Mathematical background concerning classical physics/mechanics.

AI Thread Summary
To effectively grasp classical mechanics, a solid understanding of calculus, differential equations, and vector analysis is essential. Familiarity with calculus of variations, matrices, determinants, and tensors will also be beneficial. Recommended resources include Arfken's and Boas's books for foundational mathematics, followed by advanced texts like Goldstein's and Griffiths for classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Practicing complex calculations is crucial for mastering the concepts. Additionally, for classical thermodynamics, "Heat and Thermodynamics" by Zemansky and Dittman is suggested as a key resource.
learnings_sweet
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello, I was wondering what mathematical skills I would need to have in order to grasp classical mechanics as a whole; Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian.

I already have a small understanding of some classical concepts; such as motion in a two dimensional space (circular/arc motion, mechanics of a simple pendulum, projectiles, equilibrium, slopes etc.) and basic wave properties (phase, harmonics, superposition etc.). However, in pretty much all of these I was left with a concept and plugging numbers into what seemed as pretty abstract equations... I would really like to try and understand mathematical proofs behind these concepts, such as how to use calculus to derive centripetal acceleration to simply mention one.

If you would be able to cite good resources, mostly on line as cash is a bit of an issue, it would be much appreciated!

Side Note: If it helps I have an AS level year of maths and physics behind me, just so you can gauge the level of detail I'm capable of understanding.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The math you need for understanding classical mechanics is not much. You should only have good understanding of calculus, differential equations and some vector analysis and also be able to follow/do some intense and long calculations which you gather only by practice. A knowledge of calculus of variations will also help you. And also matrices and determinants and just a little about tensors. You should be able to use different coordinate systems too.
If you want books that covers all of these(except calculus which you should know before learning other parts), I can suggest you Arfken's. Boas's book is good too but its on a little lower level than Arfken's.
Then you should read advanced books on classical mechanics e.g. Goldstein's, Marion's, Kibble's or any book in the same level.
But if you also mean classical electromagnetism, then things get a little different. Now you should be really good at vector analysis and again know a little about tensors. And a good book I can suggest is the one by Griffiths.
 
Welcome to PF!

From my own experience, you calculus 1,2and3, differential equations and possibly linear algebra with that you should be well grounded to tackle it.
 
Thank you very much :)
 
Shyan said:
The math you need for understanding classical mechanics is not much. You should only have good understanding of calculus, differential equations and some vector analysis and also be able to follow/do some intense and long calculations which you gather only by practice. A knowledge of calculus of variations will also help you. And also matrices and determinants and just a little about tensors. You should be able to use different coordinate systems too.
If you want books that covers all of these(except calculus which you should know before learning other parts), I can suggest you Arfken's. Boas's book is good too but its on a little lower level than Arfken's.
Then you should read advanced books on classical mechanics e.g. Goldstein's, Marion's, Kibble's or any book in the same level.
But if you also mean classical electromagnetism, then things get a little different. Now you should be really good at vector analysis and again know a little about tensors. And a good book I can suggest is the one by Griffiths.
Thanks again, any ideas on what I should know regarding classical thermodynamics as well?
 
Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman will teach you what you need!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top