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

[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 E.g., they introduce the "relativistic mass" although this is a pretty outdated concept (outdated since 1907 with the advent of the covariant formalism invented by Minkowski).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.