Advice on my outline on undergraduate physics curriculum

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a user seeking to relearn physics with a structured study plan. They have chosen key texts for various areas: "An Introduction to Mechanics" by Kleppner and Kolenkow for classical mechanics, "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths for electromagnetism, "Quantum Mechanics" by Zettili for quantum mechanics, and "Thermal Physics" by Kittel for thermodynamics. A central concern is whether Kleppner sufficiently covers the entire undergraduate curriculum in mechanics, particularly regarding Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, which it does not address. Suggestions include using a supplementary text for Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, with recommendations for books like Marion or Taylor, despite concerns over Taylor's verbosity and cost. For electromagnetism, Griffiths is noted as a solid choice, though alternatives like Purcell are suggested for those seeking a more intermediate approach. The overall focus is on ensuring a comprehensive understanding of classical mechanics while navigating the limitations of selected texts.
shinobi20
Messages
277
Reaction score
20
I have studied physics during my undergraduate years but I want to relearn everything as I came to my realization that I'm weak because of the quality of education I got. So far, I want to know if my order of study is good.

Classical Mechanics:
An Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow

Electromagnetism:
Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

Quantum Mechanics:
Quantum Mechanics by Zettili

Thermodynamics:
Thermal Physics by Kittel

Now my question is, does kleppner suffice as a mechanics text for the whole undergraduate curriculum (regardless of lagrangian and hamiltonian)? Because I think kleppner is good but I don't know where to study lagrangian and hamiltonian, given that kleppner already covered all Newtonian mechanics. I tried to read books by Gregory, Fowles, Finch, Taylor,etc in Classical Mechanics but I still think that Kleppner is far superior in the Newtonian part, but the problem is that it doesn't involve lagrangian and hamiltonian. Any advice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why not use two books for classical mechanics? First, use K&K for Newtonian mechanics, then switch to one of the others for Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.
 
That is a possibility which I already thought of but I'm thinking, which one is the best book to learn lagrangian and hamiltonian?
 
I used Taylor and Marion in my lagrangian/hamiltonian course. Taylor is expensive though so maybe just start with a used copy of an old edition of Marion for dirt cheap.

My undergrad electromagnetism course officially used Griffiths but I'm pretty sure our instructor got most of the lecture material and assignments from Jackson and some other obscure grad level text I can't remember at the moment.

Griffiths' quantum mechanics is also good.
 
I don't mind buying more expensive copies. I just want to know which one is better, I think Taylor is too verbose.
 
Griffiths is a more advanced book on E&M. Depending on your comfort with the introductory level material, you may be better suited to use Electricity & Magnetism by Purcell. It's an excellent intermediate level treatment that's comparable to K&K for classical mechanics in depth and difficulty.
 
Im currently reading mathematics for physicists by Philippe Dennery and André Krzywicki, and I’m understanding most concepts however I think it would be better for me to get a book on complex analysis or calculus to better understand it so I’m not left looking at an equation for an hour trying to figure out what it means. So here comes the split, do I get a complex analysis book? Or a calculus book? I might be able to Borrow a calculus textbook from my math teacher study that for a bit and...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
18K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K