Classical What was your first physics book and why did you choose it?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on individuals sharing their first encounters with physics and the textbooks that shaped their understanding. One participant recalls starting with "Conceptual Physics: The High School Physics Program" by Paul G. Hewitt in high school, followed by Giancoli's "Physics: Principles with Applications" during IB physics, and now using the 4th edition of Giancoli for a calculus-based course at UC Santa Cruz. They express dissatisfaction with the recommended "University Physics" textbook, noting it lacks clarity in handling complex concepts while over-explaining simpler ones. Another participant mentions a friend's experience with the same textbook, highlighting its depth in derivations but questioning its overall effectiveness. The conversation reflects a common theme of varying preferences and experiences with physics textbooks in educational settings.
RaulTheUCSCSlug
Gold Member
Messages
179
Reaction score
28
I was just curious on what was everyone's first Physics book, or what was their first encounter with Physics?

My first academic physics book that was not calculus based was my junior year of high school and was Conceptual Physics: The High School Physics Program by Paul G. Hewitt, and then later when I took IB physics used the IB Physics book, but used Giancoli's Physics: Principles with Applications 3rd edition, and now at University of California Santa Cruz I'm using Giancoli's 4th edition book for my first calculus based physics course.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They didn't give us a physics textbook in high school, at least not that I remember. The one my university recommends in University Physics, but I'm personally not a fan of that one.
 
fezster said:
They didn't give us a physics textbook in high school, at least not that I remember. The one my university recommends in University Physics, but I'm personally not a fan of that one.

Oh yes, one of my friends used that book (he was an international student from India) in high school, and I think it was pretty in depth with the derivations that it went through. Was there a particular reason why you were not a fan of the book?
 
RaulTheUCSCSlug said:
Oh yes, one of my friends used that book (he was an international student from India) in high school, and I think it was pretty in depth with the derivations that it went through. Was there a particular reason why you were not a fan of the book?
Personally, I found that it went too in-depth with concepts that were easy to understand, and then went over the more difficult concepts pretty quickly.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
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
8
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top