General Veeky Forums book bread

this thread again? WUT

you forgot his recurring hate for philosophy.

Actually Feynman LOVED Epistemological Philosophy, like Popper, but hated Sophism, like French Existentialism and the Frankfurt School, because they rejected constraints like Epistemological Axioms and Empirical Foundationalism.
In fact, Feynman championed Empiricism to his last days, which is philosophy.

No. It is huge popsci. It suits for freshman year if even than.

Someone's clearly never opened these books.

Like one user already said, the lectures are great when you've already learned the material. I don't think they're nearly as thorough as a typical textbook in the subject. This is understandable though, since they're small books and cover a huge range of topics.

I think those particular lectures by Feynman were designed for students of other disciplines so they could get a brief exposure to modern physics. For the physics student, they're good as a litmus test of your knowledge.

If you want to actually learn QM though, the Feynman lectures vol. 3 is not where you want to start.

I bought pic related recently, and so far I've been progressing through it pretty quickly, but Some of the later math topics are things I've never learned. Will the book teach me enough to get by or should I start finding some other sources to help me through it?

> I think those particular lectures by Feynman were designed for students of other disciplines so they could get a brief exposure to modern physics.
The forward says what they're for. The first two years of a physicists education.

Find a well known professor

ITT: neckbeards who have never read the Feynman Lectures discuss them

>ITT: sophomores who have never read the Feynman Lectures discuss them

I have listened to many of his lectures on an audio CD. Funny to hear them and realize the time period there were recorded.

Good stuff.

>The textbooks we've been given don't really explain stuff
ah, that old chestnut of an excuse

the textbooks worked for hundreds, perhaps thousands of students before you, and you think you're a special snowflake who needs the world to conform to the way you learn?

To be fair a lot of textbooks are pretty shitty and a lot of students don't use them beyond assigned homework problems.

There are better books for each subject.

> there are good undergrad physics books
I don't believe you.

>The textbooks we've been given don't really explain stuff very well and tend to take a "just trust me on this" attitude

What book did you use

>In fact, Feynman championed Empiricism to his last days, which is philosophy.
lel no

scientists love philosophy when, like you say, philosophy concurs with whatever they do once they get paid

Popper is a hack that only literally fedora tier right wingers like. Almost nobody in philosophy takes his falsification thesis seriously, his anti-Marxist rhetoric is near hysterical and he's closely associated with right-wing ideologues like Hayek. He's really not serious. There's plenty of other good philosophers to read.

Also most of what I've read of Feynman is pretty balanced. He did not value epistemology that much.

Hi, I hope some of you anons can help me, I'm a NEET at the moment and this has raised the opportunity to learn about a lot of things, one of my interests is human history but then I realized that I could be better if I started since the beginning of everything (or at least theories of the beginning) so I'm looking for books about the history of the cosmos and the history of life (in general), it doesn't matter if they're textbooks in fact I would prefer those, If I sound unpolite sorry, is not my intention, thanks everyone

the Feynman are brilliant, also watch the lectures on Youtube and be inspired

>implying there's anything wrong with anti-Marxist rhetoric

Fuck off commie faggot

If you want to study the beginning of the cosmos then go to a college.

Holy Bible by God

I can't, the registration period expired
pls be serious :(
I know of Cosmos by Carl Sagan but I'm looking for something a little more in depth

>Feynman
Americans praise Feynman because it is the sole scientist form this shithole. they have nobody else. and as Feynman was from the middle class, you can bet that he remained a total HACK

Only good for entertainment value and additional input once you alredy understand the discipline. As user stated before me, learn from the recommended textbook. Unless you go to some buttfuck nowhere university, these textbooks offer the most verified and diligent road towards common understanding of physics. While the ideas or physical intuition from these textbooks might be harder to grasp at first, you will be glad you worked through them back to back and understand the way ALL physicists think so you can actually communicate with them when you're a researcher.

>class implies worth
Nice bait.

wow plebs really believe they have any worth.

libertarians and liberals are truly morons.

I've got the book and made some dent into it but I don't think there is any real chance of someone new to the material actually being able to learn the advanced stuff from it. I'd probably advise not spending too long worry about the stuff you don't understand and just move over it.

I've skimmed through them and he's a useful alternate reference for basic topics you might be having difficulty understanding. If you want a thorough course in basic physics then I'd keenly recommend Susskind's theoretical minimum: theoreticalminimum.com/
Really well taught and designed by Susskind as courses for absolute beginners in physics but they cover a lot of core undergraduate material fairly thoroughly.

Also have a look at the motion mountain textbooks for yet another alternative approach: motionmountain.net/
Much more qualitative but places an emphasis on understanding and intuition unlike anywhere else. Also the end of topic problems are some of the most interesting I've found anywhere, I'm amazed at their sheer quality and quantity.

Also khanacademy (obvs)

You spam the other threads making claims about FeyFey, yet at the same time you admit to not have read anything by him here.

You're a lying loser and need to leave.
NOW.

When they say "just trust me on this" it means, you're not good enough to understand why yet. Get used to it, and you will eventually learn why.

>The currently accepted textbooks must be good because they're the currently accepted textbooks

Tbf, most sane people are anti-Marxist.

Anyone have any experience with pic related? It's what my school uses. I've looked at other schools' physics books and they seem more rigorous for the same level class.

>physics for scientists and engineers
In other words, physics for engineering students who will never learn beyond Newtonian mechanics.

It's probably fine for your freshman year. But you should really not waste your time with this if you plan to move on and learn modern physics.

The section on modern physics in those books talks about de Broglie waves as if they're a correct model, or even useful beyond bare-minimum hydrogen. It's ghastly.

no, they're good because they work for almost all people. if they didn't work for you, it's clear that you're probably the problem.

Thanks, senpai.

I used it for introductory mechanics and e&m. It's fine, comparable to other books like it, nothing special. Expensive motherfucking book. I still have it.

>they work for almost all people
You mean almost all people tolerate them because they don't know any different.

if class didn't categorize worth then why do we have classes

A fair number of EEs take modern physics because a lot of electrical phenomena require it (tunneling being a major one). My school used ot require it although they recently added a bunch of dumb alternatives.

to categorize money

no need for books when you are above 100 IQ

Actually Popper was a celebrated Philosopher, and Feynman championed Epistemology.

I find it odd that most of Veeky Forums doesn't understand the difference between Epistemology and Sophism.

Let me clarify:

Epistemology means "check your fallacies and make sure you're using Empirical Foundations".

Sophism means "I can use baseless circular logic".

They're not compatible.
What you incorrectly and ignorantly call Philosophy is called Sophism.
There was a ultra clear distinction made a long time ago, but for some reason people are "anchored" in their baseless beliefs that they're the same.
Pure huffy immature ignorance that serves no purpose other than psychotic narcissism... to nose down at something and lie about it to feel superior.