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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    List Stem
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on identifying authoritative and comprehensive textbooks in STEM fields, referred to as "STEM Bibles." Participants suggest various texts across disciplines, emphasizing their depth, respect within the community, and comprehensive coverage of subjects. Key physics texts mentioned include "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," "Classical Mechanics" by Goldstein, and "Classical Electrodynamics" by Jackson. Quantum mechanics discussions highlight the lack of consensus on a definitive "bible," with suggestions like Griffiths and Ballentine being debated for their comprehensiveness and authority. Other fields such as medical physiology and electrical engineering are also discussed, with texts like Guyton's "Medical Physiology" and Sze's "Physics of Semiconductor Devices" being proposed. The conversation reflects a blend of personal preferences and community standards, with some participants questioning the criteria for a book to achieve "bible" status, particularly regarding size and depth. The dialogue showcases a rich exchange of opinions on essential literature across various scientific disciplines.
  • #91
Scrumhalf said:
Here are the old and the New testament on my bookshelf at work, with a couple of other beauties in the middle!

View attachment 225355

I have a Born and Wolf (Wolf only), Gaskill and Goodman autographed set, I won't take them to the office for fear they'll disappear.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, dextercioby and Scrumhalf
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #93
analogdesign said:
Wow, great book! I just got it at the campus library this morning. I can't believe I'd never heard of it.
Gotta love a book that references McMaster Carr on the first page.
 
  • Like
Likes Dr Transport and gmax137
  • #95
analogdesign said:
Sedra and Smith is good for a student, but it is way too basic to be considered a "bible" of circuit design. I haven't cracked my copy in probably 15 years.

The OP defined bible in this case as "more-or-less everything one need to know about the subject." Sedra and Smith does not reach that level.

The other books, however, do. If you read Analysis and Design of Analog Integrated Circuits, for instance, you could successfully design an analog integrated circuit.
So more than 1600 pages of analog and digital circuits in Sedra and Smith doesn't cut it?!

WTF?!
 
  • #96
Mathematics Bibles
(I know a couple have been mentioned before. I repeat just to put them into context.)

Handbooks:
"Handbook of Mathematics", Bronshtein and Semendyayev
"Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers", Granino Korn and Theresa Korn
"Handbook of Mathematics for Engineers and Scientists", Polyanin and Manzhirov
"CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae", Daniel Zwillinger
"Handbook of Mathematics", Thierry Vialar

Mathematical Logic:
"Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic", Peter Hinman

Model Theory:
"Model Theory", Wilfrid Hodges

Set Theory:
"Set Theory", Thomas Jech

Abstract Algebra:
"Basic Algebra", vols I and II. Nathan Jacobson

Category Theory:
"Handbook of Categorical Algebra", vols 1, 2 and 3. Francis Borceux

Calculus:
"Calculus", vols 1 and 2. Tom Apostol

Classical Differential Geometry (in 3D):
"Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces", Manfredo do Carmo

Differential Geometry (on manifolds):
"A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry", vols 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Michael Spivak

General Topology:
"Topology", Munkres

Algebraic Topology:
"Algebraic Topology", Allen Hatcher

Algebraic Geometry (with schemes):
"Algebraic Geometry", Robin Hartshorne

And if you have a screw loose, read Grothendieck's EGA.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and Demystifier
  • #97
FourEyedRaven said:
And if you have a screw loose, read Grothendieck's EGA.
:DD

Back on topic. I'm wondering, can Roger Penrose's 'The Road To Reality' (2001) be considered as a Bible? Apart from its 1100 page format, it is definitely the "broadest" single book I have ever read on physics, spanning and unifying perspectives and ideas in mathematics and physics from the point of view of a mathematical physicist. The only other book I can even think of coming anywhere close is 'The Foundation of Science' (1912) by Henri Poincaré, which by contemporary standards is woefully outdated for physics per se and nowhere near as explicitly mathematical, but extremely useful as a historical and philosophy of science text.

For those not in the know, The Road to Reality literally starts off from elementary mathematics, building its way up to graduate level mathematics in the course of 400 pages. Penrose then introduces classical physics and modern physics in the next 400 pages using the mathematics from the earlier chapters. The remaining pages are devoted to a few important topics in mathematical and theoretical physics, which again build on the earlier mathematical basis. During the entire book he leaves many exercises for the reader to complete, ranging from simple to arcane.

Both the depth and comprehensiveness are considerable, though the book obviously does not contain literally everything one needs to know in a single particular subject which it treats (it would need to be way over 10000 pages in order to do that). On the contrary, I would say that it illuminates both mathematical intuition and directly applicable and procedural physics knowledge along with their interconnections to other fields in mathematics and physics; these are all separate things one expects that a good physicist should know.

It is also somewhat difficult to judge the book in this day and age, seeing practically all physicists today are specialists, while the book very much has the approach of a generalist; this also explains why we don't see any books like this summarizing all of physics anymore, certainly not written by one person and certainly not including as much mathematics as is done here. A few of my old physics professors actually said large sections of the mathematical chapters are beyond them, while the physics sections are mostly good, yet not always treated in depth enough for them or necessarily aligned with their own perspectives on matters.

I believe Penrose has mainly written the book for multiple audiences, namely:
1) (physics) students, in order to lure them into mathematical and/or theoretical physics.
2) practicing physicists who have already chosen a career path outside theoretical physics, but remain interested in it.
3) mathematicians wanting to learn more physics.
4) physicists, who went on to become philosophers of physics/science, who need a quick introduction or refresher into any of these topics for their work.
5) interested 'layman', i.e. (retired) engineers and scientists from other fields who are unafraid of mathematics.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #98
FourEyedRaven said:
Mathematics Bibles
(I know a couple have been mentioned before. I repeat just to put them into context.)

Handbooks:
"Handbook of Mathematics", Bronshtein and Semendyayev
"Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers", Granino Korn and Theresa Korn
"Handbook of Mathematics for Engineers and Scientists", Polyanin and Manzhirov
"CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae", Daniel Zwillinger
"Handbook of Mathematics", Thierry Vialar

Mathematical Logic:
"Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic", Peter Hinman

Model Theory:
"Model Theory", Wilfrid Hodges

Set Theory:
"Set Theory", Thomas Jech

Abstract Algebra:
"Basic Algebra", vols I and II. Nathan Jacobson

Category Theory:
"Handbook of Categorical Algebra", vols 1, 2 and 3. Francis Borceux

Calculus:
"Calculus", vols 1 and 2. Tom Apostol

Classical Differential Geometry (in 3D):
"Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces", Manfredo do Carmo

Differential Geometry (on manifolds):
"A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry", vols 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Michael Spivak

General Topology:
"Topology", Munkres

Algebraic Topology:
"Algebraic Topology", Allen Hatcher

Algebraic Geometry (with schemes):
"Algebraic Geometry", Robin Hartshorne

And if you have a screw loose, read Grothendieck's EGA.
I read somewhere that EGA has in it solutions to the exercises from Heartshorne, so if you aren't necessarily a genius and you want to understand then you are obliged to read EGA; I wonder how many mistakes are left there.
 
  • #99
MathematicalPhysicist said:
I read somewhere that EGA has in it solutions to the exercises from Heartshorne, so if you aren't necessarily a genius and you want to understand then you are obliged to read EGA; I wonder how many mistakes are left there.

I guess... it seems like a recipee for insanity, though. :oldbiggrin: If nothing else, for the amount of typos in those volumes, especially the SGA, I assume. There are intermediary texts between Hartshorne and basic algebraic geometry that can make it easier to understand. But if you want to read EGA, and the material in the SGA that was supposed to go into later volumes of EGA, then start here. I'd say they're the ultimate Algebraic Geometry Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éléments_de_géométrie_algébrique
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séminaire_de_Géométrie_Algébrique_du_Bois_Marie

 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact
  • #100
FourEyedRaven said:
I guess... it seems like a recipee for insanity, though. :oldbiggrin: If nothing else, for the amount of typos in those volumes, especially the SGA, I assume. There are intermediary texts between Hartshorne and basic algebraic geometry that can make it easier to understand. But if you want to read EGA, and the material in the SGA that was supposed to go into later volumes of EGA, then start here. I'd say they're the ultimate Algebraic Geometry Bible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éléments_de_géométrie_algébrique
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séminaire_de_Géométrie_Algébrique_du_Bois_Marie


It really depends how deep do you want to go, down the rabbit hole.


If you want to stay sane, then you are in the wrong occupation anyways.
Take the blue pill!
 
  • Like
Likes FourEyedRaven
  • #101
Auto-Didact said:
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.
 
  • #102
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.
 
  • Like
Likes olddog, Demystifier and vanhees71
  • #103
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Continuing

Polya How to Solve it

G Boole. These are classics.
The Mathematical Analysis of Logic
Treatise on Differential Equations
Calculus of Finite Differences.
 
  • #105
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.
 
  • Like
Likes smodak and vanhees71
  • #106
atyy said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #107
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.
 
  • #108
Demystifier said:
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".
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact
  • #109
Demystifier said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #110
Demystifier said:
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?
 
  • #111
martinbn said:
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.
 
  • #112
fluidistic said:
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.
 
  • #113
Auto-Didact said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact
  • #115
fluidistic said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Truecrimson
  • #116
martinbn said:
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.
 
  • #117
fluidistic said:
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.
 
  • #118
martinbn said:
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.
 
  • #119
martinbn said:
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.
 
  • #120

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
19K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
337
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K