Intro Physics Which book is better for physics: Young or Tipler?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about selecting a comprehensive university physics textbook, two primary candidates are highlighted: Tipler and Young/Freedman. Participants suggest that while both books are solid, Young/Freedman is often favored for its pedagogical clarity and challenging exercises, which are beneficial for deeper understanding. Giancoli is mentioned as a clear alternative, though some find it less effective than Young/Freedman. Tipler is described as being adequate but not exceptional, with mixed reviews indicating it falls in the middle range compared to other texts. Randall Knight's "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" is also recommended, particularly for self-study and exam preparation, with positive feedback on its effectiveness. Overall, Young/Freedman emerges as the preferred choice for its comprehensive approach and problem-solving rigor.
Lariko
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for a university physics book that is comprised of excellent pedagogical exposition and is very comprehensive.I've considered these two candidates:

1. Tipler
2. Young/FreedmanWhat do you suggest?
 
People do discuss introductory textbooks often here. This is probably just a slow period. Try using PF's search feature, and tick the box that restricts searches to this forum (Science and Math Textbooks). If you search for "Freedman", you'll find previous posts that mention that book, and many of them will mention other books as well, including Tipler.
 
Hmm. We used giancoli physics for scientists and engineers. The book was clear. Although their is not much difference between standard physics books. I found Giancoli to be a lot better than serway, in explaining concepts. In particular the chapter explaining harmonic motion, serway did not show how differentials in arriving towards the formulas.

In our class suspends used a combination of books. My buddy used young and freedom and it is better than giancoli. The exercises in Freedman are a bit more challenging.

Others used tipler. I read 3 chapters from tipler, although I understood it, the others books mentioned did a better job.

I would stick with young and freedman.
 
I used Tipler in my introductory physics sequence and I had no real complaints with it.
 
I used Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Randall Knight. I've heard great things about Young and Freedman. Based on most amazon reviews, Tipler is middle of the road. I used Knight to study for engineering physics exemption exams (self-study) and I passed both Mechanics and E&M (somehow). Y&F has some very tough problems which will definitely benefit you later down the road.
 
Dexter K said:
I used Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Randall Knight. I've heard great things about Young and Freedman. Based on most amazon reviews, Tipler is middle of the road. I used Knight to study for engineering physics exemption exams (self-study) and I passed both Mechanics and E&M (somehow). Y&F has some very tough problems which will definitely benefit you later down the road.
Is Knight a good book?
 
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
214
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top