What are some books that assume nothing in mathematics and physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ice109
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Books
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for mathematics and physics books that assume little to no prior knowledge, particularly focusing on texts that provide thorough proofs and foundational explanations. Participants express their preferences for self-contained resources in both mathematics and physics, including quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions reading "Math Methods" by Jeffreys, appreciating its foundational approach and thorough proofs, and expresses a desire for similar books that develop concepts from scratch.
  • The same participant indicates a lack of prerequisite knowledge in classical mechanics and electromagnetism, seeking concurrent study of quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of proving the wave equation, stating that Schrödinger's equation is an axiom of quantum mechanics rather than something that can be derived.
  • A suggestion is made to consider Shankar's book on quantum mechanics, noted for its thoroughness and inclusion of necessary mathematical background.
  • A different participant points out that Baym's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" offers an interesting heuristic approach to the Schrödinger equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the expectations for textbooks in terms of foundational content and proof. While some agree on the need for thorough explanations, others assert that certain concepts, like the Schrödinger equation, cannot be derived and should be accepted as axiomatic.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the prerequisites for studying quantum mechanics and the definitions of what constitutes a self-contained book. The discussion reflects varying expectations of rigor in mathematical and physical texts.

ice109
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
6
right now I am reading Math methods by jeffreys

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521054265/?tag=pfamazon01-20

and I am only 12 pages into it but i like it a lot because it assumes nothing and proves almost everything. hell the first subsection was on what a number is. i tend to ask way to many questions and demand extremely thorough proof and very strict arguments so i would really like a book that developed everything from scratch. another reason i would need a book like this is because i haven't had a lot of the prereqs like classical mechanics and e&m or analysis and abstract algebra. I'm interested either physics or math books

for example I've been looking for a QM book to study and I've met with varying levels assumption and hand waiving. one book didn't prove the wave equation, just invoked it, another invoked hamiltonian mechanics without any development.

i'm sure a lot of you would say that these are unreasonable expectations as one should know Classical mechanics before studying QM and so i'd like to say that i don't intend to skip anything, i have a CM book, but i would like to study a couple of these things concurrently.

is it really that ridiculous to expect a book to be self contained?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by prove the wave equation? If you mean Schrödinger's equation it is not something one proves, it is taken as an axiom of the theory. One can try to 'motivate' it, but not prove it. If you don't know Hamiltonian mechanics I suggest you pick up Shankar's book on QM, which is very thorough and rigorous compared to Griffiths, etc. It has a chapter on the math you need (though it bs's the functional analysis) and a chapter on classical mechanics as well.
 
no the classical wave equation, i know the schroedinger equation can't be derived, i'll check out shankar's book
 
Baym's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics has an interesting heuristic "derivation" of the Schroedinger equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K