Am I looking at the right Physics textbook?

[sassafrasaxe]

Hi, I'm a college graduate, and I don't know if or when I'll ever get a graduate degree. But I wanted to try learn and get very knowledgeable in physics on my own at my own pace. Right now I am reading and doing the problems in Physics fundamentals 10th edition by walker, Holliday, and resnick. I know this will take a good amount of time, so before I get too far with it, I would like to ask you if you think this is a good use of time, or if you think there is another approach I should take, or a book that is more insightful. Thank you. I would love to get a graduate degree in physics one day but with this discipline I am a slow learner.

 

[BvU]

Kudos for your stamina ! Or did a year and a half pass by and you are trying again ?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-right-physics-textbook-math.907412/

I browsed Walker & co and think it's 'nice to look at' by design. The physics is at quite reasonable level, covers a broad range of subjects, and the math should be a breeze for you.

 

[kuruman]

The book that you picked is one of the standards for teaching introductory physics and has evolved since its first edition in 1960. It is a good choice if you want to teach yourself out of a book. If you get stuck on a problem, there is always the web (and PF) for help and clarification of concepts that might appear confusing in the book. You also need to understand that, once you complete the introductory physics part, you will need to go over the same basic material at the intermediate level before you might be eligible to apply to grad school. The absolute minimum number of subjects at the intermediate level that you will need consists of Classical Mechanics, Electricity & Magnetism and Quantum Mechanics. A substantial collection of good books exists covering this "backbone" material. Finally, I would recommend that you look at course syllabi posted on the web to guide your thinking about what is considered important and is taught at universities.
.

 

[jtbell]

you will need to go over the same basic material at the intermediate level before you might be eligible to apply to grad school

Emphasis on the "might." We occasionally get questions here from people who want to get into physics grad school without having formally studied physics at the undergraduate level, i.e. taken courses for credit, participated in research, etc. I don't remember ever seeing anyone report that they succeeded in doing this.

In general, in the US, graduate school admissions in physics requires:

1. suitable formal undergraduate coursework in physics, with at least a 3.0 GPA.
2. an acceptable score in the physics GRE
3. some research experience (not necessarily publications, but enough experience that you and they can tell you're cut out for research)
4. letters of recommendation from professors who know your work.

The absolute minimum number of subjects at the intermediate level that you will need consists of Classical Mechanics, Electricity & Magnetism and Quantum Mechanics.

I would also include thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which are sometimes covered in one course, sometimes two.

[added] As others have noted, Halliday/Resnick/Walker has been very widely used for "freshman physics" courses, for many years. I used the second edition (pre-Walker) myself when I was a freshman more than 45 years ago!

There are some other widely used books at the same level, but I suggest that as a supplementary resource you use the Feynman Lectures instead:

http://www.feynmanlectures.info/

 

[Dr Dr news]

All the above comments are good advice. I have a four foot stack of introductory Physics texts we have used over the last 30 years. My favorite is Serway which is used by many universities. The introductory calculus-based courses are usually a total of nine credit hours spread over two or three semesters. The MIT OpenCourseWare videos are worth a look as are the Mechanical Universe series videos on YouTube. I can vaguely remember getting up early to watch Continental Classroom on the telly before heading to work. But that was before color TV.

 

[Daverz]

I haven't followed the editions of Halliday & Resnick over the last 30 years, but back then the text titled just plain "Physics" had more interesting problem sets than "Fundamentals of Physics", which was a watered down edition.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/047134530X/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (combined volumes)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471717169/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471345296/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Doc Al]

I used the second edition (pre-Walker) myself when I was a freshman more than 45 years ago!

Me too!

 

[Dr Transport]

Third Edition in '83-84...

 

[jtbell]

Third Edition in '83-84

That was the one I taught from in my first teaching job after grad school. I remember the other profs in the department calling the previous edition the "pumpkin book" because of the orange color, but I don't remember what the third looked like!

Then I moved to my second and final job, and there we always used either Serway or Tipler.

 

[Dr Transport]

That was the one I taught from in my first teaching job after grad school. I remember the other profs in the department calling the previous edition the "pumpkin book" because of the orange color, but I don't remember what the third looked like!

Green with a yellow swirl

 

[sassafrasaxe]

Thank you all so much for your insightful replies! It certainly has been a year and a half, and I am trying again. I am slow, and a lot has been going on. And I’m sorry too that it took so long to reply to this post. I will try not to make a habit of graveyard posting.
Hearing jtbell say I will need undergraduate courses Worries me since I am not sure if am able to still take undergraduate courses now that I am a graduate. I did take fundamentals of physics I, and I also took Intermediate physics II in undergrad. I did not take quantum or anything else.
I was able to get a free book online in PDF form, called Uniersity Physics and Modern Physics by Young and Freedman, 13th Edition. Is this better or worse than the fundamentals book I have?
Thank you again for all the wonderful suggestions. I will look into them all. I have looked at the Feynman lectures some, and I will return to them again as supplemental material, as well as some of the others.

 

[Dr Dr news]

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Young and Freedman a 7. This text was formerly Sears and Zemansky, a standard text, and was inherited by Young. The first several editions published under his name were replete with errors. Maybe it has been cleaned up by now. One can only hope. Good luck.

 

[Mark44]

Third Edition in '83-84...

I studied from H & R, First Edition (Parts I and II), copyrights 62, 64, and 67.

 

[Dr Transport]

I studied from H & R, First Edition (Parts I and II), copyrights 62, 64, and 67.

My masters advisor TA'd for Resnik at RPI in the '60's...