Other List of STEM Masterworks in Physics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics...

[Demystifier]

I'm wondering, can Roger Penrose's 'The Road To Reality' (2001) be considered as a Bible?

I wouldn't say so. It is written on a semi-popular level, so as such it is not very authoritative. If you want to seriously learn some topic in physics or mathematics, that's not a book you will use.

 

[e-pie]

Did anyome forget to mention Knepper Kolenkow's An Introduction to Mechanics?

The best book bridging the gap between school and advanced college studies.

I liked the examples a lot. I even talked to Dr Knepper through email.

VI Arnold's ODE, PDE, Mathematical Methods. Very hard books. Mostly focusses on geometrical approach of ODE, PDE. A great mathematical physicist.

Tom M Apostol Calculus Volume 1,2 Mathematical Analysis. I think the best calculus book out there for mathematicians. It is very rigorous text and almost similar to analysis.

Sherbert Bartle/Royden, Rudin Real Analysis.

Lars V Ahlfors Complex Analysis.
From Wikipedia/Lars Ahlfors

"His book Complex Analysis (1953) is the classic text on the subject and is almost certainly referenced in any more recent text which makes heavy use of complex analysis"

Big names,

Richard Courant
David Hillbert
Mathematical Methods for Physicist.
Also on same topic by Arfken Weber, ML Boas.

Algebra BL Waerden

Spivak A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry Volume 1-5 Spivak.

Theory of Differential Equations Part 1-4 Volume 1-6.A very old book.

Euclid Elements Book 1-13
Einstein Theory of Relativity

Please let me know if I repeated any names already mentioned.

 

[e-pie]

Continuing

Molecular Biology of the Cell Watson
iGenetics Russell
Thermodynamics Fermi

Though I have read parts of iGenetics.

University Chemistry by Mahan
Inorganic Chemistry Volume 1,2 IL Finar

Any book by Walter Rudin

Zorich Analysis 1,2
Coddington Levinson Differential Equations
PM Cohn Groups, Rings, Fields
IN Herstein Topics in Algebra

Big Name GH Hardy Pure Mathematics, Number Theory, Inequalities

Cauchy Schwarz Masterclass (Forgot the author)

Below were too costly for me. So never had the chance to read them.

Disquisitiones Arithmeticae by Carl Friedrich Gauss
Principia Newton
The Science of Mechanics(author?) Some sources state that Einstein got the idea of GR by reading this book.
Elements of Algebra, Analysis of Infinite, differential calculus Euler.
Cours d'analyse Cauchy.

Cauchy, Euler, Gauss where the only mathematicians to know all of Mathematics at their time.

 

[e-pie]

Continuing

Polya How to Solve it

G Boole. These are classics.
The Mathematical Analysis of Logic
Treatise on Differential Equations
Calculus of Finite Differences.

 

[olddog]

I concur that Kleppner and kolenkow should be there.

Morse and Feshbach: Methods of Theoretical Physics Vols 1 and 2

One, that I haven't noticed glancing over the pages.

Quantum Mechanics Vols 1 and 2: Cohen-Tannoudji.

 

[fluidistic]

It's disheartening to see Ballentine's garbage personal theory promoted.

I have found a harsh critics of Ballentine's book, in particular the chapter on irreducible spherical tensors.
I do not how serious the critics is, i.e. how correct it is, but if it's correct, man, I'd stay away from that book for sure. I.e. it's not fixing a typo, it's a nonsensical formula spreading all over the place.
So any QM guru, please let us know your opinion on the critics (not on the book!).
Enjoy: http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~raggio/QM2/bzt.pdf.

 

[Demystifier]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

 

[fluidistic]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

Does it mean that the critics I linked above are well founded?
If so, ok I can understand your preference, because you're already well acquainted with QM and can discern between bs and serious/correct text. But most students will assume the book is correct and try to learn from it. They can doubt on whether there's a typo here and there, but when it's a whole chapter that spreads errors (not typos) of understanding with meaningless mathematical expressions, it has to be publicly well known so that students do not try to decipher a senseless text.
I would prefer a book as of type 2 with the faulty chapter(s) removed entirely. So the book is very good, original, and maybe not 100% correct but at least sensical. I.e. the errors may be typos, and possibly a few math errors here and there that do not change the conclusions. But in no way there should be nonsensical mathematical expressions all over the place. I'd call that "Book 3" because we're not limited to "Book 1" and "Book 2".

 

[Auto-Didact]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

I agree, but I disagree with having such a book as a textbook for students; the book should only be presented to grad students if all known to be false parts are clearly distinguished from the rest of the text.

It's easy to justify this line of reasoning: just imagine the consequences of having a textbook with patently false i.e. counterproductive statements in essential parts of the book become standard in practice.

It isn't hard to imagine, in chemistry or electrical engineering for example, that the occurrence of such a scenario could easily lead to many unnecessary financial losses in the field due to systemic error and at worst even to death in the lab.

 

[martinbn]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

I have read less than 90% of Ballentine, so I could have easily missed the errors, but what are those errors that many people are complaining about?

 

[fluidistic]

I have read less than 90% of Ballentine, so I could have easily missed the errors, but what are those errors that many people are complaining about?

See post #106.

 

[Demystifier]

Does it mean that the critics I linked above are well founded?

I don't know, I'm not an expert in this aspects of QM.

 

[Demystifier]

I agree, but I disagree with having such a book as a textbook for students; the book should only be presented to grad students if all known to be false parts are clearly distinguished from the rest of the text.

Sure, I would never recommend Ballentine as a textbook for undergraduates.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

Demystifier,

Would Greiner's 4 volumes on quantum mechanics, together, qualify for bible status?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674586/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540600736/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540580808/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[martinbn]

See post #106.

I don't understand his point. Can you elaborate? He says that the problem is that Ballantine confuses the rotation matrix $D^{(k)}$ with the matrix associated with the rotation operator $\bf R$. But if you look in the book carefully that is how Ballentine defines $D^{(k)}$, it is the matrix of the rotation operator in that particular basis.

 

[fluidistic]

I don't understand his point. Can you elaborate? He says that the problem is that Ballantine confuses the rotation matrix $D^{(k)}$ with the matrix associated with the rotation operator $\bf R$. But if you look in the book carefully that is how Ballentine defines $D^{(k)}$, it is the matrix of the rotation operator in that particular basis.

No, I cannot elaborate at all, hence me asking the QM gurus (like you!) to know whether the critics was serious or not.

 

[martinbn]

No, I cannot elaborate at all, hence me asking the QM gurus (like you!) to know whether the critics was serious or not.

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

p.s. I am nowhere near a QM guru.

 

[fluidistic]

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

p.s. I am nowhere near a QM guru.

I think they have assumed the critics of post #106 were correctly founded, in which case there would be errors all over the place in that book chapter. But if you've debunked the critics, there is nothing left.

 

[Demystifier]

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

Me and @atyy complain about some other aspects. Ballentine argues that the idea of wave-function collapse is completely wrong, and based on this he concludes that the quantum Zeno effect does not exist (which in fact is a measured effect). When analyzed more deeply where does his error come from, it turns out that it originates from his failure to understand the importance of quantum decoherence. Even though decoherence by itself is not collapse, decoherence is an important step towards understanding why the collapse is OK as an effective description of quantum phenomenology. Ballentine fails to understand that.

 

[Demystifier]

Demystifier,

Would Greiner's 4 volumes on quantum mechanics, together, qualify for bible status?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674586/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540600736/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540580808/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It qualifies by most of the criteria (except that it is not cited very frequently), but why stop on the 4 volumes? The full Greiner series has 14 books.

 

[Dr Transport]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

Textbooks need to be 100% accurate, speculative theories and insights are for monographs.

 

[martinbn]

Me and @atyy complain about some other aspects. Ballentine argues that the idea of wave-function collapse is completely wrong, and based on this he concludes that the quantum Zeno effect does not exist (which in fact is a measured effect). When analyzed more deeply where does his error come from, it turns out that it originates from his failure to understand the importance of quantum decoherence. Even though decoherence by itself is not collapse, decoherence is an important step towards understanding why the collapse is OK as an effective description of quantum phenomenology. Ballentine fails to understand that.

That's just his choice of an interpretation. You wouldn't argue that any book (quite a few of them) that presents QM with collapse is erroneous because there are ways to do it without collapse, would you? The quantum Zeno effect is just one paragraph, which is more of a remark than anything else. Hardly 10% of the book.

 

[Demystifier]

That's just his choice of an interpretation. You wouldn't argue that any book (quite a few of them) that presents QM with collapse is erroneous because there are ways to do it without collapse, would you? The quantum Zeno effect is just one paragraph, which is more of a remark than anything else. Hardly 10% of the book.

Perhaps. But just because the Ballentine's book is otherwise so good (in comparison with other books of that type) I am more austere towards relatively minor shortcomings than I am towards those of other books.

 

[Demystifier]

Textbooks need to be 100% accurate, speculative theories and insights are for monographs.

I agree. But most of the Ballentine's book is excellent even as a graduate textbook.

 

[Hypercube]

@Demystifier Would you consider this a "bible":

Mathematical Physics - Sadri Hassani

I won't pretend I read it all, I self-studied maybe quarter or third of it at best during summer (it was great fun). It seems to have high reputation on PF as a graduate level text on the matter.

 

[Demystifier]

@Demystifier Would you consider this a "bible":

Mathematical Physics - Sadri Hassani

Yes.

 

[Andrea B DG]

Here are some of the books in my library that I have studied form 10% to 100%.
Some are in french and one in italian but english translation exist.
I have used italics fonts for the books that helped me the most in the study of physics.

General Physics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics I - III, Feynman
Physique Générale I – III, Alonso & Finn

Mechanics
Mécanique, Landau & Lifchitz
Mécanique Analytique, Leech
Classical Mechanics, Goldstein

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos
Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Strogatz
An Experimental Approach to Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Tuffilaro et al

Electrodynamics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics II, Feynman
Classical Electrodynamics, Jackson
Computational Electrodynamics, Taflove

Quantum Mechanics
Mécanique Quantique volume 1 and 2 (now there is a volume 3), Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloë (CTDL)
Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, Feynman & Hibbs
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, P.A.M. Dirac
Lectures Quantum Mechanics, P.A.M. Dirac
Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Weinberg

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Electrodynamics, Feynman
Relativistic Electron Theory, Rose
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Bjorken & Drell

Quantum Fields Theory (here it is very difficult to find comprehensible and satisfactory literature from the physical and mathematical point of view)
Relativistic Quantum Fields, Bjorken & Drell
Quantum Field Theory, Mandl & Shaw
The Quantum Theory of Fields I, Weinberg
Quantum Field Theory - From Operator to Path Integrals, Huang
An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Peskin & Schroeder
Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Lancaster & Blundell
Gauge Theories in Particle Physics, Aitchinson & Hey, volume 1
Quantum Field Theory, Srednicki
An Into to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Cottingham & Greenwood

String Theory
A First Course in String Theory, Zwiebach

Statistical Physics
Statistical Mechanics, Huang
Physique Statistique, Landau & Lifchitz
Physique Statistique, Terleskii
Statistical Mechanics, Feynman
Thermal Physics, Kittel-Kroemer

Thermodynamics
Termodinamica, Fermi

Elasticity
Théorie de l’élasticité, Landau & Lifchitz

Fluids Dynamics
Mécanique des fluides, Landau & Lifchitz
Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Ferziger & Peric

Plasma Physics
Introduction to Plasma Physics, Chen

Lasers
Laser Physics, Sargent et al

Solid State Physics
Introduction to Solid State Physics, Kittel
Solid State Physics, Ashcroft and Mermin
Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules, Parr & Yang

Nuclear Physics
Introduction to Nuclear Physics, Enge

High Energy Physics
Introduction to High Energy Physics, Perkins
Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics, Bettini

Gravitation and Cosmology
Gravitation & Cosmology, Weinberg
Théorie des Champs, Landau & Lifchitz
Gravitation, Minster et al
Principles of Physical Cosmology, Peebles
The Early Universe, Kolb & Turner
Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects, Vilenkin and Shellard

Experimental Physics
The Art of Experimental Physics, Preston & Dietz

Climate
Physics of Climate, Peixoto
An Introduction to 3-dimensional Climate Modeling

 

[BPHH85]

The thread is already long and using the search function hasn't deliverd a result so I will recommend as a bible

Laser Physics
Lasers, Siegman

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's not big and heavy, but it is authoritative and complete:

Moon and Spencer, "Field Theory Handbook".

From the preface:
"Let us first state exactly what this book is and what it is not. It is a compendium of equations for the physicist and the engineer working with electrostatics, magnetostatics, electric currents, electromagnetic fields, heat flow, gravitation, diffusion, optics, or acoustics. It tabulates the properties of 40 coordinate systems, states the Laplace and Helmholtz equations in each coordinate system, and gives the separation equations and their solutions. But it is not a textbook and it does not cover relativistic and quantum phenomena."

 

[DarMM]

Here are my favorite books on Probability Theory:

Basic:
"Introduction to Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes" by Hossein Pishro-Nik (best introduction in my opinion)
"A First Course in Probability" by Sheldon Ross (only to supplement the above's section on combinatorics, Ross does it better)
"Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications" Vol I by William Feller (Detailed alternate presentation and a classic, tends to explain things in a different way to Pishro-Nik so useful reading afterward)

Alternate Viewpoints:
"Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E.T. Jaynes (Objective Bayesian approach, probability as extension of logic. Several interesting food for thought exercises and a good look into some common errors in statistical analysis. Very opinionated)
"Principles of Uncertainty" by Joseph Kadane (Subjective Bayesian à la De Finetti, best introduction to this view of probability as simply coherent beliefs guided by data and no unique best priors)

Kadane's first six chapters are Basic probability from the Subjective Bayesian viewpoint and are the equivalent of Pishro-Nik, Ross, Feller from that viewpoint. For the autodidact I think it might be fun to read in parallel with Pishro-Nik.

Advanced:
"Probability with Martingales" by David Williams
"Probability and Measure" by Patrick Billingsley

Two classics of Measure Theoretic Probability, I prefer the first but I'd recommend reading both.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I found a bible of analytical mechanics. Apparently THE bible.

"Analytical Mechanics: A Comprehensive Treatise on the Dynamics of Constrained Systems; For Engineers, Physicists, and Mathematicians"
by John G. Papastavridis
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195126971/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I found a bible of special relativity.

"Special Relativity: An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions", by Michael Tsamparlis.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3642038360/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[fluidistic]

There's a new condensed matter textbook called "Modern Condensed Matter Physics" by Girvin and Yang. I haven't had the opportunity to check it out yet (except from google books but only partially). Looks promising.

I wonder how it compares to "Introduction to many-body Physics" by Piers Coleman. I guess both might become two bibles.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I've been meaning to post this bible of topos theory for ages:

"Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium", by Peter T. Johnstone

https://www.amazon.com/dp/019852496X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[marcusl]

The lists so far are excellent. On the practical side I would add:

Smythe, Static and Dynamic Electricity. An amazing book!
Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory
Skolnik, Radar Handbook
Curlander and McDonough, Synthetic Aperture Radar
Balanis, Antenna Theory
Proakis, Digital Communications
Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, v. 1 & 2 (although I find him somewhat hard to read and personally prefer Manolakis, Statistical and Adaptive Signal Processing)
Horn and Johnson, Matrix Analysis

 

[boneh3ad]

Related question:
Many "bibles" (at least in my field) have been out of print for some time and are hard to find. What are some suggestions for finding out-of-print and hard-to-find books?

 

[gmax137]

I prowl used bookstores wherever I go. "Can I help you find anything?" "Yes, where's the nerd section..." Some of these places have 10,000 Tom Clancy paperbacks, and not much else, but I have made a few surprising finds this way. It depends on the area. I would think college towns would be the best bet. Grey Matter Books in Amherst Mass usually has a pretty good selection of science & math books, as does Bookbarn in Niantic CT.

Local public libraries will often have annual booksales. They typically ask people to donate books (in addition to thinning the library's holdings). Like the used bookstores, the selection varies by location. I got a copy of Bird Stewart & Lightfoot this way.

Online, I find that alibris.com is usually pretty good. Even amazon will turn up some goodies. This is more for when I know what I want. I like the bookstores for finding things I didn't know I needed :). Browsing lists online isn't fun for me.

I got some nice textbooks when my company decided that paper libraries were obsolete (idiots!). They told us we could take whatever we wanted. There's some I regret leaving behind but I have only so much space and available domestic patience.

 

[boneh3ad]

I've definitely picked up a handful of used goodies and new Dover editions at local bookstores, but I haven't identified the good stores in town since I moved to my current location.

I have also managed to poach a few classics from my department's library when they said they needed to make space. For the fluids/aerodynamics-minded folks, I got a Prandtl & Tietjens; a Shapiro; and a Hayes & Probstein that way.

 

[bhobba]

Those are certainly good books, but I am not convinced that they deserve the title of "bible". Does someone has other suggestions? Perhaps Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe?

I have some different bibles than those mentioned eg Landau Mechanics and Schwinger Electrodynamics. Trouble is they are not big like MTW etc Would the whole Landau and Lifchitz course In Theoretical Physics as mentioned by Vanhees and at least one other count?

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

I'd call only very outstanding textbooks "bibles". For me these are (in order of bible status and sorted in categories of 3 books/book series in any category, but only for theory, because I don't feel any experimental book deserves this title ;-)))

It's of course highly subjective, and

General theory books (including a broad overview over all topics: mechanics, classical electromagnetics, quantum mechanics)

A. Sommerfeld, Lectures on theoretical physics, 6 vols. (it's only classical physics but for me still the unreached favorite)

L. D. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Course on theoretical physics

R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Physics Lectures, 3 vols.

Classical electromagnetics

J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics

J. Schwinger, Classical electrodynamics

M. Schwartz, Principles of electrodynamics

General Relativity

C. W. Misner, K. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler Gravitation

S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology

M. Blau, Lecture notes on general relativity
http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html
Non-relativistic QM

P.A.M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics

W. Pauli, Wave mechanics

S. Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

Relativistic QFT

S. Weinberg, Quantum theory of fields, 3 vols.

A. Duncan, The conceptual framework of quantum field theory

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of the Standard Model

Statistical Mechanics

A. Katz, Principles of statistical mechanics

L. P. Kadanoff, G. Baym, Quantum Statistical Mechanics

H. Callen Thermodynamics

 

[andresB]

Not sure if anyone mentionen it already, but
https://www.amazon.es/dp/1482216981/

 

[bhobba]

Here are my favorite books on Probability Theory:

To me Feller has and always will be THE reference. But I wouldn't study it until after Ross including his other book you didn't mention - Probability Models.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Master Om]

By STEM I mean science, technology, engineering and math. By a bible, I mean a book which is comprehensive, big and heavy (both physically and intellectually), authoritative, and generally highly respected in the community as the standard book that contains more-or-less everything one needs to know about the subject.

The examples in physics are:

- general physics:
The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 volumes)

- classical mechanics:
H. Goldstein et al, Classical Mechanics

- classical electromagnetism:
J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics

- general relativity:
C.W Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation

- quantum mechanics:
Surprisingly, I don't know which of the standard QM textbooks would deserve this title.

- quantum information and computation:
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information

- quantum field theory:
the old testament: S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume I
the new testament: S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume II
(There is also the Volume III on supersymmetry, but it does not have such a high reputation.)

What are your examples?

In QM there are many books. But the one I like most is
Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications
by Nourdine Zettili.

 

[WWGD]

If I may make a more radical comment: What, if any STEM books are worth buying given that most or all the content is available online for free? Are STEM books, if not the whole current education system ananachronisms on their way out, gasping their last breaths?

 

[ZapperZ]

If I may make a more radical comment: What, if any STEM books are worth buying given that most or all the content is available online for free? Are STEM books, if not the whole current education system ananachronisms on their way out, gasping their last breaths?

Show me where a similar content to Boas's "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences" is available for free? Show me where a similar content to Mattuck's "A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in Many-Body Problem" is available free. Show me where a smilar content to Mahan's "Many-Particle Physics" is available for free.

Unless you are espousing pirated copies of such books, I don't see any other similar content that is available for free. And don't start with me on Wikipedia.

Zz.

 

[WWGD]

Show me where a similar content to Boas's "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences" is available for free? Show me where a similar content to Mattuck's "A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in Many-Body Problem" is available free. Show me where a smilar content to Mahan's "Many-Particle Physics" is available for free.

Unless you are espousing pirated copies of such books, I don't see any other similar content that is available for free. And don't start with me on Wikipedia.

Zz.

Not in a single source, but spread throughout. Maybe the worth of a book is having a coherent presentation by one author but most of the material can be found from different sources.

 

[ZapperZ]

Not in a single source, but spread throughout. Maybe the worth of a book is having a coherent presentation by one author but most of the material can be found from different sources.

BINGO!

A "text" isn't just a collection of information. A good text has not only content, but careful and thoughtful PRESENTATION.

We all have complaints where a teacher not know how to teach, or a college professor rambles on and on without much skill in teaching. None of these are due to faulty knowledge, but rather the lack of pedagogical skills in the presenter. This is what a good textbook has and a collection of information does not!

In my teaching, I spend the MAJORITY of the time thinking on HOW I'm going to present the material, and then try to do that in a way that the students at that level can understand. An author of a book has a similar responsibility because they often are aware of the target audience. Open any General Physics textbook, and inevitably, you'll find something that has no physics content, but instead, discuss problem-solving skills for that particular topic. See, for example, the many different "Problem-Solving tactics" boxes in Randall Knight's textbooks.

A textbook isn't just a collection of information.

Zz.

 

[WWGD]

Well, as long as I am made a prophet on the STEM bible, or at least in the Pastry bible, I am OK with that :).

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, as long as I am made a prophet on the STEM bible, or at least in the Pastry bible, I am OK with that :).

That is an anachronism on its last breaths.

Zz.

 

[WWGD]

I think you're not taking into account the high speed at which knowledge, information changes nowadays. Other than a core at an intro level, say undergrad, can you provide a coherent presentation that will be of value 5 or 10 years down the road? Edit: Would you buy a book that old on, say, networking, quantum chemistry/physics, etc?