Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics by V.I. Arnol'd

AI Thread Summary
"Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics" by V.I. Arnol'd is praised for its beauty and depth, offering a rigorous mathematical framework for classical mechanics. It is considered more challenging than Goldstein's text and is recommended for graduate-level studies. The discussion highlights that Arnol'd's book is not ideal for beginners; prior knowledge from texts like Goldstein or Calkin is suggested for a solid foundation. While some view Arnol'd's approach as a different conceptual perspective rather than merely adding rigor, caution is advised against overemphasizing his methodology. Overall, the book serves as a complement to more introductory texts, enriching the understanding of advanced mechanics.

For those who have used this book


  • Total voters
    12
Physics news on Phys.org
This is one of the most beautiful mathematical physics texts out there.
 
this is the text which starts with the idea of an affine space.somewhat tough as compared to Goldstein.
 
If you think Herbert Goldstein wrote in 800 pages is last edition all there is to write about non-quantum mechanics, there you are for a big surprise. There are at least 800 pages more to write about, and 400 of them you can find in this gem-book which I whole-heartedly reccomend for anyone doing graduate studies in physics.
 
Not sure if I'm supposed to start a new thread or ask this here...

I'm an engineering/physics student (senior undergrad) trying to self-study to get a better grounding in Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. Is this book accessible as a "mature" introduction to advanced mechanics, or is it more for people who already know the stuff and just want to frame it more mathematically? Put another way, am I better off working through something like Goldstein first and then coming to this book, or should I start with this book right away?
 
Definitely use something like Goldstein or Calkin first. You won't learn physics from Arnold's book, you'll just learn how to make the physics more mathematically rigorous. Personally I find the former to be much more important and interesting than the latter. Cheers.
 
^Yes Goldstein and Arnold complement each other quite well. I don't agree that the purpose of Arnold is to dress mechanics up with rigor. I think Arnold is uninterested in doing that. The book gives a different way of thinking conceptually about mechanics. Arnold has an interesting perspective. I would warn against becoming too enamoured with Arnolds approach as some readers do. It is not the one true way.

dextercioby said:
If you think Herbert Goldstein wrote in 800 pages is last edition all there is to write about non-quantum mechanics, there you are for a big surprise.
I actually think of Goldstein as a quantum mechanics book. It seems a bit more interested in laying a foundation for later study of quantum mechanics than doing classical mechanics for its own sake. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
lurflurf said:
I actually think of Goldstein as a quantum mechanics book.

Yes, exactly! It's like how think of Spivak's calculus actually being an algebraic geometry book.
Those textbook authors try to trick us!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
13
Views
17K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
9K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top