3 Popular Science Books (I Think) You Should Read

A video where I recommend my 3 favourite popular science books.

Where to find me:
Instagram: thoughts_in_books

[santoshr]

May be the title should have been "3 Popular Psychology books"

[revolutesound]

i have read 2 out of 3 of those!!! and i agree - they were life changing

[ChristianRoland]

Great books, but you should include "Social Science" in the title of the video :)

[amitpawarvlogs]

I am from India my name is Amit Kumar you are so beautiful and I love reading....

[delandmeadows]

I've always wondered if you could win the Nobel prize for an Idea?
  I am not classically trained in anything near having to do with math or physics, but I love it!
Something like intuition drives my mind to the apparent contradictions between Emc2 & quantum physics. Probability theory says, in my understanding, no matter how impossible something may seem when all other explanations have been proven wrong what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.
 Classical [relativity] physics explains, very accurately, the world around us. Even at an celestial scale down to the macro.
  Quantum physics, on the other hand, describe events so small that it would be impossible to even observe with our limited senses without the help of  very powerful measuring instruments, which we haven't always had. Quite frequently we find reality acts in a counterintuitive way on the "Quantum" scale.
 Take the propagation of the interference pattern in the famous double slit experiment. We are all familiar with the wave propagation collapse when one or the other sides of the slits are observed to see which side the electron, photon etc.. went through. All the great minds of our time couldn't figure it out but the Quantum physicists came up with the probability equation which they believed explained the electron positioning, but not the collapse. What causes that?
  What if classical physics was right after all? Quantum physics says the electron exists as probability. The electron is more likely to be at a crest and less likely at a trough. It exists, according to Quantum theory, as both a wave and a particle! Talk about counter-intuitive.
 I propose Quantum Physics is close but ultimately flawed. Take for example so called Quantum Computers. If it was working as these physicist predicted it would have been faster by orders of magnitude than a conventional computer. Well they've built these Quantum Computers, but guess what, they work no faster than conventional computers which seems to imply that their equations Are Flawed!
 I also propose that the reason the interference pattern collapses is quite simple, the detector set up at the observing slit blocks the vibrations of the ether that the electrons initiate and  "ride" on . I believe the reason photons and electrons behave the way they do, like both a wave and particle, is because they create a wave in the ether [The 99% of the universe we can't perceive possibly] and because they are more buoyant than the ether they ride its "surface" not unlike a ball floating on water.
 I also propose the weight of an electron or photon dictates its "frequency", for example a heavier particle will vibrate less than a lighter particle. I also believe an equation can be formulated to describe the ethers mass and/or density by taking into account the weight and frequency of certain particles propagating through space. Using this equation we can take the properties of the matter we can see to describe the density of the "ether" we can't see. This way we may find a tool to help us describe the  near, estimated 99% of the universe we cannot observe through conventional methods.
One more interesting thought, these particles that appear to "phase" in and out of existence may merely be the equivalent of a heavier particle being submerged [to take the floating particle on water analogy a little further] intermittently underneath the "surface" of the ether, maybe because its near neutral buoyancy.
 I'm thinking Einstein's description could be enhanced if we imagine the part of our observable universe floats on the surface of the ether [which is probably four dimensional]and the Other 99% is just below the surface all around us but submerged where we can't detect. What kind of world lies beneath the surface?

[laurieatkins]

Sorry but psychology has no right to be considered a natural science

[frankjohn]

If you want to read any REAL scientific books, try out anything by Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye's book Undeniable, or any Richard Dawkins book (The God Delusion is a very interesting one on the science vs religion debate). Or simple go grab "The Biology Book" by Michael C. Gerald from barnes and noble, which includes every single major discovery in the field of biology... each page describes a discovery. Enjoy!