Looking for a good book on harmonic oscillations

AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about finding better resources for understanding wave phenomena, participants recommend several textbooks. F. S. Crawford Jr.'s "Waves," part of the Berkley Physics Course, is highlighted as a classic and accessible option. Another strong recommendation is French's "Vibrations and Waves" from the MIT Introductory Physics Course, noted for its organization and clarity compared to Crawford. Some participants reflect on their changing perceptions of these texts over time, suggesting that initial difficulties with a book may stem from a lack of foundational knowledge. They emphasize that learning is a cumulative process, where exposure to better resources often occurs after struggling with less effective ones. This evolution in understanding can lead to a newfound clarity in previously challenging texts.
amazingAZN
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all, I'm in a intro to wave phenomenon class this semester and unfortunately, our textbook is written by the professor and is really not very good at all. So I'm liking for any recommendations on D.E. books that do well with explaining harmonics. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A classic, that is usually easy to find in libraries, is F. S. Crawford Jr., Waves, Berkley Physics Course vol. 3, McGraw-Hill (1968).
 
DrClaude said:
A classic, that is usually easy to find in libraries, is F. S. Crawford Jr., Waves, Berkley Physics Course vol. 3, McGraw-Hill (1968).

I second that.
But, IMBO, the best introduction to oscillation and waves one could hope for is French's "Vibrations and Waves" from the MIT Introductory Physics Course.

It is IMO more organized than Crawford (a book I love and treasure but not the clearest of them all...).

(EDIT: in my first answer I was sure I had read "French" and not "Crawford"...)
 
Last edited:
Are you talking about QM or classical mechanics?
 
When I was an undergraduate, our text was French and I found it totally opaque (it didn't help that the lecturer was atrocious).

I picked it up again last week and found it a model of clarity.

I'm not sure what to conclude from this.
 
Well, learning is a dynamic and cumulative process. Ever noticed that the best books on a given subject have an alarming tendency to come up after you have studied it on worse textbooks? :) Sometimes what makes a book totally opaque is the fact that the author has forgotten what he did not know the first time he faced the subject. A little thing given for granted here, another little thing given for granted there, and the beginner has lost his path. It is normal for those who have already been exposed to the subject to fill in the minor omissions, and this might be the reason you now find French a model of clarity now.

Moreover, now you are probably better equipped to pick up the references to other fields of study, like optics, EM, control theory, circuit theory, quantum mechanics, that back then appeared just out of the blue.

Sometimes 'less clear' books are needed as intermediary towards the real masterpieces.
 
Last edited:
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...
Back
Top