Hi all, I have a few doubts and qualms regarding general physics, and how it seems that it will get quite difficult soon... So I've been learning lots over the past two or so years, and usually haven't had much trouble with the physics or math part of learning. I've learned classical mechanics from Kleppner, and also some from Taylor, some EM from Purcell and Griffiths, a bit of SR (and a tidbit of GR) from Schutz, and so on. It hasn't been easy, of course, but it's all been fairly concrete and I've been able to do all (or most) of it. However, I've been peaking a bit into more advanced texts to see what I'll encounter in a year or two, and it's been kind of shocking. I saw a bit of Jackson- looked very very difficult and unnecessarily abstract. From a first (very superficial and quick, mind) look at Jackson- he seems to treat EM as merely a mathematical problem! Landau? Abstract, difficult, and terse, from a quick look. Same with stuff like Joos' Theoretical Physics, or Lanczos' Variational Principles of Mechanics. It looks to me like all these (I think) graduate level texts are very abstract and difficult to follow, and more mathematical than physical. There's also a much harsher rigor here, and way fewer nice explanations of physical reasoning; I've seen quite a few "clearly, then"s without any actual explanation, while in Purcell or Kleppner pretty much everything was explained in detail... Is this how real physics is done by modern theoretical physicists? If so, does everyone find it daunting at first? How can I get used to this other style of doing physics? Just plunge straight into these texts? Or, maybe, I just haven't been very careful in looking at these and it's the same old stuff? Thanks very much!