Atomic Modern Physics/Structure of Matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mépris
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the challenges faced in studying the Structure of Matter, particularly using the book "Modern Physics" by John Morrison, which is perceived as overly wordy and confusing. The individual seeks recommendations for alternative resources that offer more problems with solutions and worked examples, expressing a preference for materials that gradually increase in difficulty. They mention specific chapters of interest, including topics on the Hydrogen Atom, Many Electron Atoms, Particle Physics, and Nuclear Physics. The participant also shares past experiences with textbooks, noting a preference for clearer explanations, as seen with a previous Thermodynamics course. The conversation highlights the importance of finding suitable learning materials that cater to individual understanding and encourages open discussion of confusions to enhance comprehension. The individual plans to post questions in relevant forums as they continue their studies.
Mépris
Messages
847
Reaction score
11
Hi,

I will need to write an exam on Structure of Matter soon. The book the course is based on is Modern Physics by John Morrison. I feel like it's a bit too wordy, and confusing.

Do you know of any books that has more problems with solutions and/or many worked examples? Would a Schaum's Outline be an appropriate supplement? I learn better when I have worked examples, and problems that gradually increase in difficulty.

The chapters covered in the courses are 4 (Hydrogen Atom), 5 (Many Electron Atoms), 13 (Particle Physics), and 14 (Nuclear Physics). I have also uploaded an example exam that was provided to us. There are 3 questions. I would be most grateful if you could perhaps take a look at it, and then suggest a book. That way, you'd get a sense of what level the course is at.

Note: I don't go to a US university, and not all of my courses have suitable books prescribed. For e.g, my previous Thermo course used Atkins, and I found that book really confusing. After searching here, I found another book by Ira Levine that was a hell of a lot clearer, and I understood the derivations a lot better.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    36.1 KB · Views: 558
Physics news on Phys.org
One can have liking for one book over other, but the knowledge and what you understand or are able to solve should not be too much book-centric. At times we get better insights out of the confusions which can be talked about aloud. And these insights can help you understand the subject better and also help you to solve problem. You say the book confuses you kindly share your confusion here. Do not be afraid of and hide your confusion. At times confusion generates the understanding.
 
Thanks for your reply.

I can appreciate what you're saying, but at the same time, some books are just not clearly written. Or rather, they don't cater as well to everyone, and in which case, finding a better book is a good option. I guess I will keep searching.

Having said that, I will post my questions in the relevant sub forum as I study, no matter how dumb. :-)
 
TL;DR Summary: Book after Sakurai Modern Quantum Physics I am doing a comprehensive reading of sakurai and I have solved every problem from chapters I finished on my own, I will finish the book within 2 weeks and I want to delve into qft and other particle physics related topics, not from summaries but comprehensive books, I will start a graduate program related to cern in 3 months, I alreadily knew some qft but now I want to do it, hence do a good book with good problems in it first...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Back
Top