Fixing the matter-antimatter problem

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ramparts

Guest
kyle_baron":280geost said:
ramparts":280geost said:
Sorry Kyle, but in order to understand modern physics in any real depth, some college-level (and graduate-level) courses are pretty much completely necessary. People on this board who have taken some of those classes can do their best to explain it to non-experts, but there is a certain point where explanations without advanced math just don't work.
And I'm sorry ramparts, but if you (or your buddies) can't explain physics in layman's terms, with out envoking advanced math, then you don't understand it completely either. Briane Greene as a case in point. I have both of his books, and he only uses math in his notes at the end of each book, as a proof.
Yes, Brian Greene is great at explaining physics. Yes, he's better than I am at it. Yes, he understands physics a hell of a lot better than I do. But that doesn't mean that after reading Brian Greene's book, you can know as much as he does about string theory :) All I'm saying is this: if you want a satisfactory understanding of physics, you need math. Read as much Brian Greene as you want, get a great layman's understanding, but that won't equip you to do new research or to test current theories. You can explain a lot to a layman, but you inevitably lack a whole lot of important detail.
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
ramparts":2yy7dz8w said:
kyle_baron":2yy7dz8w said:
ramparts":2yy7dz8w said:
Sorry Kyle, but in order to understand modern physics in any real depth, some college-level (and graduate-level) courses are pretty much completely necessary. People on this board who have taken some of those classes can do their best to explain it to non-experts, but there is a certain point where explanations without advanced math just don't work.
And I'm sorry ramparts, but if you (or your buddies) can't explain physics in layman's terms, with out envoking advanced math, then you don't understand it completely either. Briane Greene as a case in point. I have both of his books, and he only uses math in his notes at the end of each book, as a proof.
Yes, Brian Greene is great at explaining physics. Yes, he's better than I am at it. Yes, he understands physics a hell of a lot better than I do. But that doesn't mean that after reading Brian Greene's book, you can know as much as he does about string theory :) All I'm saying is this: if you want a satisfactory understanding of physics, you need math. Read as much Brian Greene as you want, get a great layman's understanding, but that won't equip you to do new research or to test current theories. You can explain a lot to a layman, but you inevitably lack a whole lot of important detail.
I can agree, with what you stated here. :eek:
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Issac Asimov in hiis time was also a suberb general science writer. :)
He got me going in the right direction, one that led to Liboff and Jackson
and Simon and Boaz

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts