Classical Should I use Morin or Kleppner and Kolenkow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicaa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kleppner Morin
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the choice between two physics textbooks: K&K (Kleppner and Kolenkow) and Morin. K&K is noted for its traditional approach, focusing on differential equations and vector calculus, and is best suited for students with a strong math background and prior exposure to high school physics. It includes challenging problems that reinforce a solid understanding of freshman mechanics. In contrast, Morin is recognized for its modern treatment of relativity and its introduction of advanced topics like Lagrangians, which are typically reserved for upper-division courses. However, there is skepticism about the necessity of introducing such advanced concepts early on. The conversation also touches on the motivations for self-studying physics, with one participant expressing a desire to learn deeply rather than just apply formulas, and a recommendation is made to explore the Feynman Lectures, available for free online, as a valuable resource for understanding physics concepts.
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 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.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
50
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top