Applied Mathematics for physicists books (poll)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around recommendations for mathematics books suitable for physicists, particularly at the undergraduate and beginning graduate levels. Participants express a preference for classic texts, highlighting Morse and Feshbach as a strong choice due to its rigorous problem sets that are believed to prepare students well for theoretical physics. Concerns about the pedagogical approach of these older texts are raised, noting that while they require effort to learn from, they remain relevant despite their age. The conversation also critiques newer physics texts for lacking substance, favoring established works like Schiff's book on quantum mechanics. Mary Boas's "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences" is mentioned as a recommended resource, though opinions on its effectiveness vary. Overall, the consensus leans towards valuing the depth and tradition of older mathematical texts for physicists.

Which of the following books do your prefer?(if you can, write the reason you prefer the book below)


  • Total voters
    20
Joker93
Messages
502
Reaction score
37
Hello, i want to get a mathematics book for physicists, and i have stumbled across some good books, but as i have not read them yet, i can't really decide which one to buy. So, which one do you prefer and why? Also, do you have any other book to recommend?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since you haven't really given any details about what you like and what you're looking for, I'm going to assume this is about what *I* would buy. In that case, my answer would be: none of them.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn
micromass said:
Since you haven't really given any details about what you like and what you're looking for, I'm going to assume this is about what *I* would buy. In that case, my answer would be: none of them.
Well, it's just about undergraduate/advanced undergraduate/beginning graduate level mathematical methods courses.
What would you buy?
 
Boas
 
Jeffreys & Jeffreys
 
Wow, the poll shows a wide spread of opinions!
 
Hard to read, but I do like Morse and Feshbach, followed by Courant and Hilbert...
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest and vanhees71
Dr Transport said:
Hard to read, but I do like Morse and Feshbach, followed by Courant and Hilbert...
I would like to check out Morse and Feshbach's book, but I would like to ask you the reasons of why do you prefer it?
 
It is a classic and I always figured if you could do problems out of that book, you'd make a decent theoretical physicist
 
  • #10
Dr Transport said:
It is a classic and I always figured if you could do problems out of that book, you'd make a decent theoretical physicist
Is it pedagogical? Does it have figures where it should have?
 
  • #11
If memory serves me correctly, it only has figures showing you the different coordinate systems.

as for pedagogical, you an learn from it but it takes effort, it isn't an easy set of books.
 
  • #12
Dr Transport said:
If memory serves me correctly, it only has figures showing you the different coordinate systems.

as for pedagogical, you an learn from it but it takes effort, it isn't an easy set of books.
I just checked it out and it seems pretty good. But, due to its age, isn't it a bit dated?
 
  • #13
Math is math, sure it isn't a text on group theory, it is a book written during the 40's and 50's for the math needed to train a physicist, much of which you still need today.

I don't like a lot of the "new" texts in physics, too flashy, not enough substance. I'll go back to my well worn copy of Schiff well before I pick up Griffiths for QM as an example. My math references are the same, I use the ones I learned from and that have been on my shelf for 30 years, just because it is new, doesn't mean it is better. Multiple of my applied math courses professors had it on their shelf, if they didn't like it, it would not be there.
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #14
Adam Landos said:
Hello, i want to get a mathematics book for physicists, and i have stumbled across some good books, but as i have not read them yet, i can't really decide which one to buy. So, which one do you prefer and why? Also, do you have any other book to recommend?
Thanks!

You are late to this game. You need to do a forum search on "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Science" by Mary Boas. There have been numerous threads written about this book, and I have also explicitly recommended this book in my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay.

Zz.
 
  • #15
Dr Transport said:
Math is math, sure it isn't a text on group theory, it is a book written during the 40's and 50's for the math needed to train a physicist, much of which you still need today.

I don't like a lot of the "new" texts in physics, too flashy, not enough substance. I'll go back to my well worn copy of Schiff well before I pick up Griffiths for QM as an example. My math references are the same, I use the ones I learned from and that have been on my shelf for 30 years, just because it is new, doesn't mean it is better. Multiple of my applied math courses professors had it on their shelf, if they didn't like it, it would not be there.
I am at a very young age, but I can agree with you on this. I use a mix of new and old books and I agree with you about Schiff's book. It's simply amazing as it offers amazing insights. If you have any other book in the style of Morse's and Feshbach's book, please recommend it!
 
  • #16
Morse and Feshback along with Schiff is part of the International Series in Pure and Applied Physics, all fine books, older ones included, but really good, well written texts and monographs.

I agree with ZapperZ, Boas is a fine text, but I am not as enamored with it as he is.
 
  • Like
Likes Joker93
  • #17
I second Dr Transport's opinion. Very much ! I have both copies: both 2 books from Feshbach and Schiff's copy. Schiff is a hard core brainer, but f* rewarding.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
I like "big Hassani", but I have voted for other: Szekeres.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
159
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
0
Views
892
Back
Top