What Preparatory Books Can Lead to Understanding Landau and Lifshitz?

AI Thread Summary
To prepare for studying Landau and Lifshitz, a solid foundation in physics and mathematics is essential. Recommended resources include "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," which offers clear explanations and a unique perspective on complex topics. The discussion highlights the importance of mastering Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics before tackling more advanced material. Additionally, the relevance of older texts is questioned, emphasizing the need for a strong understanding of quantum mechanics regardless of the publication date. Engaging with foundational materials will facilitate a smoother transition to Landau and Lifshitz's works.
genericusrnme
Messages
618
Reaction score
2
Hey

I want to start reading and learning from Landau and Lifgarbagez but my physics isn't quite up to that level. Now, I'm fully self taught at the moment so what I do know of physics is pretty scattered - I know bits and pieces about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics but the material presented in Landau and Lifgarbagez is still too advanced I feel, so what I'm looking for is a book or set of books that will lead me into Landau and Lifgarbagez.
Right now, my mathematical knowledge is roughlt the contents of Mathematical Methods in Physical Sciences by Boas and Mathematics of Classical and Quantum mechanics by Byron along with some other stuff buts and pieces I've picked up along the way.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I had your urge to read Landau and Lifgarbagez in my 20's and got a few of their books with the intention of mastering them. It never happened.

I did find a lot of enlightenment in The Feynman Lectures on Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
Feynman had a talent for explaining things and the crucial different viewpoint that makes the lectures very different from textbooks.

Are 1960's books still relevant? Well, do you understand Quantum Mechanics from reading the current books?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top