Skip to main content
typo
Source Link
Todd Trimble
  • 53.3k
  • 6
  • 205
  • 322

To elaborate on PlyushPiyush Grover's comment, large swaths of theoretical physics can be considered "non-rigorous yet inspiring." The adjective "quirky" might not be so apposite, though. But perhaps somewhat in the spirit of the question is Richard Feynman's semi-popular book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. There are still some open questions about the mathematical consistency of QED.

To elaborate on Plyush Grover's comment, large swaths of theoretical physics can be considered "non-rigorous yet inspiring." The adjective "quirky" might not be so apposite, though. But perhaps somewhat in the spirit of the question is Richard Feynman's semi-popular book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. There are still some open questions about the mathematical consistency of QED.

To elaborate on Piyush Grover's comment, large swaths of theoretical physics can be considered "non-rigorous yet inspiring." The adjective "quirky" might not be so apposite, though. But perhaps somewhat in the spirit of the question is Richard Feynman's semi-popular book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. There are still some open questions about the mathematical consistency of QED.

Source Link
Timothy Chow
  • 82.6k
  • 26
  • 363
  • 587

To elaborate on Plyush Grover's comment, large swaths of theoretical physics can be considered "non-rigorous yet inspiring." The adjective "quirky" might not be so apposite, though. But perhaps somewhat in the spirit of the question is Richard Feynman's semi-popular book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. There are still some open questions about the mathematical consistency of QED.

Post Made Community Wiki by Timothy Chow