Classical An Introduction to Mechanics by Daniel Kleppner and Robert J. Kolenkow

[xentullarch]

Also are there any significant differences between 2010 and 1973 editions?

 

[guitarphysics]

I'm not sure what kind of competitions you'll be participating in.. BUT- my teacher has a book with all the problems from the European physics olympics from 1970-1980 (I'm not sure if those are the exact years, but it's something like that), and about half of their problems on mechanics I've seen in Kleppner's book! It's pretty incredible; I'd say Kleppner's perfect for preparing for physics competitions- really makes you think, and has some classic problems.

As far as I know, they're the same exact edition (the 2010 and 1973), just different printings.

 

[oneleaf]

I just received the 2nd edition which came out a few days ago. Looks great! I was a bit disappointed to find only hints to select problems. For those that self study, did you try to verify answers online?

 

[WannabeNewton]

I just received the 2nd edition which came out a few days ago. Looks great! I was a bit disappointed to find only hints to select problems. For those that self study, did you try to verify answers online?

That's one venue or you could post on the HW help subforum

 

[guitarphysics]

Whoa, new edition- that's awesome :D! Has the SR section been updated??

 

[Student100]

I ordered a copy, should be here in a few days. I'll let you know.

 

[guitarphysics]

Cool, thanks. This is probably one of my favorite textbooks, and if they updated it a decent amount (especially the SR part) I think I'll get the new edition.

 

[Bobby Z]

I know it would do the trick! Taylor's CLASSICAL MECHANICS is a very widely used text. Check out the recommendations on Amazon.com. Also, google it and you can find all the universities it is used in which is a very impressive list!

 

[guitarphysics]

Yep, I have that book :). It's pretty good, but I actually prefer K&K (I'm aware they discuss very different things, so the two texts are apples and oranges; but at least in the Newtonian department, I prefer K&K).

 

[oneleaf]

Whoa, new edition- that's awesome :D! Has the SR section been updated??

In the preface, they state that there is a "recasting" on the discussion of special relativity, though I cannot really speak for it as I am not familiar with either editions of the text yet. :)

I found their discussion on the changes to the 2nd edition to sound far more subtle and modest than the typical once-every-two-year revisions that many textbooks have where the preface makes it sound like every revision is a dramatic improvement (which we know is often not the case). In that sense, K&K waiting 40 years for a revision and making it sound like no big deal is a bit strange! I would be really interested to see someone familiar with the first edition to really compare them.

 

[guitarphysics]

I checked a few places, and arrived at this http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/98110/frontmatter/9780521198110_frontmatter.pdf
which is probably the preface you're referring to. From what I can tell, the SR section has actually been improved quite a lot- it now has more discussion on vector transformations and spacetime diagrams (which the first edition really lacks). They also have more extensive discussions on Newton's laws and energy, which is pretty cool, but apparently they omitted the chapter on mathematical methods (mostly div grad and curl). As far as I can tell, that stuff+more examples throughout the text+fixing errata is all the stuff they've changed (which is actually a decent amount).

 

[oneleaf]

I checked a few places, and arrived at this http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/98110/frontmatter/9780521198110_frontmatter.pdf
which is probably the preface you're referring to. From what I can tell, the SR section has actually been improved quite a lot- it now has more discussion on vector transformations and spacetime diagrams (which the first edition really lacks). They also have more extensive discussions on Newton's laws and energy, which is pretty cool, but apparently they omitted the chapter on mathematical methods (mostly div grad and curl). As far as I can tell, that stuff+more examples throughout the text+fixing errata is all the stuff they've changed (which is actually a decent amount).

That sounds great, especially the additional examples which will help me a lot. Given the length of time between editions, I would be surprised if the changes were not substantial. I am used to seeing other textbooks new edition's prefaces as a marketing spiel overstating the improvements, so I found K&K's matter-of-fact and straightforward discussion on the changes to be very refreshing.

 

[QuantumCurt]

I'm glad to see some reviews and thoughts on the new edition coming in. I'm starting the calculus based physics sequence next semester, and I've been planning on buying this book to use as a supplement for the mechanics semester.

It sounds like this new edition is actually worth it. New editions of textbooks rarely come with any real revisions, I'm glad to hear that's not the case here. I'm currently in general chemistry, and I'm using a textbook that's about 3 editions out of date. It is nearly identical to the newest edition. The sad thing is that mine was published in 2003, and there have been three new editions in the last ten years.

Reading the section at the beginning that discusses the updates, you'd think it was an entirely new book.

 

[Student100]

So I just got my copy of edition two. The chapter on vector calculus has been omitted, with some of it put into an appendix, Newtons laws is now two chapters, as well as energy and conversation of energy. Energy has been expanded by adding the ideas of heat being introduced with relating the idea gas law to the concept or momentum flux. Relativity is recasted with greater emphases on spacetime.

That's all basically from the to the teacher section of the book. As far as my observation, I like the fact that they kept the original style and didn't decide to add a bunch of colorful figures and other eye irritating things. The way they present the math looks different in some areas, but it still feels the same. There are numerical answers to some problems with conceptual hints. The relativity section is completely redone it feels like, and some of the experimental reasoning has been changed to reflect modern experiment.

I never completely made it through the first edition yet, so I'm sure there are other things, this edition has the same feel to it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I've had my copy of the 1st edition for so long I don't know if I could bring myself to buy the 2nd edition

 

[QuantumCurt]

Have any of you guys have managed to spend any more time with the new edition over the last few weeks? I'm planning on buying this book in the next few days or so, and I'm just wondering if anyone has encountered anything in the new edition that would be a concern.

From what I'm reading, it sounds like the new edition is a genuine improvement.

 

[Student100]

It's fine, they tried to make a course using the book a bit easier and flow a bit better, but the rigor is still there. I've been going through both on my break. There are still problems I can't do in the new one.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Thanks for the input. I think I'm going to go ahead and order it tomorrow. Hopefully it'll show up in time for me to preview some of it before next semester starts. Shipping always tends to get slow around this time of year unfortunately.

 

[QuantumCurt]

Well, after a long shipping ordeal with a horrible Amazon Marketplace seller, my copy of "Introduction to Mechanics" has finally arrived! I'm looking forward to digging into it! I just got done briefly browsing it, and it seems like a very logically structured text.

 

[mpresic]

I used this as an additional textbook to Halliday and Resnick in 1974 (that long ago). It was a little more difficult than H and R but I liked it. Sorry it is so expensive. Back in 1974 it was probably around 15 dollars. R and H one volume was about 14.

 

[jbunniii]

2012 lecture by Robert Kolenkow in which he spends the first bit talking about the book:

 

[NathanaelNolk]

Do you think one could take this as a first course in classical mechanics ? If it's too hard to start with it, which textbook would you recommend instead ?

 

[verty]

Do you think one could take this as a first course in classical mechanics ? If it's too hard to start with it, which textbook would you recommend instead ?

I think so, the main thing needed in my opinion, supposing you have the math background which is polar notation and calculus, is physical intuition. For example, is it a surprise to be told that in circular motion, the velocity (speed vector) is tangent to the circle? If you've been on a merry-go-round, you probably know it at least subconsciously: you are moving around the circle, so at each point, you must be moving tangent to the circle in the limit.

...

If you understood that, I think you are ready. In case this intuition idea is worrying you, I'll give another example. One of the problems has two weights, joined by a string, placed on a smooth, spinning table (think pottery wheel) so that the weights remain in their positions, they do not fly off the table. It's a matter of intuition to realize that they must be on opposite sides of the table, that'll make the string taut and allow the weights to hold each other in place.

If you have the intuition (and the math), I see no reason not to use it for a first course. You can of course have a look at the Walter Lewin lecture videos; he does an experiment each lecture, so seeing the experiment while you learn about that topic should go a long way to making it all seem familiar.

 

[NathanaelNolk]

Thanks Verty, your answer was exactly what I was looking for. I'm not worried about physical intuition, I was more worried about the math (I haven't done Calc III so far, and I was a bit worried about it). I was already thinking about Walter Lewin's lectures as I watched a few lectures of 18.01 on YouTube. I guess that K&K's introduction to mechanics and Walter Lewin's lectures will give me a good grasp of classical mechanics. By the way, are the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics included in K&K ?

 

[Radarithm]

Thanks Verty, your answer was exactly what I was looking for. I'm not worried about physical intuition, I was more worried about the math (I haven't done Calc III so far, and I was a bit worried about it). I was already thinking about Walter Lewin's lectures as I watched a few lectures of 18.01 on YouTube. I guess that K&K's introduction to mechanics and Walter Lewin's lectures will give me a good grasp of classical mechanics. By the way, are the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics included in K&K ?

Calculus 1 is all you need for K&K. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are (unfortunately) not covered in K&K. A similar book in classical mechanics (which you should get after K&K or use it alongside it), Taylor, Classical Mechanics does include Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics along with some minor comments about configuration space (Lagrangian mechanics) and phase space (Hamiltonian mechanics).

 

[verty]

Thanks Verty, your answer was exactly what I was looking for. I'm not worried about physical intuition, I was more worried about the math (I haven't done Calc III so far, and I was a bit worried about it). I was already thinking about Walter Lewin's lectures as I watched a few lectures of 18.01 on YouTube. I guess that K&K's introduction to mechanics and Walter Lewin's lectures will give me a good grasp of classical mechanics. By the way, are the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics included in K&K ?

If you learn multivariable calculus at the same time (on a demand basis if you like), you will be fine. In a way, it should help to make MV Calc easier to learn.

The word "Lagrangian" does not appear in the index, that is beyond the scope of this book. (But for example, MIT used to follow it with Goldstein, according to their OCW site.)

 

[Student100]

Is a solution manual available for K&K?

The newer edition has many worked problems included with the text, if I'm remembering correctly. It’s been a while since I sat down with it.

I didn't care for the Walter Lewin lectures. I sat down and watched them when a previous poster had mentioned how he was using that to self-study. At times they were downright confusing, but there were some interesting parts.

 

[NathanaelNolk]

If you learn multivariable calculus at the same time (on a demand basis if you like), you will be fine. In a way, it should help to make MV Calc easier to learn.
The word "Lagrangian" does not appear in the index, that is beyond the scope of this book. (But for example, MIT used to follow it with Goldstein, according to their OCW site.)

Ok, that should work perfectly then, thank you for your help. I think I'll go with Taylor's Classical Mechanics after K&K's.

 

[QuantumCurt]

K&K is a wonderful book. I took the first semester of the University Physics sequence last semester. Our assigned text was "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" by Tipler and Mosca. That's a good book in it's own right, but it's more of a "one size fits all" university physics text. I found myself referring to K&K a lot more than I did Tipler. Tipler muddles things up with graphics and far too many wide ranging examples...with not enough theoretical development. K&K develops the theory behind mechanics wonderfully. Using K&K as a supplementary text for my class gave me a big edge over the rest of the people in the class, and gave me some earlier exposure to more in depth topics that come up in mechanics later on.

I think it's worth pointing out that the writing style of K&K may not be for everyone. It's structured as somewhat more of a 'reader' type of book than a conventional textbook style. A lot of examples are solved symbolically, which some people struggle with. A lot of people seem to grasp the concepts a bit more completely when numbers are involved. That said, solving symbolically is a very important skill to have. It can save a lot of frustration later on.

Overall I would strongly recommend K&K. There are enough examples and exercises to expose you to a wide range of types of problems, but not so many that there are 20 problems per chapter that are nearly the same problem. Some of the exercises can be truly challenging, and will really make you think outside the box a bit.

 

[sunquick]

alternatives for SR

I own a copy of the first edition, but I'm still on the fence about the second edition. Do you think I can study the first edition and supplement the chapters on relativity with some other book, like David Morin's Introduction to classical mechanics, or A.P.French's book on Special Relativity,or Taylor and Wheeler Spacetime Physics? Do you think any of those is a good alternative to K&K on special relativity?