Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Featured I Physics From Symmetry

  1. Oct 31, 2016 #1

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Superb, utterly superb.
    https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Symmetry-Undergraduate-Lecture-Notes/dp/3319192000

    Got my copy this morning. Only quibble is I would have done relativity this way:
    http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.pdf

    But what was chosen is still good.

    QM is developed from symmetry, the only thing not derived is the Born Rule. QM is simply group theory applied to a complex field just as mechanics is group theory applied to particles.

    Very very highly recommended.

    Must be done after a course is multi-variable calculus and linear algebra, but that's all. However I would study something like Susskind first.

    You want to learn QM and a lot of other physics as well this is your book. Like the Feynman Lectures get it and devour it.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 1, 2016 #2
    Sounds like a possible Christmas present for me. I noticed one of the Amazon reviewers complained about errors in the text (everybody else loved it). Did you come across any in your edition?
     
  4. Nov 1, 2016 #3

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, let's judge it from what's available on the Amazon website.
    The author is a kid and that says it all. Published this book while still in undergraduate school (according to this: https://www.ttp.kit.edu/memberpages/schwichtenberg and his personal website, he's reportedly enrolled for a PhD after the paper book was published by Springer!).

    There's only one printing of the book being done (1 edition published in 2015) and more than 100 spelling, typographical and conceptual errors on the author's website: http://physicsfromsymmetry.com/errata/.
    I could applaud the author's idea of coming up with a book presenting useful things in a wrong order (the way too sketchy intro's to QM and CM come towards the end of the book!), but the chaotic content of it all and the huge errata couldn't persuade me to open my wallet (actually buy it online with virtual money that my bank would transfer to Amazon's bank). As with anything on Amazon's website, the 5-star reviews are paid by the seller (in this case, Springer Verlag).

    Bhobba, sorry to spoil your joy, the like to your post you got from me was only for the nice article on the Lorentz transformations you found on the internet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  5. Nov 1, 2016 #4

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmmmmmm

    Interesting view I don't entirely disagree with - I would have done it in a different order and certainly SR differently.

    But, and this is the big BUT, putting it all together and seeing the unifying nature of symmetry and how it allies to pretty much everything real really did it for me.

    In QM you derive the generators and introduce states later - rather different and enlightening to me.

    I still give it my full recommendation. Interesting what others think.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  6. Nov 2, 2016 #5

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ok, if you perceive this from the book, good for you.

    But this is done in Ballentine's text, the algebra of fundamental observables is derived from the Galilei group of space-time transformations. How is this anyway improved (if at all) in this book? You call it "enlightening", but didn't you read Ballentine's book? I call THAT enlightening :)

    Side remark: I still wonder how the editor from Springer did accept for publication a manuscript written by a student and not by a professor... @vanhees71 What do you think? Did you ever send any of your writings to a publisher?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  7. Nov 2, 2016 #6

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In my experience, in recent years (last 10 years or so) Springer has very low criteria for accepting physics books for publication. I have seen several terrible physics books (and I don't count this book as "terrible") published recently by Springer.
     
  8. Nov 2, 2016 #7

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I'm very happy that the thread title changed. :wink:

    In honor of Halloween, I would have spelled it "The Physics of Cemetery".
     
  9. Nov 2, 2016 #8

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    No, I didn't, because I think it's a lot more work to improve these manuscripts such that I'd dare to publish them as textbooks. However, Springer contacted me once, whether I'd like to write a book. Obviously they are very eager to get lecture notes transferred into books.

    What makes me a bit nervous is that Springer, a high-reputation textbook publisher in the past, publishes even crackpot books like the writings by Unzicker rambling against theoretical/mathematical physics in general and about "LHC physics" in particular. At a conference they had a little exhibition of textbooks and I confronted the representant there with my concern that such a book (which they even had at display at this conference; I don't remember which one it was, but it was a big conference on heavy-ion collisions and high-energy particle physics anyway) can get published in their renowned publishing company. The only answer he gave to me was that they "now have also a popular-science branche". I couldn't surpress to answer that in the 1920ies they already had a popular-science branch but at this time published books like Born's "Einstein's theory of relativity"...

    On the other hand Springer still publishes very good books. There's a pretty new big theory book by Bartelmann et al (covering the entire BSc course, e.g., classical mechanics, E&M, QM, and Statistical Physics), which is simply marvelous and beautiful. There are also many more graduate-level textbooks which are very good. I don't know the particular book on symmetry. I'll check, whether I can download it via my university account.
     
  10. Nov 2, 2016 #9

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  11. Nov 2, 2016 #10

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  12. Nov 2, 2016 #11

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  13. Nov 2, 2016 #12

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  14. Nov 2, 2016 #13

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Perhaps I was not clear enough. There is no Bell's Bertelmann and no Bell's Bartelmann. There is Bell's Bertlmann, and yes, he is a real expert in anomalies and he really wears socks of different color. I've met him once at a physics school in Austria, and I checked his socks by myself.
     
  15. Nov 2, 2016 #14

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Oh, you were making a SPELLING comment. In a thread that was originally entitled "Physics from Symetry". (Or did I just imagine that?)
     
  16. Nov 2, 2016 #15

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You did not imagine it.... The title was corrected by SuperTitleSpellingMan, who is always lurking here but only emerges from the shadows to help us in the hour of our most dire need. Often his heroic deeds go unnoticed, but it seems that his actions in this case have been recognized.
     
  17. Nov 2, 2016 #16

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Getting back on topic (actually still off-topic), the 1300 pages book by the German/Austrian professors (including Matthias Bartelmann with the spelling issue) mentioned above would be the German correspondent of the 4-5 American textbooks also stretching >1200 pages. It's only Springer to decide if they want extra money (I'm sure they do) by translating it to English, but it's pretty difficult to imagine it can penetrate the vast American market. Halliday&Resnick would still be recommended, I assume.

    EDIT: The co-author Rebhan to this 1300p text is not the same Rebhan who wrote some good textbooks such as the one here: https://www.amazon.com/Theoretische...ie=UTF8&qid=1478096678&sr=1-8&keywords=Rebhan
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2016
  18. Nov 2, 2016 #17

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't think it's comparable to Halliday&Resnick (HD). HD is written at the introductuory level suitable also to experimental physicists and even non-physicists who need to know some physics. Bartelmann et al is written at a higher level, comparable to the first few books in the long Greiner et al series (published also by Springer). So I would describe Bartelmann et al as a compact version of the first 5 volumes of the Greiner et al series (which, by the way, has 14 volumes).
     
  19. Nov 2, 2016 #18

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    The book by Bartelmann et al is an undergrad. theory textbook, covering the standard theory course for the BSc in physics. Halliday, Resnick, Walker is the experimental pendant. Springer has a German translation of Tipler. The German classic for exp. physics is Gerthsen. I hope Bartelmann et al write a sequel for the MSc course :-).
     
  20. Nov 2, 2016 #19
    From comments I think I will wait for a later edition when the typos are fixed up.

    Curious to you published guys, how in 2016 with computers, pro editors etc do typos ever get into print by major publishers.

    Free lecture notes I understand, but with the ridiculously high price of text books typos should be extinct.

    Not that long ago texts were written on manual type writers and on average they did well.
     
  21. Nov 2, 2016 #20
    Sounds fascinating but I would like to know more.

    Can you explain what you mean by "unifying nature of symmetry"? Specifically, what do you mean by "symmetry"? Are you referring to an aspect of reality or of our equations (or both)? When you speak of "unifying" do you mean that it "unifies" our knowledge, approach to physics, or mathematics? How?

    "mechanics is group theory applied to particles" Do you mean the mathematics of mechanics can be generated or replicated by applying the mathematics of group theory to abstractions we should equate with particles?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted