Schroeder: Intro to thermal physics, Diff. between editions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the availability and differences between various editions of "Introduction to Thermal Physics" by Schroeder. The lecturer advises against using the 2013 International Edition by Pearson, citing its lack of important content, while recommending the older 2004 Pearson edition, which is currently out-of-print. The 1999 hardcover US version by Addison Wesley is available, prompting questions about its content compared to the 2004 edition. Research suggests that the 1999 and 2004 editions are likely identical in content, with the 2013 edition being inferior due to changes made after a Supreme Court ruling affecting international editions. The conversation seeks confirmation of these details and further insights into the editions.
ngcjmo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm facing a slight problem with getting a good version of the Schroeder: Introduction to thermal physics.

According to my lecturer the newest 2013 international edition by Pearson (ISBN: 9781292026213) is not recommended, as it lacks some aspects. And anyway the course is built around the older version, which would be the 2004 Pearson edition (ISBN: 9780321277794).

The annoying thing is, that the 2004 Pearson edition seems to be out-of-print and out-of-stock. Not exactly surprising as it is from the same publisher. But the "original" hardcover US version from 1999 by Addison Wesley (ISBN: 9780201380279) is available in many places.

Now, after that word-regurgitation, to the actual question: What kind of difference is there between the 1999 Addison Wesley, and the 2004 Pearson editions? Is it essentially the same book only inteded for the different markets, or does the 2004 edition vary from the 1999 one?

I realize that amount of people in possession of both of the books is extremely limited, but in case someone here is, I would highly appreciate any guidance.

EDIT: The google books link for the 2004 edition seems to have wrong information, or at least different than what I have (wrong year and publisher). But the cover pictures are correct in all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, so based on the link above (thanks to robphy!), and yet more googling, I starting to come to the conclusion that there are only 2 versions of this book:
The older ones which are all the same in content, and the newer 2013 International Edition which is indeed inferior. If I got correct information, the newer International Edition is scraped down because of some Supreme Court ruling that US customers may purchase International Editions legally also, and then as they are cheper(?) the publisher decided to make the Internatiol edition worse to keep people buying the original hardcover version.

Only thing's that I tend to be rather sceptical of the hearsay info on the web, though the info provided by robphy is from credible source, so I'm starting to be confident that the 1999 and 2004 editions are indeed identical in content. If someone has more information (or can confirm) about what I said above on the 2013 edition, please share!
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
Back
Top