Better textbook for analytical mechanics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparison between the textbooks "Mechanics" by Landau-Lifshitz and "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein for studying Analytical Mechanics. Participants unanimously agree that Landau-Lifshitz is superior due to its clarity, absence of misconceptions regarding anholonomous constraints, and better examples. Additionally, John Baez's free online course notes are recommended as a valuable supplement for understanding Lagrangian and Hamiltonian perspectives in classical mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with Analytical Mechanics concepts
  • Understanding of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics
  • Basic knowledge of anholonomous constraints
  • Access to John Baez's online course notes
NEXT STEPS
  • Study "Mechanics" by Landau-Lifshitz for a comprehensive understanding of Analytical Mechanics
  • Review "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein to identify misconceptions
  • Explore John Baez's online course notes on classical mechanics
  • Research vakonomic dynamics for deeper insights into anholonomous constraints
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of Analytical Mechanics through reliable resources and effective teaching methods.

Jianphys17
Messages
66
Reaction score
2
Hi at all.
According to you which of the two texts, between Landau-Lifshitz (mechanics) and the Goldberg (classical mech) is better for study Analytical Mech ? Or there are other better ones ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean Goldstein? If so, then clearly Landau-Lifshitz is the much better choice, because it doesn't contain the severe misconceptions of Goldstein concerning anholonomous constraints (search for vakonomic dynamics in this forum).
 
Yes, Goldstein, I'm apologize for the mistake. Thanks for the suggestion !
 
Landau-Lifshitz, as said, is for sure a better option. Not only it does not contain some misconceptions but it also has better examples and is more polished.
I have used both and would not recommend Goldstein that much
 
Consider as a supplement John Baez's free online course notes on classical mechanics from both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian perspectives (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical)

I recently discovered them and I'm finding that he truly has a gift for teaching. His explanations of why lagrangians actually work and his lengthy efforts to convey some intuition about WHY kinetic - potential energy should be the Lagrangian we care about in classical mechanics is the most satisfying I've seen across many sources.

Also, interesting...
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/interview-mathematical-physicist-john-baez-part-1
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jianphys17 and Yan_Dalton

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K