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

AI Thread Summary
"An Introduction to Mechanics" by Daniel Kleppner and Robert J. Kolenkow is a highly regarded textbook for motivated students with a solid background in calculus and physics. It covers foundational topics in mechanics, including Newton's laws, momentum, work, energy, and special relativity, while presenting challenging problems that emphasize symbolic reasoning. The book has undergone minimal updates since its original 1973 publication, with the second edition released in 2010, but it still reflects some outdated pedagogical approaches. Despite its age, it remains a favorite among students for its depth and rigor, particularly in special relativity, although some feel its treatment lacks modern insights. Overall, it is considered an excellent resource for those seeking a thorough understanding of classical mechanics.

For those who have used this book


  • Total voters
    69
bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431

Table of Contents:
1. Vectors and kinematics - a few mathematical preliminaries
2. Newton's laws - the foundations of Newtonian mechanics
3. Momentum
4. Work and energy
5. Some mathematical aspects of force and energy
6. Angular momentum and fixed axis rotation
7. Rigid body motion and the conservation of angular momentum
8. Noninertial systems and fictitious forces
9. Central force motion
10. The harmonic oscillator
11. The special theory of relativity
12. Relativistic kinematics
13. Relativistic momentum and energy
14. Four-vectors and relativistic invariance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
These days I teach physics for a living, but in 1982 I used this book as a freshman in an honors class. Here are some impressions from going back over the book three decades later.

For a long time, I don't think there was any alternative to Kleppner and Kolenkow for a student who really wanted to know the whys and wherefores of freshman mechanics. The big-selling texts like Halliday may carefully derive certain things, but in other cases they just pop an equation onto the page and expect the student to use it without question. Today, however, there are many free, online alternatives to the big-budget commercial texts, and some of these do provide a level of intellectual honesty similar to K&K's. In addition, there is a recent commercial text by Morin that targets the same type of student as K&K.

There are many challenging problems that are of very high quality. The focus of these problems is on symbolic rather than numerical computation.

The book includes many topics that are not typically included in a freshman text, e.g., nutation, the moment of inertia tensor, and relativistic four-vectors.

The book is designed for highly motivated and talented students, at schools with highly selective admissions, who have already taken a rigorous high school physics course, and who have already completed about a year of calculus. It would be a disaster to try to use this book with a less highly selected population.

The book was originally published in 1973. McGraw-Hill kept it in print over the decades, but hiked the price outrageously and showed no interest in bringing out a new edition. Eventually the authors got the rights back from McGraw-Hill, redid the manuscript in LaTeX, made some changes, and published the 2nd edition in 2010 (37 years after the first edition!) through Cambridge University press. Cambridge brought the price way back down, which is great.

The changes made in the second edition are good ones, but they are mostly extremely minimal, and the book still shows its age. There is no discussion of numerical integration of the equations of motion. Attempts are made to help the student check symbolic results of homework problems, e.g., by giving the output for a specific input, but today this would be far better done using open-source computer software such as LON-CAPA. Diagrams show common student lab apparatus from the Sputnik era. (The line art appears to have been redrawn on a computer, but is basically exactly the same.) The book predates essentially all modern pedagogical research in physics, and it does not do any of the things that that research shows can have an impact on common conceptual difficulties.

The book was unusual for first-semester freshman texts of its time in providing a fairly thorough introduction to special relativity. This is especially important if the students are to move on to Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism (also available in a new edition from CUP), which assumes a thorough familiarity with SR. Although the treatment of SR has been updated significantly in the second edition, to my taste it is still dreary and slavishly traditional, and compares poorly with the much nicer and more modern approach used in Morin. K&K still use the relativistic mass convention, which professional relativists stopped using ca. 1950. K&K use Einstein's 1905 axiomatization of special relativity, which to my mind reflects a century-old world-view and would be better replaced with an approach based on symmetry, as in Morin. The examples and the presentation of experimental tests of SR have essentially not been updated since the 1973 edition. For example, the old edition presented the concepts of GPS, which was being developed in the 70s. That was cool for its time, but the new edition merely sticks in the modern acronym GPS into the preexisting text. One important improvement is the elimination of ict from the four-vectors, which at least gives the book more of a feel of having been written after 1950.
 
Last edited:
I came across this wonderful book in the library by chance. I had already read Halliday and Resnick then. Kleppner and Kolenkow is one of my favourite books. Right up there with the Feynman lectures. Just thinking about it makes me happy. I hope to own a copy one day:)
 
  • Like
Likes koolraj09
atyy said:
I came across this wonderful book in the library by chance. I had already read Halliday and Resnick then. Kleppner and Kolenkow is one of my favourite books. Right up there with the Feynman lectures. Just thinking about it makes me happy. I hope to own a copy one day:)
Too bad you don't live near me I have an extra copy because I got one a long while back then thought I lost it had to get a new one for class then found it again and was stuck with two. Cheers =D!
 
WannabeNewton said:
Too bad you don't live near me I have an extra copy because I got one a long while back then thought I lost it had to get a new one for class then found it again and was stuck with two. Cheers =D!

=D With today's price tag, I had half a mind to add "after I strike gold".

Edit: Hmm, seems to be not terrible actually at USD 45. I somehow remembered it as USD 300!
 
Last edited:
atyy said:
=D With today's price tag, I had half a mind to add "after I strike gold".

Edit: Hmm, seems to be not terrible actually at USD 45. I somehow remembered it as USD 300!
Wow when did you last see it
 
atyy said:
Edit: Hmm, seems to be not terrible actually at USD 45. I somehow remembered it as USD 300!
Your memory is right - it was hugely expensive in 2005 or 2006 when I first looked into getting a copy. Then it changed publishers and was down to only $75 when I bought a copy in 2010. Now it's $45 (and still in hardback), a great deal considering that many paperback textbooks cost more than that.
 


I've been using this book to teach myself classical mechanics, and I love it!
 


guitarphysics said:
I've been using this book to teach myself classical mechanics, and I love it!
Some of those end of chapter exercises really make you want to rip your hair out don't they =D? I remember there was one in chapter 4, near the end, about a moving wall, a stationary wall, and a ball bouncing back and forth between the two that made me consume like 6 full cans of coke in one sitting before I got it. God this is such a good book!
 
  • Like
Likes poseidon721
  • #10


WannabeNewton said:
Some of those end of chapter exercises really make you want to rip your hair out don't they =D? I remember there was one in chapter 4, near the end, about a moving wall, a stationary wall, and a ball bouncing back and forth between the two that made me consume like 6 full cans of coke in one sitting before I got it. God this is such a good book!
Yes, they do :), but that's one of my favorite things about this book. The problems are really original and Kleppner knows how to make you think!
 
  • #11


I've really been considering looking into this book. A few months ago I came across an old edition (early 60's) of Halliday & Resnick's combined Physics vol I-II. It is an enjoyable book to work through, but I often wonder if I would be getting more out of a book like Kleppner and Kolenkow's. I am a mechanical engineering student and do wish to really get a solid foundation on these topics. Any thoughts?
 
  • #12


I used this book for a course that used Alonso and Finn, I never looked at Alonso and Finn. :-)

Though I didn't do every exercise in the book, the exercises I did do were nice and interesting.

And some still ask me questions on my posts I did on the assignments back from 2006-2007, (6-7 years :-), time passes by).
 
  • #13


mindheavy said:
I am a mechanical engineering student and do wish to really get a solid foundation on these topics. Any thoughts?
I'm not sure if I'm the right person to be giving you advice because I'm only 16, but this book has given me a really thorough understanding of mechanics. I feel like a have a really good foundation on all these topics now, so my advice is to definitely get this book. However, be prepared to work hard.
 
  • #14
bcrowell said:
The book shows its age (38 years!) in many ways. It presents various examples of applications of relativity, but they are all extremely old and dusty. [...]

To my taste, the treatment of special relativity is dreary and slavishly traditional, with too little geometrical insight.

Is the edition on sale now (dated 2010 on amazon.com) simply a reprint of the 1973 edition (which I have), or has it been updated?

I happened to look at its treatment of relativity just now, to see how it handles "relativistic mass." It does introduce "relativistic mass" in connection with relativistic momentum. However, in practice it almost always uses "rest mass" from that point on in derivations, examples, and exercises, usually (but not always) labeling it as m0 and identifying it as "rest mass." This is for the 1973 version; has it changed at all?
 
  • #15
I have the 2010 copy jtbell and it doesn't look any different from the older edition as far as I can tell. It may be my bias leaking in here but considering it's the greatest mechanics textbook ever written I doubt there was much reason to change anything in the older copy :D.
 
  • #16
The relativity section needs to be updated:
include spacetime and energy-momentum diagrams [instead of just "spatial" diagrams]
and
dump ict.

Except for that, it is a great textbook.
 
  • #17
Please consider CLASSICAL MECHANICS by John Taylor. Check out the reviews on Amazon.com- they are phenomenal. I ordered the book recently and have gone thru the 1st 3 chapters so far. All the reviews on this textbook are true! It is EXCELLENT!
(While in college many yrs ago we were brought up with MECHANICS by Keith Symon. The problems are next to impossible to solve which can be VERY discouraging.)
 
  • #18
Would this book be appropriate for someone that is fairly advanced mathematically (calculus on level of Apostol/Spivak, some diff. geometry, analysis 1, abstract algebra 1&2, etc.), but has never taken a physics course?
 
  • #19
Would this be an appropriate book to use as a supplement/reference for a first semester calculus based physics course? I'm gathering that this is basically a freshmen level text, though more rigorous/advanced than books like Freedman, Tipler, Resnick etc.

I'm starting University Physics this coming spring, and we're going to be using the Tipler book, which I've heard is great. I want some type of supplement with additional problems and more rigorous explanations though as well. Would this be a good choice?
 
  • #20
At some schools, this text is used as the "introductory physics course" for physics majors,
usually followed by Purcell's E&M text.
 
  • #21
robphy said:
At some schools, this text is used as the "introductory physics course" for physics majors,
usually followed by Purcell's E&M text.

I was looking at the Purcell E&M text as well. That sounds like an excellent book as well.
 
  • #22
They're both brilliant books. Kleppner is quite doable if you keep at it but Purcell is hardcore. You should make sure you're prepared beforehand. For example the 3rd edition of Purcell assumes you've seen a comprehensive introduction to SR (special relativity) beforehand.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #23
I know what you mean by that. I will be taking E&M this fall and I want to use Purcell as my choice to read from after lecture.
 
  • #24
I'm learning EM right now, and I've found that it's best to learn it with Purcell and Griffiths side by side (as suggested by WannabeNewton :D). As for Kleppner, go for it! I loved it, but let me warn you, it's hard (you might find it easier than I did though because I was learning calc at the same time...)
 
  • #25
guitarphysics said:
I'm learning EM right now, and I've found that it's best to learn it with Purcell and Griffiths side by side (as suggested by WannabeNewton :D). As for Kleppner, go for it! I loved it, but let me warn you, it's hard (you might find it easier than I did though because I was learning calc at the same time...)

I'll be using Kleppner along with the Tipler book while I'm taking Physics 1. I'll have already taken Calculus I though, and I will be in Calc II concurrently, so that should make it considerably easier. I'll also be using the Purcell book alongside the Tipler book during Physics II, and I don't know if I want to incorporate a third book into the mix. The Griffiths book sounds like a really good one though, judging from what I've read online. It sounds like it's considerably more difficult though.

edit-I also have a copy of the Feynman Lectures on their way to me right now, so I'll have them too. I'll likely hold off on a lot of that material until later on though.
 
  • #26
QuantumCurt said:
I'll be using Kleppner along with the Tipler book while I'm taking Physics 1. I'll have already taken Calculus I though, and I will be in Calc II concurrently, so that should make it considerably easier. I'll also be using the Purcell book alongside the Tipler book during Physics II, and I don't know if I want to incorporate a third book into the mix. The Griffiths book sounds like a really good one though, judging from what I've read online. It sounds like it's considerably more difficult though.

edit-I also have a copy of the Feynman Lectures on their way to me right now, so I'll have them too. I'll likely hold off on a lot of that material until later on though.

Feynman is great for stuff that you've already learned, if you're bored for an afternoon, or anything like that- he's amazing. For learning for school, though, I don't like his lectures very much, because you don't learn anything about problem-solving (he's amazing for intuition and new perspectives though!). I like to just look through the table of contents sometimes and read a chapter that looks interesting (and doesn't require too much stuff from previous chapters).

It's good that you already took calc I (I'm not sure if that includes diff. equations, but there's a couple in Kleppner, so it might be good for you to be familiar-ish with them)..
I've actually found Griffiths a lot easier than Purcell- I think Purcell goes more in depth and his problems are harder (also, he introduces magnetism with SR). The only thing (I think) that makes Griffiths harder is that later in his book, Griffiths has a lot more stuff than Purcell (although I haven't gotten there yet).
 
  • #27
guitarphysics said:
I've actually found Griffiths a lot easier than Purcell- I think Purcell goes more in depth and his problems are harder (also, he introduces magnetism with SR).
My feelings as well my friend :)
 
  • #28
Can someone put the prequisites,please.
 
  • #29
theoristo said:
Can someone put the prequisites,please.

Math: algebra, geometry, trig, and calculus (some diff eqs, but that's not completely necessary- I didn't know anything about them before reading KK).

Physics: an intro physics class would probably be helpful (before KK, I had about 3 months of physics at my school where we used Giancoli as a textbook). You can skim Giancoli, or Halliday-Resnick to get a general idea. But it's not necessary to know any physics beforehand.
 
  • #30
I have a copy of an edition published in 1973 by McGraw-Hill. Are the quantity and quality of the concepts of this book suitable enough to prepare for international physics competitions?
 
  • #31
Also are there any significant differences between 2010 and 1973 editions?
 
  • #32
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.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #33
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?
 
  • #34
oneleaf said:
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 :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #35
Whoa, new edition- that's awesome :D! Has the SR section been updated??
 
  • #36
I ordered a copy, should be here in a few days. I'll let you know.
 
  • #37
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.
 
  • #38
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!
 
  • #39
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).
 
  • #40
guitarphysics said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
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).
 
  • #42
guitarphysics said:
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.
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
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 :-p
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
66
Replies
46
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
13K
Replies
0
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
4
Views
10K
Replies
8
Views
14K
Back
Top