1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Other A good general intro physics book or a book for each physics subject?

  1. Nov 9, 2017 #1
    Many have recommended me Resnick for intro physics book, however I already have Kleppner for mechanics, so should I continue just getting a book for thermodynamics and then for EM when I need them or should I get sth like Halliday Resnick?

    I have noticed, that separate books per subject tend to be more thorough and more interesting plus having WAY more difficult problems, I might be wrong though.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2017 #2
    What is your level of math?
     
  4. Nov 9, 2017 #3

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The usual process of learning physics is to first learn basics from a book such as Resnick, and then learn all this again in more detail from more specialized books. However, if the specialized books (like Kleppner which you already have) are not too difficult for you, you can skip the basics and go directly to the specialized books.
     
  5. Nov 9, 2017 #4
    Basic Caluslus, no diff. equations yet, however we do have to solve them often already.

    Also is it normal that we are learning rigorous real analysis(Rudin and Apostol are textbooks we use mainly) and linear algebra this year, then topology, differential geometry and complex analysis next year? Im first year physics major. Dont get me wrong, I love it, but I just wonder if that is normal, as I see a lot of threads and such implying it is uncommon for a physics major to be met with such rigor.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2017 #5
    I thought so. At which part of education would one normally learn the topic thoroughly "again" though?
     
  7. Nov 9, 2017 #6

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    - classical mechanics at 2nd year
    - classical electrodynamics, statistical physics and quantum mechanics at 3rd year
    - condensed matter, nuclear physics, particle physics, quantum field theory and general relativity at 4th year
     
  8. Nov 9, 2017 #7

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In the US, the usual sequence is:

    Undergraduate years 1-2: A broad introductory course using a single book, e.g. Halliday/Resnick. This is often two semesters (1 year) for classical physics, and one semester for "modern physics" which may be a separate book.

    Undergraduate years 2-4: Intermediate-level courses using separate textbooks for each subject (e.g. Griffiths for electromagnetism, Symon for mechanics)

    Graduate (MS/PhD): Advanced courses using separate textbooks again (e.g. Jackson for electromagnetism, Goldstein for classical mechanics)

    Three times through the material, at increasing levels of mathematical sophistication.

    Kleppner/Kolenkow is a special case in classical mechanics, sort of intermediate between the books that are usually used in the first two stages above. I think Purcell is similar for electromagnetism, although I haven't used it myself. They're sometimes used for fast-paced introductory courses, at places like MIT.
     
  9. Nov 9, 2017 #8
    Just so that we are on the same page, our curriculum is only 3 years, so I suppose things will be different here, at least more condensed learning I suppose. Morever, many many students got to grad in US and they all say they got very solid foundations from the UNI here. What do you guys think?
     
  10. Nov 9, 2017 #9

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, in some countries the last year of secondary school ("high school" in the US) corresponds more or less to the first year of university in the US. In those countries, as I understand it, students entering university have already learned calculus and taken an intro physics course on the level of Halliday/Resnick.

    In the US, we are backwards in some ways. :oldwink:

    Nevertheless, under whichever system, most students need to start with introductory-level physics, regardless of which level of school they do it in. Some students can safely jump in at the intermediate level.
     
  11. Nov 9, 2017 #10
    If all that is rigorous as in maths course then it's waste of time. I don't mean knowledge is bad but it's someone else's job.
     
  12. Nov 9, 2017 #11
    Find out what texts the courses use. Do they jump straight to Maxwell's equations in differential form (div, curl, and all that)?

    I think the Feynman Lectures would make good background reading at this level, but I don't think the issue of problem sets was ever really solved.
     
  13. Nov 9, 2017 #12
    Well, its same as pure math major except they aim at "all" of math and we only analysis and some topology it seems. As I see it, its is extremely useful for a theoretical physicist to be excelent at pure math and should know as much math as possible; hence we are learning all of that. We will have so called mathematical physics classes in the future though that are a seperate thing from math, where we will apply the math and learn numerical methods, etc. I was just curious if that is normal for a physics major curriculum or what not.
     
  14. Nov 9, 2017 #13
    Ah ok, I think I understand, it is true we had basic physics, however without any calculus, so practically we learned nothing. We did learn very basic calculus by the end of the last year of highschool though. So far it seems Kleppner should be awesome for mechanics, but I do have two good intro physics books from our UNI for the first year(basic thermo and EM)
     
  15. Nov 10, 2017 #14
    You said you'll be learning all the topics below rigourously before, didn't you ? Now you say it's just Real analysis and Topology.
    Anyway, learning rigourous analysis is not uncommon for physics majors.

    It depends on the depth. For instance, is there are any use in learning construction of real numbers and Dedekind cuts or Generalised Riemann integral for physicsts ? No I say, I am ready to be proven wrong.
     
  16. Nov 10, 2017 #15
    You are absolutely right, not a lot of rigor is useful in physics, however how am I supposed to understand and properly apply topological ideas to physics if I can't even understand the construction of real numbers for example. I want to trully understand how math works so I am rather happy for the rigor, because I probably cannot just say I understand some math if I don't know how exactly does it work, but I can use it and I do think I will have to learn a lot of math in the future without proper rigor, as it would have been too time consuming.

    Secondly, i just generalized it to analysis and topology, as (as far as I know, seems I am wrong though) geometry is part of topology. I do admit I should have included linear algebra, but I just forgot probably. Anyways, I am not too surprised it is common practice that physics majors have pure math, however why do people recommend the study of pure maths over physics if one wants to go into theoretical physics if rigor is common practice? Doesn't make sense to me.
     
  17. Nov 10, 2017 #16
    I may have missed it but, where are you? I have no idea why you would be put through those pure math courses if you want to be a physicist. Seems like a waste of time to me. Theoretical physics is not pure math, it is applied math.
     
  18. Nov 11, 2017 #17
    I am from Slovenia, basically Central Europe east of Italy. I'm studying at Ljubljana UNI.
     
  19. Nov 11, 2017 #18
    But those pure math classes can teach him how to think mathematically. Ie, he would have an easier time picking up mathematics needed for his physics. I am dull majoring in math and physics, and my math background helps tremendously. I can read the physics book without math interruptions.
     
  20. Nov 11, 2017 #19
    There is big difference between Geometry and Topology. They are not part of each other just like Algebra is not part of Analysis.

    How much time will it take for you to get your degree ? 6 years ? 8 years ?
     
  21. Nov 11, 2017 #20
    I thought so, I admit I did not do my research regarding this and was rather naive. Well you needn't have been toxic though(as you are implying I will fail bad by saying I will study even up to 8 years...), it will take me 3 years, hopefully. I might have missed your point though.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: A good general intro physics book or a book for each physics subject?
Loading...