Difference between Freedman and Halliday physics textbooks

AI Thread Summary
The discussion compares the textbooks "Fundamentals of Physics" and "University Physics," focusing on their comprehensiveness, depth, and difficulty of practice problems. Both texts cover similar material and depth, with variations in specific topics and problem difficulty. Preferences vary among readers; some favor more diagrams and examples, while others prefer textual explanations. Notably, Halliday offers a calculus-based derivation of centripetal acceleration that some find clearer, though it introduces certain concepts later than other texts. The consensus suggests that mastering either book prepares students well for advanced classes, and older editions can be a cost-effective alternative, as recent editions often feature minimal changes. Overall, both textbooks serve as solid resources for freshman physics, with individual preferences influencing the choice between them.
Dragohunter
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was wondering about the differences between the two textbooks "Fundamentals of Physics" and "University Physics:? Skimming a few pages of them on images on the internet, it seems University Physics has a lot of updated diagrams to help the reader understand but I couldn't tell much beyond that. I was wondering:

1. Which one is more comprehensive? (easier to grasp)

2. Which one is more in depth of the material (maybe harder to grasp, but more detailed and goes deeper into the concepts)

3. Which one generally contains more difficult practice problems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dragohunter said:
1. Which one is more comprehensive? (easier to grasp)

2. Which one is more in depth of the material (maybe harder to grasp, but more detailed and goes deeper into the concepts)

3. Which one generally contains more difficult practice problems?

I have recent versions of both, and I'd say it really depends on you. Some people prefer more diagrams and examples, some prefer more text explanation. I like the styles of both of these texts. Other people may find that Serway is better than either, for them.

Both texts cover essentially the same material at essentially the same depth. Each might have more or less on a given topic, but it balances out. And both have problems ranging from easy to hard, so you can go as deep as you like, within the limits of freshman physics.

If you want to go beyond either book, it would be more efficient to take a more advanced class with a more advanced book, rather than waste time trying to find a different freshman text that goes just a little deeper. If you master the material in either book, you will be very well prepared for more advanced classes.

If you want an example of specific differences, I was attracted to Halliday because it was the only text I found that gave a calculus-based derivation of the v-squared over r formula for centripetal acceleration the first time it was mentioned. It seemed easy and straightforward to me. Every other text, even those that use calculus for everything else, tried to derive it geometrically, which ironically seemed much less convincing and much harder to understand to me.

On the other hand, Halliday did not go into tangential and radial acceleration as early as the other texts, and I wish it would have.

So there are pros and cons with everything.

Really, since freshman physics hasn't changed much for many years, I would get older editions of both. Go on Ebay, or the used book section of Amazon, and you can find older editions for about ten bucks. Heck, get Serway, too. All three for 30 bucks, and maybe ten years old, will give you a MUCH better resource than the 2011 edition of any of them for $200.

I have a ninth edition of Young and Freedman, and my friend has a 12th edition, and the only difference I can see is slightly different diagrams, and the order of the problems. It's really kind of a racket that they rearrange a few things, add a few problems, and call it a new edition.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
237
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top