Other What are you reading now? (STEM only)

[pinball1970]

It‘s a joke. There are these important things called ladder operators, so of course physicists want Schrodinger’s cat to be climbing a ladder. Physicists are simple folk.

Simple? Yeah ok.
When I understand enough of the physics to understand all the jokes then I have probably made progress.
I am still at the, “A neutron walked into a bar,” stage.

 

[Frabjous]

“A neutron walked into a bar,”

What did the bartender charge him for a drink?

 

[Demystifier]

K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319918087/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I would compare it with Ballentine for QM.

 

[AndreasC]

I noticed Springer had a 50% "yellow sale" so I splashed down a bunch of money (more than I should have perhaps) so now I'm going to be busy for a while. I bought:

• Quantum Theory for Mathematicians by Brian Hall
• 2 volumes on probability by Shiryaev
• Smooth Manifolds and Riemannian manifolds by John Lee
• Lang's Algebra. This wasn't on sale but I wanted to buy it because I like very thick reference books you can hit people with

But whatever, what else am I going to use the money for? Thanks to Covid I have become a hermit...

 

[AndreasC]

K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319918087/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I would compare it with Ballentine for QM.

What do you mean exactly?

 

[vanhees71]

Lechner's electrodynamics is really "modern" in the sense that it presents electrodynamics as it should be presented after 1905 as a relativistic field theory (of course on the graduate level only). It's not just the xth reproduction of Jackson's inductive approach, which anyway cannot be topped so easily by rewriting it ;-).

 

[Demystifier]

What do you mean exactly?

Level of rigor, depth of thinking, foundations to applications ratio, ...

 

[AndreasC]

Lechner's electrodynamics is really "modern" in the sense that it presents electrodynamics as it should be presented after 1905 as a relativistic field theory (of course on the graduate level only). It's not just the xth reproduction of Jackson's inductive approach, which anyway cannot be topped so easily by rewriting it ;-).

Thanks. Also what do you mean by "inductive approach"?

 

[AndreasC]

Level of rigor, depth of thinking, foundations to applications ratio, ...

By the way, what do you think of Zangwill's book?

 

[vanhees71]

Thanks. Also what do you mean by "inductive approach"?

It's going the old-fashioned way by starting with electrostatics going through magnetostatics, quasistatics, and only finally to the full Maxwell equations. The deductive approach (though as old as Hertz's famous monograph) is more modern. You just start with the Maxwell equations in vacuum (of course in differential form ;-)) as the fundamental theory. That's honest in the sense that it's just the elementary formulation of everything having to do with electromagnetic phenomena (on the classical level). It cannot be logically derived from anything more fundamental. The "derivations" of the inductive approach leading in steps from electrostatics to the full Maxwell equations are heuristic (though important for an intuitive understanding).

 

[Demystifier]

By the way, what do you think of Zangwill's book?

I didn't read it in depth, but superficially it looks to me like a new edition of Jackson.

 

[AndreasC]

I didn't read it in depth, but superficially it looks to me like a new edition of Jackson.

Personally I like it but it's a bit too much information for learning perhaps. Iirc it is 950+ pages. It goes pretty in depth however and it has these boxes which mention interesting phenomena or historical facts etc. Kind of unusual for a book at this level. I'm not sure I would say it is like a newer Jackson, Jackson did things in a rather different order. Jackson started from potentials and went into boundary value problem solving pretty much. Zangwill starts from the Maxwell equations.

 

[romsofia]

Iirc it is 950+ pages. It goes pretty in depth however and it has these boxes which mention interesting phenomena or historical facts etc.

Sounds like MTW!

 

[AndreasC]

Sounds like MTW!

It does, kind of. But it's actually more condensed than MTW.

 

[AndreasC]

My package arrived, whoooo!

 

[romsofia]

My package arrived, whoooo!
View attachment 282229

Yuck, probability

 

[andresB]

K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319918087/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I would compare it with Ballentine for QM.

That talk in the preface about massless charged particles is intriguing.

 

[George Jones]

My package arrived, whoooo!

I have three of the books in the image, as well as three more that aren't in the image, but that were written by authors in the image.

 

[AndreasC]

I have three of the books in the image, as well as three more that aren't in the image, but that were written by authors in the image.

Which ones? I am guessing one of them is quantum theory and you also have Lie algebras by Brian Hall.

 

[George Jones]

Which ones? I am guessing one of them is quantum theory and you also have Lie algebras by Brian Hall.

Yes. I also have "Calculus of Several Variables" by Lang and "Introduction to Topological Manifolds" by Lee.

 

[vanhees71]

That talk in the preface about massless charged particles is intriguing.

Sounds interesting. I guess it's something for masochists ;-)).

 

[Demystifier]

J. Armas (ed), Conversations on Quantum Gravity (2021)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107168872/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[andresB]

After giving up Frankel's books, I'm reading Marian Fecko "Differential geometry and Lie groups for physicists". I have mixed feelings.

 

[Mayhem]

Physical Chemistry - Quanta, Matter, and Change 2ed​

And no, it's not voluntary.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Sounds interesting. I guess it's something for masochists ;-)).

Aren't we all masochists?

 

[Demystifier]

Aren't we all masochists?

No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.

So you don't like chemistry?

 

[Demystifier]

So you don't like chemistry?

Who do you ask, me or the guy in #444? It was him who said that he doesn't read it voluntarily. If you ask me, I like physical chemistry, but not the rest of chemistry.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Who do you ask, me or the guy in #444? It was him who said that he doesn't read it voluntarily. If you ask me, I like physical chemistry, but not the rest of chemistry.

Always use inclusive- or when talking to me...

 

[tixi]

What book are you reading now, or have been reading recently? Only STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) books are counted.

I'm currently reading Introduction to Nanoscience by Hornyak, Dutta, Tibbals and Rao, as well as Introduction to Nanotechnology by Poole and Owens. I'm doing a course on nanosci and though it seemed a bit out of my interests in the beginning, I'm actually pretty interested now!