Do "older" books provide unique insights?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
41 replies · 9K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, what Bell quotes as one of the reasons LL is a good book, namely that it's "the closest to Bohr what we have", I'd take rather as an insult recommending a textbook on QT. If you want to get utmost confused about QT, just read Bohr or Heisenberg. LL fortunately is not close enough to Bohr, making it a pretty comprehensible treatment of wave mechanics. Usually the LL books strip off all unnecessary gibberish and offer a clear physically well-motivated mathematical treatment. I think, Landau has also been with Born and Paul long enough not to be too much spoiled by Heisenberg and Bohr :biggrin:. SCNR.
 
My coworkers and I prefer the older textbooks. The thought processes were clear, the concepts were written concisely, and the connection between qualitative phenomena and quantitative representation is very clear.

There are some great new textbooks as well
 
vanhees71 said:
Well, what Bell quotes as one of the reasons LL is a good book, namely that it's "the closest to Bohr what we have", I'd take rather as an insult recommending a textbook on QT. If you want to get utmost confused about QT, just read Bohr or Heisenberg. LL fortunately is not close enough to Bohr, making it a pretty comprehensible treatment of wave mechanics. Usually the LL books strip off all unnecessary gibberish and offer a clear physically well-motivated mathematical treatment. I think, Landau has also been with Born and Paul long enough not to be too much spoiled by Heisenberg and Bohr :biggrin:. SCNR.

Yes, as we know from machine learning, bagging is a good trick. Personally, I think between LL and Dirac one has almost everything. The only thing missing is a simple example using spin 1/2 from Feynman or Sakural.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
Another great book is Schwinger, Quantum Mechanics - Symbolism for Atomic Measurement, Springer Verlag. It's not recommended as a textbook to learn QT, because it offers more alternative mathematics than any other book (but as usual for Schwinger brilliant mathematics), but already the "Epilogue" is worth reading (and that's although it's without formulae and math at all ;-)).
 
I know this thread is about QM books and interpretations, so I am off topic, but anyway...

One thing that old books in maths can give is the original proofs of theorems. After time and generations of exposition proofs can change considerably from the original idea, which may be not the shortest and slickest way but sometimes is more natural and can give insight that cannot be found in a modern book. That's just a hypothetical possibility I cannot give an example.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SredniVashtar, vanhees71 and Demystifier
martinbn said:
I know this thread is about QM books and interpretations, so I am off topic, but anyway...

One thing that old books in maths can give is the original proofs of theorems. After time and generations of exposition proofs can change considerably from the original idea, which may be not the shortest and slickest way but sometimes is more natural and can give insight that cannot be found in a modern book. That's just a hypothetical possibility I cannot give an example.

Newton's original proofs are (somewhat) of this nature, as vanhees71 said in an earlier post.

However, I think most of us would find the modern proofs more natural.

I think Goedel's and Rosser's original proofs of the incompleteness theorems are also perhaps not as natural as modern expositions which stress the relationship to Cantor's diagonalization. What's nice about Goedel's and Rosser's original proofs that is not so obvious with diagonalization is their relationship to the liar paradox.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier
atyy said:
However, I think most of us would find the modern proofs more natural.

Of course, I didn't mean that all proofs are more natural in the old books. I meant that they can be (sometimes, perhaps rarely).
 
Well, it's not so easy. On the one hand, I'm of the strong opinion that math and the natural science should not be taught using the historical approach to begin with. It's the very nature of these subjects that there is progress with time, and problems get solved which have been obscure before. It's not necessary to learn old-fashioned misconceptions to start with a subject. E.g., you don't need Bohr's model of the atom (which in fact cements very wrong ideas about what's "going on" in the microscopic realm, even on a qualitative level) to learn up-to-date quantum mechanics. It may be even hindering a clear understanding of the subject.

On the other hand, one should know a bit about the historical development of ideas of all these subjects to fully understand the implications of the up-to-date state of the art. It's, e.g., very illuminating to understand the trouble of classical electron theory a la Lorentz et al, partially still unsolved today (e.g., self-consistent dynamics of classical charged point particles including radiation reaction; motion of classical charged particles with spin/magnetic moment in a general em. field) to appreciate the modern view fully.

Coming back to the topic of this section of the forum, it thus can be very illuminating to study "old textbooks". Then there are exceptional good ones, which exceed the quality of modern textbooks, particularly about subjects which have not considerably changed in the meantime. Examples in theoretical physics are, "The Feynman Lectures", Sommerfeld's "Lectures on Theoretical Physics" (which in my opinion is still the most concise treatment of classical physics including the mathematical methodology ever written, particularly vol. VI on partial differential equations in physics), Pauli's "Lectures on Theoretical Physics" (particularly quantum mechanics), Dirac's "Quantum Mechanics", Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology" (although maybe that doesn't qualify as an "old textbook").
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier
bolbteppa said:
(10) Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éléments_de_mathématique
(09) Dieudonne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_analysis
(10) Landau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_Theoretical_Physics
(06) Sommerfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Sommerfeld#Munich
(05) Goursat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Goursat#Books_by_Edouard_Goursat
(02) Van Der Waerden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderne_Algebra
(01) Whittaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_of_Modern_Analysis
(03) Cartan http://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/differential-forms
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0395120330/?tag=pfamazon01-20

= ?

Notice most have their own separate wiki page, as in the books, not just the authors, have their own pages...
Thank you, and on a sidenote what is your opinion on Edmund Landua's book on calculus and the one on analysis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finding Bourbaki and Dieudonne in your list surprises me a bit. It's more like an encyclopedia, but they make horrible textbooks in my opinion, i.e., they don't provide too much "insight". They are related to math as a creative process like the description of music in terms of pressure fluctuations of the air making up sound waves :nb).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: George Jones

Similar threads

What Historical Math Textbooks Offer Unique Insights?
  • sponsoredwalk
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5