Fixing the matter-antimatter problem

[ramparts]

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.

 

[kyle_baron]

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.

 

[drwayne]

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