HN Books @HNBooksMonth

Awesome! By the way, there are also books that accompany the first three courses:

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-Theoretical-GEORG...

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard...

https://www.amazon.com/Special-Relativity-Classical-Field-Th...

If you get the first one, make sure to get the one titled 'Classical Mechanics' and not just 'The Theoretical Minimum' as the former is a more recent printing with many corrections.

Maybe this? https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physi...

and/or

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard...

Some of these folks could probably benefit from reading a book that I just bought: The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need To Know To Start Doing Physics.

https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physi...

It's a cool book... written to be relatively accessible, but is actually grounded in the real principles and math used in physics. As somebody who considers himself an autodidact of sorts (in that I'm as much self-taught as formally educated), but who has some awareness of "what I don't know" (and therefore doesn't sit around coming up with crackpot theories about quantum mechanics and what-not), I love this kind of stuff.

One of the authors is Leonard Susskind who is pretty credible. This is a book that is serious, but succinct (as you might guess from the title). Note that there is also a companion volume that is specifically about Quantum Mechanics. https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard...

All of that said, I do think it's important to note (as others already have) that "autodidact != crank". Plenty of autodidacts are just people who study physics (or whatever) because they find it interesting, but they are aware of their limitations and don't pretend to have amazing new insights that have escaped physics for decades, etc. Likewise I'm pretty sure you can find cranks who have a formal education as well.

⬐ gaur

> The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need To Know To Start Doing Physics.

Terrible typesetting, by the way. I have no idea what imbecile thought it was a good idea to use a version of Garamond where the italic letters don't even have the same slant. Looks disgusting.

⬐ None

None

⬐ Aelinsaar

When I first started asking friends about SR/GR, they pointed me to 'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. I really appreciated the "dual track" nature of the book, and for a long time it acted as my "What do I need to learn next, to understand the concept I was trying to read about?"

Many times, I've tried to get other people interested as I was to pick it up, and I've noticed something; the ones who want a textbook tend to stick with it. The ones who take a look and say "No no, I don't want all of that technical stuff", don't actually want to learn, they just want to magically know.

I'll never have the knowledge or abilities of a graduate student in this field, but I think there's value in learning what I can, while (in a positive way) knowing where I am in relation to the field I'm interested in.

And stay away from pop-sci, it does more harm than good once it gets you interested in science.

⬐ mindcrime

When I first started asking friends about SR/GR, they pointed me to 'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. I really appreciated the "dual track" nature of the book, and for a long time it acted as my "What do I need to learn next, to understand the concept I was trying to read about?"

Looks like it's out of print? Used copies on Amazon are north of $150.00. Shame... luckily a pdf is "out there" for those who are willing to circumvent copyright law.

⬐ Aelinsaar

I think the authors would appreciate you learning more than you giving money for an out of print book, that probably doesn't net them (or their estates) a dime. It really is a good read, and the first book that really helped me to begin to understand the Schwarzschild geometry, just what the hell a "4-vector" was, and in general how many mathematical concepts relate to heuristic ones.

⬐ GregBuchholz

Here's a couple of tips for getting books like that when they are otherwise not "out there". Try an inter-library loan from your local library. Chances are there is a library out there somewhere which will lend it to you. Also, on the out-of-print books on Amazon with sky-high prices. You'll note that all of the listing agents have tens to hundreds of thousands of feedback reviews. Usually there are several of those that have automated bots that keep their offering at the lowest price. So you merely create a listing to sell it yourself, slowly walk it down in price, and watch the bots follow you down. When it gets to a low enough level, buy it and cancel your own listing.

⬐ mindcrime

Usually there are several of those that have automated bots that keep their offering at the lowest price. So you merely create a listing to sell it yourself, slowly walk it down in price, and watch the bots follow you down. When it gets to a low enough level, buy it and cancel your own listing.

Hey, that sounds like a pretty nifty idea. I'll look into that down the road. Thanks!

⬐ vacri

The last paragraph of the article says the same as the last paragraph of your comment, that autodidacts aren't necessarily cranks.

⬐ Dr_Jefyll

> autodidact != crank

This. Unless you consider Charles Darwin, Oliver Heaviside, James Watt and Thomas Edison cranks. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

⬐ j2kun

That being said, there are cranks on that list.

The post [and me, since I wrote it] recommends the video series Quantum Computing for the Determined [1].

If you're more familiar with physics than programming, Leonard Susskind's 'Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum' [2] might work better. But I agree with Scott Aaronson that learning about quantum information before learning about quantum physics is easier than the opposite direction [3]:

> There are two ways to teach quantum mechanics. The first way -- which for most physicists today is still the only way -- follows the historical order in which the ideas were discovered. [...]

> Today, in the quantum information age, the fact that all the physicists had to learn quantum this way seems increasingly humorous. For example, I've had experts in quantum field theory -- people who've spent years calculating path integrals of mind-boggling complexity -- ask me to explain the Bell inequality to them. That's like Andrew Wiles asking me to explain the Pythagorean Theorem. [...]

> The second way [...] starts directly from the conceptual core -- namely, a certain generalization of probability theory to allow minus signs.

1: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1826E60FD05B44E4

2: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-...

3: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

⬐ archgoon

> But I agree with Scott Aaronson that learning about quantum information before learning about quantum physics is easier than the opposite direction.

I'm unconvinced that this is anything but Scott's personal opinion. Basically all teaching methodology advocates for concrete examples over abstract concepts. You can't get much more abstract than generalization of probability theory to allow minus signs.

It might work well for some people, and I'm happy it worked for you.

⬐ Strilanc

In the case of QM, I think the concrete physical cases are all counter-intuitive. They trigger the wrong ideas and confuse people instead of helping them, e.g. by having them focus on malformed questions like "is it a particle or is it a wave?".

Which is not to say that I think you should do two years of linear algebra before understanding how the heck it applies to reality. That would also be insane. I guess I just think that the first concrete case should be a qubit simulator. Something grounded that you can come back to and say "Well, what if I did this?" and get the right answer.

⬐ nhaliday

I don't really think the physical approach is any more concrete than Scott Aaronson's approach (at least in the way most people talk about concreteness wrt pedagogy). The point of having examples is to illustrate how general principles work in practice by specializing. You can do this just fine in quantum information/computation by discussing particular algorithms, problems, etc.

Frankly having taken both QC courses and QM courses, I found the physics-oriented exposition used a bunch of verbiage to phrase things in an experimental/physical way without really specializing the mathematical objects in any sense (eg, Stern-Gerlach experiments). That particular sort of concreteness can be helpful in other parts of physics, but physical intuition is weak to nonexistent in QM.

Anyway, I'm nowhere near a physicist so take my review with a grain of salt.

To be honest, the only thing that's really going to make you understand it is working the math.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-The-Theoretical-Mini...

This is Leonard Susskinds attempt at writing a book that tells you the bare minimum you need to know to really understand what's happening. (experience with calculus and linear algebra extremely helpful but not necessarily required)

Michael Nielsen, co-author of the de-facto standard textbook for quantum computing [1], has an accessible "Quantum Computing for the Determined" video series on youtube [2].

(There used to be a pdf of the textbook online at [3], but it seems to have been removed...)

Scott Aaronson's Quantum Computing Since Democritus [4] is also good, but at a more abstract level. The well-written lecture notes it's based on are on his site [5].

General quantum physics knowledge can also help, but physics-focused content tends to focus more on the calculus whereas quantum computing mostly only uses the linear algebra. I liked The Theoretical Minimum [6].

1: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Computation-Information-Annive...

2: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1826E60FD05B44E4

3: http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/QC10th.pdf

4: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Computing-since-Democritus-Aar...

5: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html

6: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-The-Theoretical-Mini...