Jump in abstraction in textbooks

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 392791
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jump Textbooks
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences in complexity and abstraction between graduate-level and upper-division undergraduate courses compared to introductory and upper-division undergraduate courses. Participants note that the transition from Halliday to Griffiths may not be as significant as from Griffiths to Jackson, with the latter being considered one of the hardest graduate textbooks. It is suggested that the jump in difficulty varies depending on the subject, with theoretical sciences presenting greater abstraction than applied sciences. The conversation also highlights the importance of mathematical rigor in graduate courses, which often emphasizes connections to advanced topics like topology and group theory. Overall, the consensus is that while there are notable differences in educational levels, the experience can vary significantly based on individual backgrounds and the specific subjects studied.
member 392791
Out of curiosity, is the difference between graduate level vs. upper division undergraduate larger than the difference between intro undergrad vs. upper division undergrad as far as treatment and abstraction of the subject

so halliday to griffith's a larger jump than griffith's to jackson?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Woopydalan said:
Out of curiosity, is the difference between graduate level vs. upper division undergraduate larger than the difference between intro undergrad vs. upper division undergrad as far as treatment and abstraction of the subject

so halliday to griffith's a larger jump than griffith's to jackson?
Not necessarily, but perhaps the gradient is greater for the pure or theoretical subjects as opposed to applied.

If one thinks of 2 year blocks: 2 years undergrad lower level, 2 years undergrad upper level, 2 years graduate master's, and 2 years graduate PhD, then there is a continuum.

The abstraction is greater in theoretical sciences than in the applied sciences.
 
Woopydalan said:
Out of curiosity, is the difference between graduate level vs. upper division undergraduate larger than the difference between intro undergrad vs. upper division undergrad as far as treatment and abstraction of the subject

so halliday to griffith's a larger jump than griffith's to jackson?
It depends too much. The jump to Jackson, in this instance, is probably larger but Griffiths (all imo) slightly below average in difficulty (due to his excellent presentation) and Jackson is considered one of the hardest graduate textbooks.

I found the jump between LD and UD and UD to graduate to be about the same, on average.
 
Woopydalan said:
Out of curiosity, is the difference between graduate level vs. upper division undergraduate larger than the difference between intro undergrad vs. upper division undergrad as far as treatment and abstraction of the subject

so halliday to griffith's a larger jump than griffith's to jackson?
Jorriss is very right. but it requires mathematics for Jump.
If you have Read Halliday then just do a AP Calculus BC book and jump to Griffiths.
And if you have done Griffiths then just do Apostol Calculus and jump to Jackson.
 
I don't think one can speak in generalities.

The difficulties for me in going from Halliday to whatever is going from integral to differential versions of Maxwell's equations, especially trying to understand why Stokes's Theorem is true. Another, even in Halliday is that things are built up historically. Many recommend Purcell as intermediate between Halliday and Griffths, but I found Purcell very difficult. My personal favourite is David Dugdale's Essentials of Electromagnetism which is ahistorical, and starts from Maxwell's equations, giving a birdseye view of the subject right at the start.

Similarly I think quantum mechanics is very difficult if one takes the historical route. If you just learn straight away about it from the postulates, it's much easier. Same with special relativity. Mechanics has long been taught from Newton's laws, so there is no reason not to present the newer subjects in the easy way, and skip all the history.

Of course a bit of history is needed, to supply the data and background.
 
Last edited:
I have noticed that graduate courses seem to be more rigorous with the math than undergrad classes. Some of the math in undergrad classes felt a "little hand wavy". Wile the math in grad classes is not done as rigorous as in pure math courses, it seems like there is more of an emphasis on it and to connections of certain areas with physics. For example, in my graduate quantum mechanics course, we used a lot of language from topology that may not get mentioned in undergrad. One thing you will realize in graduate physics is that topology and group theory creeps up everywhere. It's really beautiful.
 
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
10
Views
278
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top