Engineering Mechanics vs. physics majors' Newtonian Mechanics books

[mad mathematician]

How does Engineering Mechanics books differ from physics majors' Mechanics books?

Are there any topics which aren't covered in the physics curriculum?

I plan on reading this summer some Engineering Mechanics book (Hiebler looks like sort of canonical for UG stuff).

The best learning is by self learning...

 

[Demystifier]

I would guess that engineers do not study Poisson brackets and Hamilton-Jacobi formalism.

Physics books, on the other hand, usually do not cover statics.

 

[pines-demon]

How does Engineering Mechanics books differ from physics majors' Mechanics books?

Are there any topics which aren't covered in the physics curriculum?

I plan on reading this summer some Engineering Mechanics book (Hiebler looks like sort of canonical for UG stuff).

The best learning is by self learning...

I guess they study more elasticity-stress-strain topics than the average physics undergraduate.

 

[mad mathematician]

I would guess that engineers do not study Poisson brackets and Hamilton-Jacobi formalism.

Physics books, on the other hand, usually do not cover statics.

I know that Mechanical Engineers' at my local university learn analytical mechanics (Euler-Lagrange etc) in their graduate studies, while in my BSc (combined maths-physics degree) we learnt AM on second year.

 

[martinbn]

How does Engineering Mechanics books differ from physics majors' Mechanics books?

Why don't you look at some books and compare them.

 

[vela]

Hiebler looks like a lower-division statics and dynamics text. The statics and dynamics courses focus on efficient methods for solving practical problems.

At that level, physics majors typically just see these topics in introductory physics, which engineering majors also take. I don't know of a comparable text for physics majors. Physics majors, however, do usually take a course on classical mechanics in their junior year, where the subject is covered in a more sophisticated and deeper way. The material is nothing like what you do in statics and dynamics.

 

[erobz]

I have a Classical Mechanics by John Taylor, that would have been part of a Physics minor. I feel like there is overlap with Hiebler Dynamics but the scenarios in which you test yourself are more contrived in Taylor and more advanced mathematical treatment where they do meet. Hiebler gets around the advanced stuff by saying "what is happening precisely here", where you find much more "what is happening in general" in Taylor.

That being said, I've only ever skim read Taylor for fun- that is I read it, followed examples. I did not apply it by trying to solve any significant amount the problem sets in the text. It was on my "to do list" at one time, but that ship has probably sailed.