Free Physics E-book

Looking for free e-books online, I've found this physics e-textbook for the layman by Christopher Schiller, Ph.D. He's entitled it Motion Mountain - The Adventure of Physics.

The author states:

I always wanted to write the physics textbook from which I would have liked to learn the subject when I was young.

So far, I've only downloaded the first volume: The Adventure of Physics - Vol. I - Fall, Flow and Heat. This looks like a fun way to self-teach physics. I like e-books because the illustrations are luminescent. And you can have animations. Also, you have the search function.

Here's the link.

Wowzers! Thanks a bunch.

Looks like an interesting read.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Explanation: S&F! and Thank you very much!

Personal Disclosure: D/L'ing them now and I will cross reference the data in them with several different physics educational sources of my own to see if there is anything thats needs to be highlighted with a revealing spotlight for further scrutiny by myself and fellow mebers to this thread!

P,S. I will be cross referencing with the "PHYSICS Fifth Edition by Giancoli". [highly recommended by OL as I own the hard back! ]

But for those not as fortunate as I, well here ya go...

PHYSICS 5th Edition (by Giancoli) [cwx.prenhall.com]

And here is the 6th Edition for free download...

Giancoli Physics Downloads [filestube.com]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Adventure of Physics - Vol. I - Fall, Flow and Heat

At present, at the beginning of our walk, we simply note that history has shown that
classifying the various types of motion is not productive. Only by trying to achieve maximum precision can we hope to arrive at the fundamental properties of motion. Precision, not classification, is the path to follow. As Ernest Rutherford said: ‘All science is either physics or stamp collecting.’

What does this mean (the quote)?

reply to post by Mary Rose

With various types of motion he might mean things like like Kepler's laws of planetary motion, contrary to Newton's laws of motion that can describe all types motion. But that's just a guess. Haven't looked into the book yet.

reply to post by moebius


I don't get this: "As Ernest Rutherford said: ‘All science is either physics or stamp collecting.’"

reply to post by Mary Rose


Not sure what that means... guessing there was context at one point or another ha.

Thanks for posting this, will definitely be adding this to my personal 'library of alexandria' of ebooks

The internet is awesome.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't get this: "As Ernest Rutherford said: ‘All science is either physics or stamp collecting.’"

quotationsbook.com...

Rutherford was distinguishing between two levels of the scientific method: the second and the fifth. The first level is collecting data; the second is organizing the data, usually in the form of taxonomy; the third is developing one or more hypotheses that explain the relationship among the data; the fourth is testing the hypotheses to accept or reject them; the final level is the development of a theory that is confirmatory and predictive. Stamp collectors take data (stamps) and organize the data by the value of the postage, the date of the printing or postmark and the country of origin. There are never any hypotheses concerning the reasons for such organization and certainly no theories. An analog in chemistry was the development of the periodic table based on a linearly increasing atomic weight and a folding according to chemical activity. This occurred about 50 years before the theory of electron shells and about a decade after Rutherford’s statement. Thus the periodic table was for Rutherford an example of stamp collecting, while physics had developed theories of classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum mechanics.

Thanks for asking. I never knew the periodic table of the elements was a form of "stamp collecting", and I used to collect stamps.


But also don't take the quote too seriously:

Rutherford probably meant his statement as more of a tease than a dogma. Some physicists, even knighted ones, have a sense of humor.

I'm downloading the ebooks now, it will take a while. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

quotationsbook.com...

Cool website!! I've bookmarked it for future use.

Thanks, Arbitrageur!! I enjoyed reading that explanation.

I feel better now. Can't stand it when I'm puzzled.

Good link! THanks

This author is just full of questions!!

For example:

Not every movement is a good standard for time. In the year 2000 an Earth rotation did not take 86 400 seconds any more, as it did in the year 1900, but 86 400.002 seconds. Can you deduce in which year your birthday will have shifted by a whole day from the time predicted with 86 400 seconds?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Here's another one:

When Galileo studied motion in the seventeenth century, there were as yet no stopwatches. He thus had to build one himself, in order to measure times in the range between a fraction and a few seconds. Can you imagine how he did it?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Finally something that might dispel the sheer insanity and ignorance that runs rampant across these forums. Perhaps we may finally hear a little less of antigravity. You should find some basic ebooks for molecular biology and evolutionary biology. Then we may hear a little less of creationism and Reptilians.

reply to post by Mary Rose
I've read a lot of physics textbooks, but I don't recall seeing one quite like this, it's an interesting style.

Regarding the challenges, one that intrigues me is challenge 26:

Do you dislike formulae? If you do, use the following three-minute method to change
the situation. It is worth trying it, as it will make you enjoy this book much more. Life is
short; as much of it as possible, like reading this text, should be a pleasure.
1. Close your eyes and recall an experience that was absolutely marvellous, a situation
when you felt excited, curious and positive.
2. Open your eyes for a second or two and look at page 226 – or any other page that
contains many formulae.
3. Then close your eyes again and return to your marvellous experience.
4. Repeat the observation of the formulae and the visualization of your memory – steps
2 and 3 – threemore times.
Then leave the memory, look around yourself to get back into the here and now, and test
yourself. Look again at page 226. How do you feel about formulae now?

To anyone who doesn't like formulae, can you tell me if that works? Unfortunately I'm unable to evaluate it because I like formulae, but if it really works it's something I might try with my students at some point.

I know the physical principles already but I find some of this stuff that I didn't know interesting, like Table 3 on page 34. The numbers look about right until I get up to the speed of radio messages in space which lists the speed of light. Then he lists several things faster than light, such as "Highest proper velocity ever achieved for electrons by man" and he lists a number about 230,000 times faster than the speed of light, but I don't see a source for that velocity.

Does anybody know what he's talking about with regard to "Highest proper velocity ever achieved for electrons by man" of 7x10e13 meters per second, or about 230,000 times the speed of light? I haven't heard of that before, so please enlighten me if you have. The fastest thing listed is a shadow which has no speed limit, but that makes more sense since a shadow has no mass. Since electrons have mass, I thought their velocity was limited by the speed of light, so I'm not sure what his source is for electrons apparently traveling faster than light? (quite a bit faster at that).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . it's an interesting style.

I think so, too. He mentions that he has been a teacher. I bet he was a good one.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I might try with my students at some point.

I didn't know you were a teacher, Arbitrageur. I used to teach, too - 8th grade English.

Thanks for the link!

Downloaded. It is interesting reading.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This is from the Preface:

A request

The text is and will remain free to download from the internet. In exchange, I would
be delighted to receive an email from you at [email protected], especially on the
following issues:

— What was unclear Challenge 1 s and should be improved?
— What story, topic, riddle, picture or movie did you miss?
— What should be corrected?

Alternatively, you can provide feedback online, on www.motionmountain.net/wiki. The
feedback will be used to improve the next edition. On behalf of all readers, thank you in
advance for your input. For a particularly useful contribution you will be mentioned – if
you want – in the acknowledgements, receive a reward, or both. But above all, enjoy the
reading!

Maybe you might end up contacting him?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I didn't know you were a teacher, Arbitrageur. I used to teach, too - 8th grade English.

Did I use proper grammar?

"Were" or "are"?

And I'm the English teacher!! Actually, was.

LOL!!

reply to post by Mary Rose
Hey we have something in common then! I was teaching university freshmen part time in courses that have lots of formulas but I had to stop because of my travel schedule, but since I'm not traveling as much anymore I might start again.

I saw that about contacting him but thought I'd bounce it off the smart people on ATS first to see if I could get the answer here without bothering the author, but certainly that's an option if nobody here knows what he's talking about.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Did I use proper grammar?

You got me there, ask me about engineering, physics, statistics, business management, maybe even some math, and I might be able to answer, but I need to ask the English teachers about the finer points of grammar. I still have problems with this one:

"How do you know when to use "who" or "whom" in a sentence?"

ask.yahoo.com...

The answer is right there but probably the reason it seems difficult is also mentioned:

The correct usage of these troublesome pronouns is often ignored in speech and informal writing when the word "whom" would sound forced or unnatural.

I guess "whom" often sounds forced or unnatural to me so I'm probably guilty of incorrect usage. I think it's supposed to be "whom did you go to the party with?" Right? But who actually says that? I hear "who did you go to the party with?" so even though that's probably wrong, it seems to be common usage?

Sorry for the off-topic but since it's your thread I think you have more latitude to go slightly off topic if you want, but grammar isn't an area I'm an expert in!

To bring it back on topic, the grammar in the textbook seems pretty good for a physicist, and physicists are not necessarily always proficient in grammar.