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

[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?

 

[vanhees71]

Well, the chapter on Special Relativity in K&K is not to my taste. E.g., they introduce the "relativistic mass" although this is a pretty outdated concept (outdated since 1907 with the advent of the covariant formalism invented by Minkowski). A good introduction to relativity is, e.g., Landau/Lifshits vol. II.

 

[Fredrik]

I am also not a fan of the SR chapter in K&K. My favorite is "A first course in general relativity" by Schutz. The first two chapters (about 50 pages) will give you what you need. I also strongly recommend the third chapter, which is an introduction to tensors.

 

[td21]

This is a good book immediately after Halliday, but if you want a higher level of classical mechanics than this book but not to the level of Goldstein, i would suggest these two:
1. David Morin's book : https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521876222/?tag=pfamazon01-20
2. Marion's book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0534408966/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[bcrowell]

This is a good book immediately after Halliday, but if you want a higher level of classical mechanics than this book but not to the level of Goldstein, i would suggest these two:
1. David Morin's book : https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521876222/?tag=pfamazon01-20
2. Marion's book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0534408966/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Morin has an appendix where he does a very nice derivation of the Lorentz transformations, using a modern approach based on symmetry rather than Einstein's 1905 postulates.

 

[bcrowell]

I've compared the first edition of K&K, the 2nd edition, and Morin, all side by side. Based on that comparison I've rewritten my original review of the book (post #2 in this thread).

 

[Blaugrana]

Seeing as the Kleppner/Purcell texts are regarded as high quality complements for learning about Mechanics and Electromagnetism, are there any other texts that cover the other major topics such as Thermodynamics/Waves/Particle physics with a similar level of rigor?

 

[QuantumCurt]

I've wondered the same question. I was hoping that there was a similar book for physics III, but there doesn't seem to be one that's quite the same. There are some other good ones though. This is one that I've looked at, and may get for physics III next semester. It's a bit pricier than either K&K or Purcell though. Modern Physics by Randy Harris. The only (usual) physics III topic that it doesn't cover as far as I can tell is thermodynamics. I'd love some other suggestions as well.
[URL='https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805303081/?tag=pfamazon01-20[/URL]
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805303081/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Table of contents

1. Dawn of a New Age
2. Special Relativity
3. Waves and Particles I: Electromagnetic Radiation Behaving as Particles
4. Waves and Particles II: Matter Behaving as Waves
5. Bound States: Simple Cases
6. Unbound States: Obstacles, Tunneling and Particle-Wave Propagation
7. Quantum Mechanics in Three Dimensions and The Hydrogen Atom
8. Spin and Atomic Physics
9. Statistical Mechanics
10. Bonding: Molecules and Solids
11. Nuclear Physics
12. Fundamental Particles and Interactions
    Appendices

 

[robphy]

Seeing as the Kleppner/Purcell texts are regarded as high quality complements for learning about Mechanics and Electromagnetism, are there any other texts that cover the other major topics such as Thermodynamics/Waves/Particle physics with a similar level of rigor?

Here is a useful page
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Physics_Course

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/book-template.aspx?ser=The+M.I.T.+Introductory+Physics+Series

 

[QuantumCurt]

Here is a useful page
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Physics_Course

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/book-template.aspx?ser=The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series

That is indeed a very useful page. It looks like there's some great info there. I've got it bookmarked now, thanks. :)

 

[Blaugrana]

Here is a useful page
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Physics_Course

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/book-template.aspx?ser=The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series

Thanks for the resources! I'll check out the book you suggested as well QuantumCurt.

 

[bcrowell]

Here is a useful page
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Physics_Course

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/book-template.aspx?ser=The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series

Purcell is great, but most of the rest of the books in the Berkeley physics series are nothing special, and they are half a century out of date at this point. (Purcell is in a third edition, so it doesn't suffer from the problem of being out of date.)

The MIT series by French is likewise extremely out of date.

 

[almarpa]

In the new edition of Kleppner - Kolnkow's book, chapter 6 is "Topics in dynamics", and here they introduce some of the topics previosly covered in the chater on energy (small oscilations in a bound system, stability, normal modes, and collisions)

I was wondering if this chapter is a must to be able to follow the next chapters, or it can be skipped without loss of continuity.

Thanks.

 

[Frimus]

I encountered a strange mistake in Kleppner and Kolenkow textbook “An Introduction to Mechanics” (2nd Edition, Kindle version).
This occurred in a “Note 1.1. Approximation Methods” in chapter 1.

An example uses a change of the period of a pendulum due to a little change to its length. They start with the equation $T=2*pi*\sqrt{g/L}$, which is an upside-down form of the correct equation. It is not a typo, because the entire following analysis is based on the incorrect version. It follows they have obtained an increment of the period T (due to positive extension of the pendulum length), negative instead of positive.

I don't want be regarded a nitpicker, but I consider it an overlooked confusing bug. Or have I missed something?

 

[almarpa]

I encountered a strange mistake in Kleppner and Kolenkow textbook “An Introduction to Mechanics” (2nd Edition, Kindle version).
This occurred in a “Note 1.1. Approximation Methods” in chapter 1.

An example uses a change of the period of a pendulum due to a little change to its length. They start with the equation $T=2*pi*\sqrt{g/L}$, which is an upside-down form of the correct equation. It is not a typo, because the entire following analysis is based on the incorrect version. It follows they have obtained an increment of the period T (due to positive extension of the pendulum length), negative instead of positive.

I don't want be regarded a nitpicker, but I consider it an overlooked confusing bug. Or have I missed something?

I have the same question. Is it a mistake or not?

 

[olddog]

Back in 1988 this was the text for a second year course in Mechanics. At the time, it seemed like a terrible book but over the years I have come to love it. You need to give it a chance and have your math toolbox all polished up and it is fantastic. I have seen Fowles: Analytical Mechanics used as well. It is a nice text but I think KK is a step above.

Now going back 31 years later to do this all over again I have noticed that my school does not have a second year mechanics course per se. I am currently taking their first year course that uses Sears and Zemanksy's book. Once the summer comes I will open KK's again and give it a good going through. Not sure what the reasoning is not having a second year mechanics course but I am sure there is some good reason.

I believe I have the first edition to KK in the blue cover.

 

[robphy]

Back in 1988 this was the text for a second year course in Mechanics. At the time, it seemed like a terrible book but over the years I have come to love it. You need to give it a chance and have your math toolbox all polished up and it is fantastic. I have seen Fowles: Analytical Mechanics used as well. It is a nice text but I think KK is a step above.

Note that KK doesn't cover advanced topics like Lagrangian Mechanics, although Fowles does.