The discussion centers around the merits of a specific book, with a focus on its logic and rigor as key attributes that make it preferable. Participants suggest that to receive more targeted and useful responses, the original poster should clarify their expectations and specific interests regarding the book. This would help streamline the conversation and prevent information from being dispersed across multiple topics.
#1
Goldbeetle
210
1
Dear all,
what's so good about this book that makes it preferable?
Thanks.
Goldbeetle
TL;DR Summary: Book after Sakurai Modern Quantum Physics
I am doing a comprehensive reading of sakurai and I have solved every problem from chapters I finished on my own, I will finish the book within 2 weeks and I want to delve into qft and other particle physics related topics, not from summaries but comprehensive books, I will start a graduate program related to cern in 3 months, I alreadily knew some qft but now I want to do it, hence do a good book with good problems in it first...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"?
Hello everybody,
returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...
Hi, I'm an undergraduate physics student and I'm currently in my second week of the first semester. I wonder if I should use Sears and Zemansky's University Physics or Halliday and Resnick's Fundamentals of Physics as my book reference. Which one do you guys think is the best? or if there's any better book out there please let me know! =)