, illogical, or irrational about the very premise of God.

It's OK to not believe if you find him unsubstantiated, but not believe because "god is stupid" is just foolish name calling.

Bare minimum, physics 1-3, calculus, DEs
For the first half-ish, undergrad quantum
For the latter papers, senior/grad quantum

Not true, there are some actual textbooks in public libraries.

Are you faggots going to link Freeman's discussion on it or not?

And yes - there is a fundamentally irrational and illogical aspect to the belief that a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient intelligence created the universe from nothing - the starter being what created the creator and gave it the intelligence to do so? The premise is fundamentally illogical at it's core and goes against everything currently known about the laws of physics.

>yes - there is a fundamentally irrational and illogical aspect to the belief that a singular, infinitely dense, infinitesimal point created the universe from nothing - the starter being what created the singularity and gave it the rules to do so? The premise is fundamentally illogical at it's core and goes against everything currently known about the laws of physics.

See, doesn't everything seem suspect when said in a critical condescending tone.

And no - even most atheist philosophers agree that there's nothing anymore irrational about a God creating the universe than nothing creating the universe. The fact that there is something rather than nothing is paradoxical.

>even most atheist philosophers agree

Stopped reading right there.

You mean those guys who had absolutely no scientific basis to form their opinions from. Gotcha. Cool story brohypnol.

>The fact that there is something rather than nothing is paradoxical.
Under what fucking pretense? What universal law have you used to derive that "nothing" is the correct expectation in place of "something"? Sounds like you're a great source on rationality.

Misread that as "ancient" philosophers - my bad.

Doesn't change my opinion at all though - depending upon what "atheist philosophers" you're talking about. If it was Nietzsche, he dies in 1900, long before the true scientific revolution - so again, so basis.

And why are you bringing up philosophers in the first place? I should have discarded your opinion the second you brought them into this conversation.

In fact, I am discarding your opinion.

Philosophers... Jesus Christ, lol

Addendum - There are scientific theories which are gaining popularity in terms of how something can come from nothing. Lawrence Krauss ids your friend.

U never read book b4?

he theory crafting he never been in a public library obviously

Have you ever even opened that book before? It's just a collection of physics papers from the most notable physicists from the early 1900's. I indulged in pop physics in highschool and am nearing the end of my math degree and I hardly understand anything in that book

>dies in 1900, long before the true scientific revolution

And true scientific revolution being what ... reddit? Mechanics was established, Electromagnetism was established, Thermodynamics was established, and Einsteins' miracle year papers were right around the corner in 1905. The fuck are you smoking?

>And why are you bringing up philosophers in the first place? I should have discarded your opinion the second you brought them into this conversation.

Because it's a question of metaphysics and not science. They are concerned with different domains of study.

>people that think of god as a concept
Kill yourself

>getting triggered over philosophy
>getting triggered over things outside of science
>being this much of an antithesis

Holy autism batman.

There being nothing is perfectly consistent with itself. Nothing doesn't needs to pop into existence, Nothing doesn't needs to exists forever, Nothing just needs to be nothing.

>What universal law have you used

There are no universal laws other than mathematics.

>hawking
Is is a hack.
Read something else

>be regular physicist
>become cripple
>??????
>profit

It's literally popsci
It's made for the pleb majority
Maybe you're retarded

So, serious question. Are brilliant Veeky Forumsentists like you really the gatekeepers of knowledge? Is there no way for a layman to read up on quantom physics without getting a degree to understand it? Are there no good books out there physicists which explain the latest findings and theories in a way that could at least enlighten or educate the general public?

Seriously, the way you guys just rabidly tear out the throats of scientists who try to do this (Hawking, Tyson, Greene, etc.) makes me wonder if any of you fuckers on either side actually know what's going on.

To clarify, I'm NOT calling Hawkings one of the greatest physicists of all time - I'm well aware he's considered mediocre in his field. But he, like Tyson and others, is trying to bring science into the mainframe of general public knowledge. I think it's a noble cause, and a lot more than any of you neckbeard autists on here will ever accomplish in your careers.

Have you even read that book before? I can tell that you are talking out of your ass. That book is a collection of the published papers written by Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, etc that (according to Hawking) impacted quantum theory the greatest. It is closer to being real science than a textbook.

If you struggled to understand a pop sci book's watered-down, quantum mechanics 4kidz explanation, then there's no hope for you.

How did you not comprehend that, are you actually retarded?

It is just a collection of physics papers so it wouldn't be an easy by any means, but if you happen to know a lot of calculus, linear algebra, d.e.'s and math comes naturally to you, then if you spend enough time on each chapter, you might be able understand the content. At the same time Hawking presents a summary in layman terms before each chapter so that could help or you could read those exclusively. Whatever makes you happy in the end is what matters

That is not what that book is. If you read only the intro to each chapter, then yes, that is what you are getting. But the content itself consists of theoretical physics papers from the early 1900's translated and pasted into the pages

>explain the latest findings and theories in a way that could at least enlighten or educate the general public

None of them will make a lick of sense to you. It's just going to be mindless buzzwords and hand waving.

>Is there no way for a layman to read up on quantom physics without getting a degree to understand it

Yeah, it's called getting a freshman physics textbook (Young&Freedman or Halliday-Resnick&KRANE) and reading it. Starting at kinematics/mechanics, then electromagnetism, and finally modern physics. Only then will anything start making sense.

I'm the guy you responded to. I've never read the book. I have read a few by Brian Greene. I did not struggle to understand them. Reading comprehension obviously is not your strong suit, as I never once implied that I "couldn't understand it." My question was why so people on this board trash books like these as if they are full of misinformation or not worth anyone's time? How did YOU not comprehend that, are you actually retarded? Funny how faggots like you struggle with such simple concepts as a human conversation. Autism is a bitch, no?

I didn't need freshmen physics textbooks to understand anything presented in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene - as an example. It was presented in a simple enough way for a laymen to understand. I'm not interested in the math behind it all - I trust that it's all there. I like the conclusions and implications drawn from the studies. Nobody needs to be a physicist to understand and appreciate physics. You guys honestly think way too highly of yourselves.

>I'm not interested in the math behind it all

GET

99% of the physics is in the maths, so yes, you do

lel @ faggot autist. 2 + 2 = 7 nigger, fuck off.

To understand the basics and appreciate physics? No, no you don't. I understand the basics of general relativity, and of quantum mechanics, and the striving for a unified theory to explain everything. I get the concepts that the math has illuminated without understanding the math, and I appreciate them.

So you're incorrect.

Jesus I thought this board was supposed to be the smart one?

>I understand the basics of general relativity

You can't understand shit unless you at least know geodesic and DiffGeo.

>and of quantum mechanics

You can't understand shit unless you at least know LinAlg and Fourier.

>and the striving for a unified theory to explain everything

and here starts the mindless buzzwords

>I get the concepts that the math has illuminated without understanding the math, and I appreciate them.

Since the mid 20th century physics has been about the math first and concepts last.

Wait what? How is the idea of a model which could unify quantum and relative theories a mindless buzzword?

Are you the same guy that's been spamming scientism in the other threads?

I have no idea what scientism is. Reference to science as a mystical religion? No.

Just looked it up - definitions vary. One that I kind of agree with is "the view that empirical science constitutes the most 'authoritative' worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

I do think that it's the best method we currently have in terms of understanding the world as it is, but I wouldn't necessarily exclude other viewpoints.

I also fully recognize that science is fallible, and I don't consider it to be completely authoritative in all manners human thought and investigation. Some things just can't be accurately studied using the scientific method. I still think it's the best method we have though, all things considered.