lagwagon555 said:As said above, you should really search the forums, there are heaps of discussions like these.
For my introductory astrophysics course, I'm using Astrophysics in a Nutshell by Moaz. It seems to cover a lot for only a couple of hundred pages, and I love the way it is written. However, I'd only use this if you have a good grasp of differential and integral calculus. Also, although the book does explain it briefly, it would help if you understood some basic atomic physics (radiation, the Bohr model of a hydrogen atom etc). It's designed for advanced undergraduates, so I wouldn't advise you go near it unless you've taken your calculus courses.
If you want something which does not require calculus, Gravity from the Ground Up is a very good book, I read it while in high school. Very easy and enjoyable, although obviously not very intensive.
Stratosphere said:I was looking for some undergrad books covering topics that you would learn in a university as an undergrad in the fields of theoretical physics and theoretical astrophysics. I would also like to know what maths the books require.
What math does that stuff require?n!kofeyn said:The textbooks by are excellent.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805387323/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Sean Carroll looks to have become the best (and most recent) introduction to relativity.
If you study the four books above, then you will have a fantastic undergraduate/basic graduate background in theoretical physics. There are multiple choices as far as the quantum mechanics books go, but the Griffiths books gets you right into working problems. There are probably better books for theory such as by https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471569526/?tag=pfamazon01-20.
Stratosphere said:The textbooks from David Griffiths seem to be a little advanced. What would you take as a first year undergrad? I would think that I would need to take some sort of mechanics course.
jtbell said:Yes, Young and Freedman looks like a standard freshman calculus-based intro physics textbook. There are several at that level. One book that's been popular for a long time (I used it as an undergraduate 37 years and several editions ago!) is the one by https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471216437/?tag=pfamazon01-20.
Where I teach, we use the book by https://www.amazon.com/dp/0716789647/?tag=pfamazon01-20.
Here's another popular texbook, by https://www.amazon.com/dp/0495385743/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Use the forum search tool to search for Halliday, Resnick, Tipler or Serway and you'll probably turn up threads comparing these and other similar books.
I have to take issue with this, as I didn't take a course on differential equations until well after going through Griffiths QM. I think the same holds true for many people I know. All you really need for Griffiths is some familiarity with what a differential equation is, and a knowledge of how to solve one with an exponential ansatz (though the latter is simple enough that it can be learned along with the physics). And of course a solid grounding in linear algebra.n!kofeyn said:Since you're just beginning calculus I, I don't think it will be much help trying to learn theoretical physics at this point (except through popularizing books). Once you have finished calculus III (multivariable calculus) and a linear algebra course, you should be ready for the electrodynamics book by Griffiths. You'll need a differential equations course before you start the quantum mechanics book by Griffiths.
Stratosphere said:do I have to know what's on ALL of the 1600 or so pages?
maverick280857 said:I don't know much about astrophysics books, so I will only restrict this to the undergrad courses.
The first step must be to learn single variable calculus and then multivariable calculus. But you will also need to study vectors, (at least some) three dimensional geometry, trigonometry. Perhaps other than calculus, you already have some exposure to these areas. Partial derivatives, which fall under multivariable calculus are absolutely unavoidable in college physics. But this math will also take some time to sink in, and it is only after it does sink in will you be able to appreciate the physics better.
Some good book recommendations have been made for you here, but most of these books assume grounding in the math topics mentioned above. Then, as you go along, you learn some more math. If you are in your first year in college and learning calculus through some courses, you should do that first. Resnick, Halliday and Krane (2 volumes) is, imho, much better than Resnick, Halliday, Walker (the single fat book). The latter has compromised severely on the math and leaves much to be desired (at least till the sixth edition, which is what I had referred to).
Griffiths' textbook on EM was the one we exclusively used in our second semester course in electromagnetism. In fact, I haven't come across any other book that is being so extensively used. But then we had already studied calculus in school, and the multivariable calculus we needed was taught to us in the first semester in college. As for mechanics, we used Kleppener and Kolenkow, but by the time the interesting stuff came in, we had already studied partial derivatives, so we could also refer to the book by Goldstein occasionally. There are of course many others, but Kleppener and Kolenkow seems to be pedagogically one of the best...also have a look at the book by AP French.
For Optics, I also recommend the book by Hecht. For modern physics, the two books by Arthur Beiser and Sproull are very good.
Once you have taken the introductory courses, you can study the books on EM by Jackson, mechanics by Goldstein, quantum mechanics by Griffiths (and a whole lot of other books, lots of variety here), etc.
Anyway the crucial thing to realize is that the math is very important here...you simply cannot afford to compromise your math training. There's a nice book by R. Shankar which might actually help you speed up stuff: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306450364/?tag=pfamazon01-20.
Finally, always keep Berkeley Physics Course volumes and Feynman's Lectures on Physics handy...they're always helpful.
diazona said:I have to take issue with this, as I didn't take a course on differential equations until well after going through Griffiths QM. I think the same holds true for many people I know. All you really need for Griffiths is some familiarity with what a differential equation is, and a knowledge of how to solve one with an exponential ansatz (though the latter is simple enough that it can be learned along with the physics). And of course a solid grounding in linear algebra.
Stratosphere said:Will I need to know anything other than calculus, trigonometry, geometry and algebra for the books you mentioned?
Stratosphere said:Will I need analytical geometry for any of this?
