Classical Is Kleppner/Kolenkow's second edition worth buying?

[DigitalCrush]

I have access to a copy of the first edition and would like to use this book to strengthen what I've learned in my first physics course in Engineering school. I know there is a second edition though, and I was wondering if the difference between the two is large enough to justify just buying that one instead.

Thank you.

 

[micromass]

Yes, there is a large difference between the two editions. The first one is vastly superior.

 

[DigitalCrush]

Yes, there is a large difference between the two editions. The first one is vastly superior.

Well, I wasn't expecting that. Why is the first one better? All I've noticed is that the second one seems to have more exercises.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Not sure for Kleppner and Kolenkow, but usually earlier editions of Math books and Physics books are superior. For example, Thomas Calculus with Analytical Geometry, is now in its 13? ed. The first 3 editions are superior to the stuff that is out now. Halliday and Resnick : Physics, has also suffered the same fate. Geometry by Jacobs also comes to mind.

 

[bcrowell]

I originally owned the 1st edition, then lost it and replaced it with the 2nd. There's almost no difference that I could detect.

 

[robphy]

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/98110/frontmatter/9780521198110_frontmatter.pdf

For relativity, the ict's in the first edition are no longer in the second edition.

 

[bcrowell]

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/98110/frontmatter/9780521198110_frontmatter.pdf

For relativity, the ict's in the first edition are no longer in the second edition.

Good point. However, they still use relativistic mass :-(

I wrote an amazon review a while back that compares the 1st and 2nd editions:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R36MZ...e&nodeID=283155&store=books&tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[DigitalCrush]

Good point. However, they still use relativistic mass :-(

I wrote an amazon review a while back that compares the 1st and 2nd editions:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R36MZ...e&nodeID=283155&store=books&tag=pfamazon01-20

I haven't learned absolutely anything about relativity yet, and I'm don't know what that convention you're talking about is. Would you say I shouldn't learn relativity from this book? Even then, are the other parts good enough on the first edition, or should I buy the new one?

 

[bcrowell]

I haven't learned absolutely anything about relativity yet, and I'm don't know what that convention you're talking about is. Would you say I shouldn't learn relativity from this book? Even then, are the other parts good enough on the first edition, or should I buy the new one?

Definitely do not learn relativity from a book as antiquated as K&K.

 

[Student100]

I have access to a copy of the first edition and would like to use this book to strengthen what I've learned in my first physics course in Engineering school. I know there is a second edition though, and I was wondering if the difference between the two is large enough to justify just buying that one instead.

Thank you.

The section on relativity is better in the second edition (still not very good). They also moved/omitted some vector calculus/math topics around from chapter 5, I believe it was. Overall still the same great book. BC's review is very well written.

I would buy whichever you can find cheaper, the delta between the two editions is small.

 

[vanhees71]

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/98110/frontmatter/9780521198110_frontmatter.pdf

For relativity, the ict's in the first edition are no longer in the second edition.

Then it's for 100% sure that the 2nd edition is better than the first ;-)).