Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This is our 2nd set from the same author and again illustrations are physically inaccurate and there are giant laps in explanations. The optics book is by far the worst. It has ray refractions at incorrect angles implying negative index of refraction. I understand that this is possible with metamaterials, but this fact is not mentioned in the book. How one can write a physics book with unphysical illustrations is beyond me. Illustrations for the dispersion are also incorrect, because angle of refraction is different for every wavelength and the outgoing light will form a cone rather then straight rays. This is depicted on literally every picture you google, but somehow was overlooked by author. The rainbow explanation actually has the correct ray propagation. I guess the value of this book is to explain to my son that not everything he reads in a book is true, so he can develop critical thinking. In the book about nuclear physics author makes a giant leap to leave out the strong interaction and postulate that if one places a neutral particle between two positive charges it will miraculously eliminate Coulombs interaction. In the example of the radioactivity author depicts what I presume is a betta plus decay of the unstable carbon 11 to boron 11. the initial instance of the ‘product’ illustrations still depicts the same C11 with released energy, which is in fact not “energy”, but positron. Why author names this “energy” when it is actually a particle and is depicted as such? For the half-decay illustration the products are actually depicted correctly as B11. The astrophysics and statistical physics look better and without large mistakes and inconsistencies. Overall I can’t recommend this series, unless you know how to explain the concepts behind these books correctly. For an example of a good book I can recommend The baby biochemist series by Margot Alesund. In these books every minute detail on the illustrations are correct and is relevant to the science behind the picture. Understandably author is trying to package complex concepts in the picture that a 3 year old would understand, but this is not an excuse to draw them with mistakes.