Dumbing down of Calculus Based Physics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding a comprehensive introductory physics resource that effectively incorporates single-variable calculus. A recommended text is "An Introduction to Mechanics" by Kleppner and Kolenkow, noted for its rigor and suitability for students with strong mathematical backgrounds. While the Feynman Lectures are praised for their informal approach to physics, they lack exercises, making them less effective for self-study. For advanced topics like electromagnetism, Purcell's book is suggested, although it introduces vector calculus, which may not be suitable for those not concurrently studying it. The conversation also touches on the definitions of "rigorous" in physics texts, contrasting the informal style of the Feynman Lectures with more formal mathematical approaches, such as V. I. Arnold's work, which is considered too advanced for most undergraduates. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for resources that balance calculus application with accessibility for learners.
ASmc2
Messages
28
Reaction score
3
I am trying to learn calculus based physics, but I am unhappy with the book that I currently use. I want a comprehensive introductory physics resorce that is not afraid to use introductory calculus. (The book that I have sometimes stays away from it). Can anyone suggest such a resorce?
[Edit] Thank you for moving this topic [Edit]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Depending on what you mean by "introductory" calc, a good possibility to start with might be Kleppner and Kolenknow, An Introduction to Mechanics: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521198216/?tag=pfamazon01-20 It has its pros and cons, which you can find out about from the amazon reviews, but it's known as a classic rigorous text for students who have the necessary extremely strong preparation. You can look at the amazon reviews to see if it's likely to be at the right math level for you.

They Feynman lectures are at a similar intellectual level, but they have no exercises, which makes them essentially useless for self-study.

When you get beyond mechanics and want to do E&M, the best book by far is Purcell. Purcell tries to teach you vector calc as you go along. It would probably not be wise to attempt it unless you are taking an actual vector calc course concurrently by then.

I try not to use this forum to hype my own books, but they're free online, and you can easily find them by googling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bcrowell said:
Depending on what you mean by "introductory" calc, a good possibility to start with might be Kleppner and Kolenknow, An Introduction to Mechanics: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521198216/?tag=pfamazon01-20 It has its pros and cons, which you can fint meand out about from the amazon reviews, but it's known as a classic rigorous text for students who have the necessary extremely strong preparation. You can look at the amazon reviews to see if it's likely to be at the right math level for you.

They Feynman lectures are at a similar intellectual level, but they have no exercises, which makes them essentially useless for self-study.

When you get beyond mechanics and want to do E&M, the best book by far is Purcell. Purcell tries to teach you vector calc as you go along. It would probably not be wise to attempt it unless you are taking an actual vector calc course concurrently by then.

I try not to use this forum to hype my own books, but they're free online, and you can easily find them by googling.


What I meant was single variable calculus. If you have suggestions for mechanics that don't require that much vector calc and do not require multivariable calc, I appreciate them. I will look into the book you suggest.
(vecor calc will show up in a mechanics book if they rely on calc for some derivations, am I wrong?:) I can't have it too easy. :) )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ASmc2 said:
What I meant was single variable calculus. If you have suggestions for mechanics that don't require that much vector calc and do not require multivariable calc, I appreciate them. I will look into the book you suggest.
(vecor calc will show up in a mechanics book if they rely on calc for some derivations, am I wrong?:) I can't have it too easy. :) )

I think Kleppner introduces a little vector calc here and there, but does not assume you know any going in.
 
Do physicists actually use the word "rigorous" to describe the Feynman Lectures? Maybe Ben meant something different by "rigorous" -- I think of "rigorous" as meaning "precise" and "formal" (as in "mathematically rigorous.") I wonder if Ben meant "rigorous" as a synonym for "difficult."

I had thought the Feynman Lectures were famed for their informal use of mathematics and ability to teach the reader to "think like a physicist." (No fretting over Lebesgue integrals or measure theory here!) And unless my memory is playing tricks, I seem to recall Feynman teasing mathematicians at times in the Lectures.

Don't get me wrong -- the Feynman Lectures are great precisely because they are mathematically informal, allowing a reader to build up her scientific intuition. (However, I am also not sure I would recommend the Feynman Lectures as a primary text to an undergraduate student -- they form a great supplementary text.)

When I think of a mathematically rigorous textbook, I think of something like V. I. Arnold's Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. (While Arnold's book was written for third-year undergraduates at Moscow State University, and while it is certainly one of the greatest applied math books of all time, I think it is fairly difficult even for graduate physics students, let alone undergraduates!)

Are there any introductory physics books that use a mathematically rigorous approach? I am not aware of any.
 
For the following four books, has anyone used them in a course or for self study? Compiler Construction Principles and Practice 1st Edition by Kenneth C Louden Programming Languages Principles and Practices 3rd Edition by Kenneth C Louden, and Kenneth A Lambert Programming Languages 2nd Edition by Allen B Tucker, Robert E Noonan Concepts of Programming Languages 9th Edition by Robert W Sebesta If yes to either, can you share your opinions about your personal experience using them. I...
Hi, I have notice that Ashcroft, Mermin and Wei worked at a revised edition of the original solid state physics book (here). The book, however, seems to be never available. I have also read that the reason is related to some disputes related to copyright. Do you have any further information about it? Did you have the opportunity to get your hands on this revised edition? I am really curious about it, also considering that I am planning to buy the book in the near future... Thanks!
I’ve heard that in some countries (for example, Argentina), the curriculum is structured differently from the typical American program. In the U.S., students usually take a general physics course first, then move on to a textbook like Griffiths, and only encounter Jackson at the graduate level. In contrast, in those countries students go through a general physics course (such as Resnick-Halliday) and then proceed directly to Jackson. If the slower, more gradual approach is considered...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
11K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top