What Should I Read Next in Physics for Self-Study?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nick M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the academic path of an engineering major who has completed foundational physics and mathematics courses and is seeking to enhance their understanding of physics through self-study. The individual is considering reading materials, including David Bohm's Quantum Theory and Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, and is looking for recommendations on a structured reading list. Participants suggest following a progression from introductory physics to upper-level texts, recommending Griffiths for Electromagnetism (E&M) and Jackson for graduate-level E&M. The conversation raises questions about the necessity of this structured approach, particularly whether advanced texts like Jackson's can be tackled independently and what foundational concepts might be missing in Griffiths that are covered in Jackson, including the potential introduction of relativity. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive understanding of physics while exploring the balance between structured learning and self-directed study.
Nick M
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
As an engineering major, my class layout includes only Physics I & II w/Calculus (which I finished last year). I'll be taking Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics in the engineering department soon. I've got Calculus I & II and Linear Algebra finished, and will be taking Multivariate and Diff-EQ this year.

I'd like to continue with a self-study Physics plan on the side. What should I read next? I picked up Quantum Theory by David Bohm, and was going to also snag Griffiths Intro to Quantum Mechanics. Does anyone have a recommended "list" to follow? I've tried to generate one based on the Physics curriculum at my school and Amazon book reviews. I'd much appreciate some recommendations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For upper level undergrad E&M I suggest "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffith's
 
I see that people usually take Physics II (E&M, using chapters from a general physics text like I did) followed by junior level E&M (using a text such as that which you mentioned - Griffiths), and then a graduate level E&M (using a text such as Jackson).

Is this all really necessary? I understand having Physics I, II, III, and Modern, which gives a nice tasting of everything, and introduces the student to a lot of material - but are there people who then just buy the text from Jackson and have at it? I guess my question is, what sorts of things are held back in say Griffiths, and then introduced in Jackson?

Does it have something to do with relativity entering the picture?
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
102
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top