Should I use Morin or Kleppner and Kolenkow

  • Context: Classical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicaa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kleppner Morin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the choice between two physics textbooks, Morin and Kleppner & Kolenkow (K&K), for self-study in mechanics. Participants explore the strengths and weaknesses of each book, as well as alternative resources for learning physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Morin offers a more modern treatment of relativity compared to K&K, which is considered outdated.
  • Others note that K&K focuses on introducing differential equations and vector calculus, potentially without prior formal exposure to these topics.
  • It is mentioned that K&K contains challenging problems that can solidify a student's understanding of freshman mechanics.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the desirability of Morin's introduction of advanced topics like Lagrangians, which are typically encountered later in academic studies.
  • A participant shares their personal experience with K&K, stating it was their freshman physics book but has not taught from it.
  • One participant questions the choice of self-study over formal education, prompting a response about different educational systems.
  • A suggestion is made to consider the Feynman Lectures as an alternative resource for understanding physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the merits of Morin versus K&K, indicating that no consensus exists regarding which book is superior for self-study. Additionally, there is a mix of perspectives on the appropriateness of advanced topics in introductory physics education.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss their backgrounds and motivations for studying physics, which may influence their preferences for certain textbooks. There is also mention of the educational context varying by location, which could affect the relevance of the recommendations.

Physicaa
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
I'm not really sure which one to use. Also, where does one go after that ? Taylor ? Symon?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Morin has a better and more modern treatment of relativity. K&K is extremely old, and the 2nd edition is not really much of an update.

K&K's agenda is basically to get students going on differential equations and vector calculus, possibly without having formally seen those topics in a math class yet. It has lots of challenging problems. If you can do the problems, you know you have a solid freshman mechanics background. I had the book as my freshman physics book in college, but I haven't taught from it. It's designed for people who have an extremely strong background in math, and realistically they should also have had high school physics.

I haven't learned or taught from Morin, but its agenda seems to be to introduce topics like Lagragians that are normally not encountered until upper-division mechanics. I don't really understand why this would be desirable.

Both of these are books designed for physics majors in an honors course at an elite university.

Just curious, why are you self-studying instead of taking a course?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Physicaa and Gopal Mailpalli
bcrowell said:
Morin has a better and more modern treatment of relativity. K&K is extremely old, and the 2nd edition is not really much of an update.

K&K's agenda is basically to get students going on differential equations and vector calculus, possibly without having formally seen those topics in a math class yet. It has lots of challenging problems. If you can do the problems, you know you have a solid freshman mechanics background. I had the book as my freshman physics book in college, but I haven't taught from it. It's designed for people who have an extremely strong background in math, and realistically they should also have had high school physics.

I haven't learned or taught from Morin, but its agenda seems to be to introduce topics like Lagragians that are normally not encountered until upper-division mechanics. I don't really understand why this would be desirable.

Both of these are books designed for physics majors in an honors course at an elite university.

Just curious, why are you self-studying instead of taking a course?
I'm not in University yet. (It works differently where I am) And I have no idea where I'm going later on but I like learning physics so I wanted to do some things on my own and not waste time. I did do introductory Mechanics (Not that sophisticated, mainly algebra based) I want to understand Physics, not just do some formulas and plug in numbers.
 

Similar threads

Classical What are the best intermediate Newtonian mechanics textbooks?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
Kleppner & Kolenkow's or David Morin for mechanics (IPhO)
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
21K
Relativity Alternative to Kleppner - Kolenkow chapter on relativity
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Kleppner then Morin or quick intro then Morin?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Classical Mechanics Book for self learner?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Classical Understanding Derivative of Position Function: Is Velocity Wrong?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Next steps after Kleppner/Kolenkow and Purcell/Morin
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
Classical Confusion between Electrodynamics texts
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
Classical Textbook for Classical Mechanics
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Classical Looking for introductory level physics textbook
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K