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