Topics (203k) Articles (205k) Users (305) Discussions (237) Comments (383) Files (715) New article
The approach many courses take to physics, specially "modern Physics" is really bad, this is how it should be taught:
- start by describing experiments that the previous best theory did not explain, see also: Section "Physics education needs more focus on understanding experiments and their history"
- then, give the final formula for the next best theory
- then, give all the important final implications of that formula, and how it amazingly describes the experiments. In particular this means: doing physics means calculating a number
- then, give some mathematical intuition on the formulas, and how the main equation could have been derived
- finally, then and only then, start deriving the outcomes of the main formula in detail
This is likely because at some point, experiments get more and more complicated, and so people are tempted to say "this is the truth" instead of "this is why we think this is the truth", which is much harder.
Related:
- settheory.net/learnphysics and www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MKjPYuD60I&list=PLJcTRymdlUQPwx8qU4ln83huPx-6Y3XxH from settheory.net
- math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html by John Baez. Mentions:Ciro Santilli is trying to change that: OurBigBook.com.
This webpage doesn't have lots of links to websites. Websites just don't have the sort of in-depth material you need to learn technical subjects like advanced math and physics — at least, not yet. To learn this stuff, you need to read lots of books
- web.archive.org/web/20210324182549/http://jakobschwichtenberg.com/one-thing/ by Jakob Schwichtenberg
Videos should be found/made for all of those: videos of all key physics experiments
- speed of light experiment
- basically all experiments listed under Section "Quantum mechanics experiment" such as:
- Davisson-Germer experiment
The key thing in a good system of units is to define units in a way that depends only on physical properties of nature.
Ideally (or basically necessarily?) the starting point generally has to be discrete phenomena, e.g.
- number of times some light oscillates per second
- number of steps in a quantum Hall effect or Josephson junction
What we don't want is to have macroscopic measurement artifacts, (or even worse, the size of body parts! Inset dick joke) as you can always make a bar slightly more or less wide. And even metals evaporate over time! Though the mad people of the Avogadro project still attempted otherwise well into the 2010s!
Currently an informal name for the Standard Model
Chronological outline of the key theories:
- Maxwell's equations
- Schrödinger equation
- Date: 1926
- Numerical predictions:
- hydrogen spectral line, excluding finer structure such as 2p up and down split: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant
- Dirac equation
- Date: 1928
- Numerical predictions:
- hydrogen spectral line including 2p split, but excluding even finer structure such as Lamb shift
- Qualitative predictions:
- Antimatter
- Spin as part of the equation
- quantum electrodynamics
- Date: 1947 onwards
- Numerical predictions:
- Qualitative predictions:
- Antimatter
- spin as part of the equation
Experiment and theory are like the yin and yang: opposites, but one cannot exist without the other.
Quantum Field Theory lecture notes by David Tong (2007) puts it well:This is also mentioned e.g. at Video "The Quantum Experiment that ALMOST broke Locality by The Science Asylum (2019)".
In classical physics, the primary reason for introducing the concept of the field is to construct laws of Nature that are local. The old laws of Coulomb and Newton involve "action at a distance". This means that the force felt by an electron (or planet) changes immediately if a distant proton (or star) moves. This situation is philosophically unsatisfactory. More importantly, it is also experimentally wrong. The field theories of Maxwell and Einstein remedy the situation, with all interactions mediated in a local fashion by the field.
Condensed matter physics is one of the best examples of emergence. We start with a bunch of small elements which we understand fully at the required level (atoms, electrons, quantum mechanics) but then there are complex properties that show up when we put a bunch of them together.
Includes fun things like:
As of 2020, this is the other "fundamental branch of physics" besides to particle physics/nuclear physics.
Condensed matter is basically chemistry but without reactions: you study a fixed state of matter, not a reaction in which compositions change with time.
Just like in chemistry, you end up getting some very well defined substance properties due to the incredibly large number of atoms.
Just like chemistry, the ultimate goal is to do de-novo computational chemistry to predict those properties.
And just like chemistry, what we can actually is actually very limited in part due to the exponential nature of quantum mechanics.
Also since chemistry involves reactions, chemistry puts a huge focus on liquids and solutions, which is the simplest state of matter to do reactions in.
Condensed matter however can put a lot more emphasis on solids than chemistry, notably because solids are what we generally want in end products, no one likes stuff leaking right?
One thing condensed matter is particularly obsessed with is the fascinating phenomena of phase transition.
What Is Condensed matter physics? by Erica Calman
. Source. Cute. Overview of the main fields of physics research. Quick mention of his field, quantum wells, but not enough details.This section is more precisely about classical mechanics.
Computational physics is a good way to get valuable intuition about the key equations of physics, and train your numerical analysis skills:
- classical mechanics
- "Real-time heat equation OpenGL visualization with interactive mouse cursor using relaxation method" under the best articles by Ciro Articles
- phet.colorado.edu PhET simulations from University of Colorado Boulder
Other child sections:
The most important ones are:
- theory of everything. We are certain that our base equations are wrong, but we don't know how to fix them :-)
- full explanation of high-temperature superconductivity. Superconductivity already has a gazillion applications, and doing it in higher temperatures would add a gazillion more, and maybe this theoretical explanation would help us find new high temperature superconducting materials more effectively
- fractional quantum Hall effect 5/2
Other super important ones:
- neutrino mass measurement and explanation
These are basically technically minded people that Ciro Santilli feels have similar interests/psychology to him, and who write too much for their own good:
- cat-v.org
- gwern.net. Dude's a bit overly obsessed with the popup preview though! "new Wikipedia popups (this 7th implementation enables recursive WP popups)" XD
- settheory.net by Sylvain Poirier
- HyperPhysics
- Orange Papers
Maybe one day these will also be legendary, who knows:
Another category Ciro admires are the "computational physics visualization" people, these people will go to Heaven:
Related:
Institution led:
- www.biology.arizona.edu/ The Biology Project
Other mentions:
- arngren.net/ lots of images of toys and gear with descriptions in Norwegian
Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project
Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
Intro to OurBigBook
. Source. We have two killer features:
- topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculusArticles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
- a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
- a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.
Figure 1. Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page. View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivativeVideo 2. OurBigBook Web topics demo. Source. - local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
- to OurBigBook.com to get awesome multi-user features like topics and likes
- as HTML files to a static website, which you can host yourself for free on many external providers like GitHub Pages, and remain in full control
Figure 2. You can publish local OurBigBook lightweight markup files to either OurBigBook.com or as a static website.
Figure 3. Visual Studio Code extension installation.
Figure 5. . You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally. Video 3. Edit locally and publish demo. Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension. 
- Infinitely deep tables of contents:
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact