Is this a good self-study program?

[Giovanni04]

Hi everyone, I'm a new here, this is my presentation https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/new-self-study-member.1061374/

I want to study physics for my own intrest and understanding of the universe. A few years ago, after high-school, I studied Halliday and Resnick quite thoroughly, both volumes. Now I remember little about calculus, my grades at school in math were pretty good but I might need a refreshment along the way on trigonometry, for example.
I'm 26, I don't have any deadline, it will take me years, I'm doing it for the pleasure of it. I ultimately want to able to understand physics articles on scientific papers.

If I understand correctly, the first step is to learn the necessary math and then classical mechanics. Regarding math, I really like theorems and their proofs, the theoretical understanding of it. So I would like textbooks that go as deep as possible in the subjects required for physics.


I asked chat gpt and it told me to study, in this order:

"Calculus" by Spivak or "Introduction to Calculus and Analysis by Courant
"Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler
"Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms" by Hubbard
"Ordinary Differential Equations" by Tenenbaumm, Pollard and "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers" by Farlow
"Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by Arfken, Weber, Harris

All of this before "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein

Does this program make sense or what would be the best program in my case? I would also like some advice regarding the choice of the books. Thanks

 

[PeroK]

That could take years. I suggest studying the mathematics and physics together. Don't spend too long doing just maths.

Goldstein is an advanced textbook. You'd be better with a general introduction to physics, like Resnick and Halliday.

 

[Giovanni04]

Goldstein is an advanced textbook. You'd be better with a general introduction to physics, like Resnick and Halliday.

Hi, as I said I've already done that

 

[PeroK]

Hi, as I said I've already done that

Sorry I missed that. What about EM, Relativity and QM?

 

[Orodruin]

I ultimately want to able to understand physics articles on scientific papers.

What scientific papers? What subfield? You will very likely not be able to understand any physics paper in any subfield. I generally understand papers in my field (particle physics) or fields that are closely related. That does not mean I understand papers in other fields that are not as related (condensed matter theory, etc).

 

[vela]

If I understand correctly, the first step is to learn the necessary math and then classical mechanics. Regarding math, I really like theorems and their proofs, the theoretical understanding of it. So I would like textbooks that go as deep as possible in the subjects required for physics.

If your goal is to learn physics, you might want to hold off on focusing too much on the theorems and proofs at this stage and concentrate instead on being able to do calculations and developing intuition.

"Calculus" by Spivak or "Introduction to Calculus and Analysis by Courant
"Linear Algebra Done Right" by Sheldon Axler
"Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms" by Hubbard
"Ordinary Differential Equations" by Tenenbaumm, Pollard and "Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers" by Farlow
"Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by Arfken, Weber, Harris

All of this before "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein

Halliday and Resnick is an introductory physics text, suitable for students who are encountering physics for the first time. Typically, the next step is to study from intermediate texts on classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, etc. (There are numerous threads discussing book recommendations for the various subjects.) Then eventually move on to advanced texts like Goldstein and Jackson.

You might find it helpful to take advantage of resources like MIT's OpenCourseWare to guide your studies.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You've finished Goldstein but do not remember any calculus?

 

[Vanadium 50]

More generally....

To read a physics paper requires a great, great deal of background knowledge. Most papers are written by experts for other experts. As people say, this will take years. A bachelors degree in the US takes 4 years and a PhD average about seven, so that's 11 years. Of full time study). Call it 20,000 hours and maybe that can be cut to 10,000 with judicious trimming. Maybe.

Finding 10,000 hours is not easy. Two hours a night and 5 days a week is 1000 weeks - almost 20 years. Are you prepared for that?

 

[Giovanni04]

Some initial thoughts
1) Do you want to study in Italian or English?
2) Have you seen what theoretical math looks like?
3) What do you mean by this?
4) You self-studied Halliday and Resnick. Did you do problems?
5) Do you have your father’s textbooks? If so, what are they?

1) English
2) I'd say so, I enjoyed theorems of differentials and calculus and of some other topics I can't remember now.
3) I want to be able to read the scientific papers, on cosmology and QFT at least. But that's the end goal, first of all I care about understanding the World through physics
4) yes I did a lot of problems, on electromagnetismas well. I used a couple of italian books alongside as well. my father used to find good problems for me, involving classical mechanics and electromagnetism together.
5) When he moved to a new house he threw them out, so not anymore.

Sorry I missed that. What about EM, Relativity and QM?

I did extensive study and problems of EM at Halliday Resnick level. No Relativity or QM yet.

You've finished Goldstein but do not remember any calculus?

I wish I had I finished Halliday Resnick or quite so, I did study from it mechanics and EM thoroughly. I can't remember now if the book included other subjects though.

Finding 10,000 hours is not easy. Two hours a night and 5 days a week is 1000 weeks - almost 20 years. Are you prepared for that?

Yes, I have no time limit, I enjoy doing it, I prefer that than playing video games or watching tv series, unless I'm very tired of course

If your goal is to learn physics, you might want to hold off on focusing too much on the theorems and proofs at this stage and concentrate instead on being able to do calculations and developing intuition.

Good point!

What scientific papers? What subfield? You will very likely not be able to understand any physics paper in any subfield. I generally understand papers in my field (particle physics) or fields that are closely related. That does not mean I understand papers in other fields that are not as related (condensed matter theory, etc).

Cosmology, relativity and QFT, maybe astrophysics. But that's just the end goal, what I care is to start this learning journey, learning more about the world bit by bit, as deeply as possible. To start with classical mechanics and when it will be time to make choiches I'll go for the fields I mentioned.


Thank you

 

[Giovanni04]

You might find it helpful to take advantage of resources like MIT's OpenCourseWare to guide your studies.

I'm looking into it, it looks great! thanks

 

[Orodruin]

Cosmology, relativity and QFT, maybe astrophysics. But that's just the end goal, what I care is to start this learning journey, learning more about the world bit by bit, as deeply as possible.

Honestly, why do you not enlist at university if you are so interested? Being guided by experts in a designed program is going to be way faster than anything you do on your own. Even then we are talking order decades rather than years until you start becoming proficient enough to read new papers. And that’s full time studies. If you want to have a job and learn on your spare time, it will be longer. Possibly several decades and possibly never.

The subjects you have mentioned are extremely diverse and even experts would generally not claim to understand any paper in any subfield of those.

 

[jtbell]

In the US at least, after studying a first-year textbook like Halliday/Resnick, the next step in classical mechanics is not Goldstein (which is usually used in graduate-school-level courses, and (I think) sometimes in advanced undergraduate courses, but instead an intermediate level book such as Marion/Thornton, Symon or Fowles/Cassiday.

Textbooks in the other basic areas of physics have a similar three-stage pattern.

 

[Frabjous]

Looking at the short term I would suggest,

Vibrations and Waves by French
Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/
You should also consider a modern physics book.

I’d recommend going non-theoretical for calculus. Pick up a cheap copy of whatever the local university is using.
Vector Calc by Marsden and Tromba
Tenenbaum is fine for ODE’s

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Tenenbaum is cool. But a better alternative near the same price, is the ode book by Ross. I find it more readable and offers better explanations imo.

There is the version tutled introduction to ordinary differential equations. The one titled ordinary differential equations contains the intro book, but has material for a second semester.

 

[Giovanni04]

Honestly, why do you not enlist at university if you are so interested? Being guided by experts in a designed program is going to be way faster than anything you do on your own. Even then we are talking order decades rather than years until you start becoming proficient enough to read new papers. And that’s full time studies. If you want to have a job and learn on your spare time, it will be longer. Possibly several decades and possibly never.

Yeah.. I thought a lot about it, but that's not really a possibility for me now, for many reasons. Perhaps in a couple of years.



Thanks to everyone, you helped me have a clearer mind and how to go about this journey.

I will start with the MIT online courses, from physics 1 I think. If I seem to remember everything I'll skip to the calculus course and then physics 2.
I'll keep in mind the books you suggested, in case I need some support for the courses.

I think I'll need a refreshment on algebra and trigonometry. I was thinking about Precalculus by Stewart, or do you have better suggestions?

 

[PeroK]

I find Paul's Online Notes an excellent resource for all things calculus (and some pre calculus):

https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/

 

[Muu9]

If you do find yourself wanting to do some proof-based calculus, Courant&John and Apostol are both rigorous and focus on proofs, but also feature physics applications which Spivak doesn't. Courant&John is more physics-oriented, but also has harder exercises that are less closely linked to the text itself.

The MIT courses have great problems in the Psets and exams