HN Books @HNBooksMonth

Thanks for an honest and detailed response. Appreciated.

Firstly, I had sensed that the paper hasn't been peer-reviewed. I assume though that the references have been. The paper on the very least felt like a good reading tour guide for the references.

Then, to answer your question: I am an engineer by profession with interest in sciences. Whatever the tough circumstances that have been and continue to be, I have not had the opportunity to pursue Physics like I would have liked to. I remember say half of engineering mathematics from the college days, however, my physics understanding is limited to that of a first-year college student of physics. I am known in my personal and professional circles (working at a FAANG) as one of the smartest person they know, the 'go to' person for any STEM question they have. I keep reading science as a hobby, mainly via Wikipedia these days as that gives information in smaller chunks than a text book. I have read the Feynman Lectures on Physics. Some books on my reading list include those from Max Born, Leonard Susskind (The Theoretical Minimum series), and one I recently found from a hobbyist Physicist, Dennis Morris [1]. The latter again seems like a random author, however, the first chapter itself from one of his books has given me interesting perspectives I never came across from elsewhere.

Coming to Susan's list, I had come across that on HN before and appreciate it. I am however clueless currently about how long the suggested route would take to finish. My current sense is that it won't be less than a few years.

Now am I expecting to learn it in lesser? Well, here's my point of view:

* I am interested only in the current understanding of Physics, worked starting from the laws as understood today. Sort of like what Principia Mathematica was intended to be. (I do maintain interest beyond that too, but am afraid life won't give me opportunity for more.)

* Looking for something that does not lead to recursion over references. (It' likely that even the OP paper would lead like that.) This is the most challenging part with STEM literature today.

* Something that actually says it. Many authors start using equations without even defining the variables, labeling the axes, thus leaving things unsaid. Many of them leave so much ambiguity in some of their sentences that I am unable to figure which one of the N different meanings fitting the same sentence is implied. (If they don't specify what the variable 'u' is for, then it could refer to any of the several physical quantities involved in the set up.)

Here's another great book I found:

The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose.

I love the book. Have read seven chapters of it. It intended to be self-contained for what it covers (references are more for further reading). But then came the pain. It leaves so many (beautiful) open questions in mind, answers to which are important, but which are not answered in the book. And no amount of Google searches have led me to them. In that sense, it fails my criteria number three above.

Now, here's the final thing I would like to share:

I was once looking for a treatment of Automated Theorem Proving. I tried a book by a reputed author who himself had made contributions to the field. I don't recall the name. It was pitiful, the sentences were again more ambiguous than the author realized. Half-baked (incompletely-specified) definitions put to use frequently. I later found a concise paper by David Plaisted. Eight pages total, but covered everything that the book failed to. Everything was crisp and clear.

I have more such experiences, and concluded that one author to another can be orders of magnitude difference.

Reading all that, I'll sincerely appreciate if you/someone can guide me further. Specifically:

How long Susan's suggested route is. I am a fairly smart person. If those criteria I set above are met, I'll be able to follow the material.

Would the books I already have on my reading list help me? (Why am I not reading and finding out, well, I will. The circumstances my life are .. Long story.)

Can reading the references in this OP paper be helpful?

Thanks.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Dennis-Morris/dp/93...

⬐ Jabbles

Since an undergraduate degree takes 3 years of not quite fulltime study, I imagine following Susan's list will take approximately half that long, since you will not be doing any practical classes.

The key word here is _study_, not reading - you must work through the exercises and get feedback on them somehow. Reading popular science books, even Penrose, is not enough to get you there.

> I am interested only in the current understanding of Physics, worked starting from the laws as understood today. Sort of like what Principia Mathematica was intended to be.

I do not know of an equivalent for Physics. Physics is about creating models that describe the universe, not building up a theorem from first principles. If such a thing existed (string theory maybe?) you would still need the undergraduate background to recognise the emergent behavior.

Do not waste your time on the OP.

⬐ alok-g

Thanks. I appreciate the guidance.