15 ms·
So You Want to Learn Physics
- danharaj 10y agoAlso relevant https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/
- wolfkill 10y agoThis is fantastic! Besides listing text/topic recommendations, it has lots of pdf documents.
- amai 10y agoThis list from physics nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft "How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist" is quite amazing. But in case you are interested in the dark side you should read Gerard 't Hooft`s article on "How to become a BAD Theoretical Physicist" https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html
- edtechdev 10y agoStart by playing with the physics simulations at http://phet.colorado.edu http://phet.colorado.edu
- Koshkin 10y agoThis may seem somewhat unorthodox, but what I would strongly recommend is to start not by reading books on physics or math but read some books on history of physics (and math) first. This will give you some intangible basic knowledge, or a sense, of what scientific research is all about, so that many things that otherwise may end up being puzzling to you when you come to learn the "hard science", won't. One recommendation I can make is Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
- dekhn 10y agoI have to agree with this. My physics education was sort of being dumped into late 20th century physics and could not understood how we got to quantum and relativity. It wasn't until recently that I went back and kind of walked through the history of physics from the natural philosophy days to the cavendish in the late 1800s that modern physics started to make sense.
- selimthegrim 10y agoYou might like this book then: https://www.amazon.com/c-Numbers-q-Numbers-Classical-Analogy-California/dp/0520078225/ https://www.amazon.com/c-Numbers-q-Numbers-Classical-Analogy...
- dekhn 10y agowhy are all the interesting books > $100 :(
- asoplata 10y agoThere's a free (legal!!!) HTML version at the "UC Press E-books Collection" http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4t1nb2gv&brand=ucpress http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4t1nb... Generally speaking, I find that the more expensive a rare academic tome is, the more likely there are legal/etc. versions online (PDFs, HTML, DjVu, etc.), indexed by Google. That seems to be much more true for STEM texts than those of the humanities, though.
- dekhn 10y agoThanks! I'd love to see that the case for this book https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Vision-Life-Rockefeller-Foundation/dp/0195111435 https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Vision-Life-Rockefeller-Fou...
- selimthegrim 10y agoAh, yes that's where I'd first read it but forgotten the link.
- Luc 10y agoThat book is in my top five list of best books, ever. But then I trained as a physicist and I hesitate to recommend it for a public less into that. Though I suppose it might wet someone's appetite to learn nuclear physics properly!
- healthnutter 10y agoPretty sure you meant to say, "whet"?
- Luc 10y agoSorry, yes!
- groby_b 10y agoThat book is amazing, speaking as a non-physicist. (Fine, I did study maths, so I suppose I'm almost qualified as a theoretical physicist, except I'm not good enough at maths ;) Really recommend it to anybody who's interested in that part of history. Amazing writing, and an incredible story. (You know it's gripping when you read about some of the experiments and feverishly hope they don't blow themselves up, nevermind knowing the outcome)
- thanatropism 10y agoOliver Darrigol's _Worlds of Flow_ is exactly this for fluid dynamics.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rubberstamp 10y agoHighly agree. I found that learning in sync with looking up its history, on why something was invented or why something is done in a particular way, helped we understand it better as I got more interested in the thing am studying. It may even help find a way to do it better. It gives various perspectives involved in decision making and scientific process. That kind of learning helped me to reach to solutions faster.
- pducks32 10y agoAs a physicist I completely agree. The history is the best part. And it's fun seeing how much scientists had a love/hate relationship with each other. But you also learn why they invented/discovered what they did. Which is important in advanced physics where sometimes the reason or purpose gets lost.
- acqq 10y agoI would rather recommend https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Galaxy-Humanity-Discovered-Universe/dp/9814667161 https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Galaxy-Humanity-Discovered-Uni... This is the right context for Newton, Einstein and quantum physics, it's written by an astrophysicist and is up to date, with beautiful illustrations and easy to read.
- Osmium 10y ago> but read some books on history of physics (and math) first. That's great advice. Do you have any more recommendations? As a working scientist myself, I find that a historical context really helps. This is especially true when a lot of quantum concepts are taught from a quasi-classical approach first, which arguably makes things harder for everyone in the long run, but feels more natural when you consider the historical thinking that led there (electron spin, I'm looking at you). Edit: Some recommendations of my own... A math teacher in school very kindly leant me a biography of James Clerk Maxwell (might have been 'The Man Who Changed Everything' but I'm not sure) and Marcus du Sautoy's 'Music of the Primes.' They were both great introductions, and definitely changed my thinking.
- XparXnoiAx 10y ago"The End of Physics" is a good one. You may also re-think your desire to learn physics. If you get through the book and still want to learn, then you will do it completely without illusions. https://www.amazon.com/End-Physics-Myth-Unified-Theory/dp/0465019765 https://www.amazon.com/End-Physics-Myth-Unified-Theory/dp/04...
- swift 10y agoI'm curious whether any physicists here have read this book and found its claims justified. I'm just a layman who enjoys reading about physics from time to time, but it seems to me that there are actually a large number of unsolved problems in physics that are experimentally accessible to us right now, and there's plenty of space for new theories to yield testable predictions. People were making claims similar to the ones in this book 100 years ago; they were unjustified then, and I expect them to turn out to be unjustified now.
- XparXnoiAx 10y agoI'm curious whether any physicists here have read this book and found its claims justified. Which claim in particular? I recommend the book, not so much because of its conclusions, but rather because of its excellent history telling.
- kwhitefoot 10y agoI'd suggest that in addition you should read at least some parts of modern translations of early scientific works starting with Aristotle. I don't mean read everything of course but try to get a sense of perspective, not everything was invented in the last hundred years. Also take a look at Carlo Rovelli's monograph: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" at https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057. The kind of thinking that Rovelli describes is essential to success in science
- j2kun 10y agoAs a mathematician, I disagree, but this is probably because I already understand the math pretty well. I'd much rather have a clear picture of the most useful mathematical models for the various areas of physics (and where they fail) than slog through the centuries of failed experiments and feuds. Every time I ask a physicist for a clear picture of what light is (mathematically, what the model says it is), I get a mix of "it's a wave but also a particle" and random things that dead physicists have said about light. I honestly don't care if Einstein thought God doesn't play dice, or if someone way back when thought an atom was like plum pudding. I do want physical intuition, but I want it through clear and well-explained mathematics. That is, when I'm in the mindset to actually learn physics. Hearing about the history is fine and dandy if I want entertaining stories.
- mafribe 10y agoIt's probably a matter of taste. Once you understand the maths clearly, it becomes much easier to understand the failures of the past. For example, reading Newton and Leibniz on calculus makes it clear that it was epsilon/delta waiting to get out.
- j2kun 10y agoI guess my point is that, since most people find the math hard, writers put history in as what appears to be filler, which I find as mostly an obstacle.
- Koshkin 10y agoWell, it has to be said: a mathematician's outlook on physics is completely different from a physicist's. For a mathematician, physics is not much more than a bunch of more or less fixed mathematical models, each describing, approximately, some aspect of the physical world. For a physicist, on the other hand, not only are these models in a perpetual state of flux, but the physical world itself is seen as an indivisible whole, so that these "aspects" - the ones that are being modeled mathematically - are themselves just narrow views into the real physical world in which we live...
- 10y ago
- agumonkey 10y agoI can confirm. I just sniped a book about "pressure", the historical pathway with steps and non famous scientists gave a completely different feel than any physics textbooks with models and equations.
- plandis 10y agoI would definitely agree, partially. Intuitively classical physics makes sense but it was definitely helpful to me to understand the historical perspective for quantum mechanics. Or at least is where I think the undergrad Griffiths QM book gets it wrong. If I remember correct it just starts by basically stating the Schrodinger equation and going from there. One of the most helpful lectures I had in undergrad QM was on matrix mechanics formulation. It really helped to solidify my understanding.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wav-part 10y agoRelated Suggestion: Start with experiments, then read theories. This is very true for QM (or any other modern science). Start with older texts. Read the thought process of past giants. Avoid all "textbooks". Especially the one with >1ed/decade. These will only teach you how to pass in exams and useless "tricks". These will result in worse understanding of nature. Remember go to the source. General Recommendation: Ari Ben-Menahem - Historical Encyclopedia of Natural & Mathematical Sciences 2009 https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540688310 https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540688310
- kerbalspacepro 10y agolol. "Avoiding textbooks" is probably the worse advice imaginable. Now, I'm not saying go out and buy all of Pearson's catalog, but textbooks are the only books designed from the ground up to impart knowledge to a reader that meets the minimum standards described in the first few pages. Plus, the good ones describe the experiments used to develop whatever theory they're trying to impart to the reader. I will agree there are lots of bad textbooks, but the best-in-class textbooks are better than any self-learning guide you could make up yourself (within categories).
- jschwartzi 10y agoThe good lower-division textbooks will intersperse some history with the concepts. Even the Modern Physics textbook that we used had historical information in it. For sure, it's relevant, but you'll get a helping of it in every decent textbook.
- adrianratnapala 10y agoI think this is right. But the good news is that many childrens books on science are fairly historical -- at least the ones I had as a kid. One had, or example an illustrated page with Gallileo dropping weights from the leaning tower, and then another one with Newton and his apple.
- forinti 10y agoI don't know if this makes sense for someone looking for graduate-level knowledge, but it I'm sure it would make school a lot more interesting for children. It certainly helps to understand things if you know what people's motivations were and what tools they had when they made discoveries.
- amelius 10y agoSee also Leonard Susskind's series, [1]. > The Theoretical Minimum is a series of Stanford Continuing Studies courses taught by world renowned physicist Leonard Susskind. These courses collectively teach everything required to gain a basic understanding of each area of modern physics including all of the fundamental mathematics. [1] http://theoreticalminimum.com/about http://theoreticalminimum.com/about
- andy_ppp 10y agoI have been wanting this course for years! Thanks!
- shepardrtc 10y agoI'm actually reading his Quantum Mechanics book right now and thoroughly enjoying it.
- M_Grey 10y agoI can't recommend the book, 'Prime Obsession' by John Derbyshire enough. 'Gravity' by Hartle is invaluable and quite accessible. If you have a strong background in calculus, you can also check out 'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
- joeberon 10y agoHartle is nice. My GR course I'm doing right now uses that. If you have done a bit of calculus of variations it's nice.
- sizzzzlerz 10y agoLearning physics requires more than simply reading text books. A significant portion of actually understanding the concepts laid out in the book is performing demonstrations and experiments in the lab. In college, we had a 3 hour lab each week to go with 3 1-hour classes and each was critical to learning. I certainly admire anyone who wants to learn physics on their own, especially without already having a strong mathematical education, but to really grasp the meaning of the words in a book requires practical exposure in a lab.
- Luc 10y agoPeople differ I suppose, I found the lab lessons more annoying than anything else (I had 20 hours of theory or thereabouts).
- racl101 10y agoDepends what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to gain an appreciation for it (as a layperson) then I think you can forgo many of the complicated experiments. On the other hand, if you are trying to prime yourself for a career in it then you definitely must perform the experiments.
- sizzzzlerz 10y agoI don't disagree that a lab isn't necessary if all you want is a cursory overview of the various topics but I'm assuming that the person wanting to learn physics wants a deeper understanding of the concepts. Really know what those equations mean. That takes practical experiences in my opinion.
- santaclaus 10y agoI dunno I feel like one could get a reasonable grasp of mathematical physics without sitting through oil drop experiments and so on...
- racl101 10y agoI've always loved physics but I don't think it loves me back. That is, I've always found it fascinating since high school but once you need calculus to understand some of the more advanced stuff I feel that I get lost in the math (which, admittedly, I suck at) and lose the intuition for what's really going on. Then it just becomes a giant math problem that prevents me from seeing the bigger picture. It's just this problem I've had that I always sweat the small things and sometimes miss the bigger picture or the main concept when I get frustrated that I can't understand the details.
- spott 10y agoThis is something that everyone who studies physics has to work hard to get past. Understanding the math as a description of the physics rather than just a bunch of symbols takes time and hard work. Someplace to start: find a differential equation you are trying to understand and walk through what it means. Look at each term and try to suss out the physics that is going on by thinking about the differentials as descriptive. It takes time, but it is very powerful (even when thinking about non-physics related equations)
- martincmartin 10y agoYou're not alone. I was lucky enough to go to undergrad with Nima Arkani-Hamed [1]. I later had lunch with him while he was at Harvard, and he mentioned that a lot of what he did in the intervening years was to get away from the very formal mathematical, proof-based thinking of our math courses back then. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nima_Arkani-Hamed
- joeberon 10y agoThere is a point early in your education as a physicist (Quantum Mechanics) where it becomes impossible to have an intuitive understanding. For Quantum Mechanics you can just do the calculation, there is no way you can get an intuitive understanding, other than by becoming comfortable with the mathematics. I used the feel the same as you, but then I gave up. One day I was like "screw it, I'm just going to take it for granted". I stopped caring about getting a feel for why things happen, just that they do and I know how to calculate them. When that changed I was suddenly free, I didn't have to worry about why things made sense or not anymore. You still should understand what the problem is though. Physics isn't just about understanding the mathematics, it's also about understanding the physical arguments that goes along with it. Like how can we come up with the problem to solve in the first place? One problem I have often had is that in a long derivation my brain will be so fried on the mathematics that I eventually forget what the terms in the equations actually represent. I'm like "what is q again? oh yeah it's a generalised coordinate". It's cliche but the important part is not giving up. My favourite lecturer, who is a theorist, says that the main issue that students have is fluency. They can do the mathematics, but they aren't fluent at it. They aren't quick, they're slow, it takes them time to work it out, etc. That is what makes you forget, but eventually after seeing the mathematics so many times it will becomes ingrained in your brain, and it will just feel obvious, and you don't have to think about it. Eventually you will become fluent in the mathematics and it will disintegrate as a boundary, and all you'll have to think about is the physics. It's just practise.
- ivan_ah 10y agoThat's a great list. The only thing that's missing would be a linear algebra course. The OP mentions it in passing, but a good understanding of LA goes a long way. I did UGRAD in engineering, and when I switched to physics everything was over my head, but my knowledge of LA still managed to keep me afloat. Also, matrix quantum mechanics is essentially straight up linear algebra (vectors, unitaries, projections, etc.) Now switching to a shameless plug mode, I'll mention my math+mech+calc book, which would be a good addition to the section 1. Introduction to Mechanics. Chapter2 of the book (on topic) is part of the preview: https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSguide_v5_preview.pdf https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSguide_v5_previ...
- santaclaus 10y agoI was always amazed that more physics curricula do not require linear algebra. You don't even need to get to quantum for LA to be amazingly helpful. Our classical mechanics text from undergrad was swarming with LA...
- tnecniv 10y agoI was amazed that my EE degree didn't required it. We had a rushed treatment as part of a required ODEs course, but I didn't really get it until I took a theory heavy course dedicated to the subject. It and probability both made my life a lot easier and are essential parts of my daily work.
- xeromal 10y agoThanks for plugging your book. Math has always been a struggle for me and considering I got my ass kicked through undergrad barely passing my math courses, I constantly I'd enjoy math as a programmer if I had just had the proper schooling in highschool. Just snagged your book on Lulu. Wish me luck.
- godelski 10y agoLinear is a must, especially if you are going to get into QM. I haven't read your book, but the one by David Lay is a great text.
- taktoa 10y agoI haven't fully worked through it yet, but I've been really enjoying reading John Baez's Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity [1]. [1]: http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/2324 http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/2324
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- westoncb 10y agoI've been thinking about reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics recently, but I always thought they were essentially textbooks; I was surprised to see them described as 'popular' here. I remember reading something about their origin, that some universities tried adopting them with the result being that students found them too difficult (and many professors considered the material to be a sort of fresh take on classical subjects).
- kgwgk 10y agoI share your surprise. The Feynman Lectures on Physics - which by the way are available online at http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu - are clearly a popular set of books as in "liked or admired by many people or by a particular person or group," but hardly popular as in "intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals."
- mturmon 10y agoAll you have to do is visit the site (e.g., volume 1's TOC is here: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html). Check out some of the first chapters. You expect to see some kind of Newtonian prelude with force, mass, acceleration, motion of projectiles, etc. It's not really there. The FLP are really rewarding to browse around in -- I would hate to have to read it from cover to cover -- but they are not good as a textbook. It's not a systematic treatment. It's an idiosyncratic look at how one person enters a problem space and walks through it. Friends who took classes at Caltech (in the 1980s, I think) using FLP found it to be a bad fit for people who did not have an immediate grasp of problem essentials. In other words, if you did not already have some mastery of the basics, it might not help. I can't imagine the confusion possible when the class was first taught in the 1960s, and there was only the verbal lecture, with no companion text.
- kwhitefoot 10y agoHow on earth can they be regarded as too difficult? The Feynman lectures were set books at Exeter Uni. for my applied physics degree '74-'77, I don't remember anyone complaining that they were too difficult, challenging of course.
- tim_sw 10y agoI really like Prof. Shankar's lectures and books. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFE3074A4CB751B2B https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFE3074A4CB751B2B https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Physics-Mechanics-Relativity-Thermodynamics/dp/0300192207 https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Physics-Mechanics-Relati... http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200 http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200
- tim_sw 10y agoHe also has a book called "Basic Training in Mathematics: A Fitness Program for Science Students" https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Training-Mathematics-Fitness-Students/dp/0306450364 https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Training-Mathematics-Fitness-St...
- arcanus 10y ago> If you work through the all of the textbooks in the Undergraduate Physics list of this post, and master each of the topics, you'll have gained the knowledge equivalent of a Bachelor's Degree in Physics (and will be able to score well on the Physics GRE). I am not so confident: the physics GRE is a notoriously difficult test, and is a significant barrier to acceptance to any Ph.d. program.
- Steuard 10y agoEach fall I teach a mini-course for our physics majors who want to take the Physics GRE. The trouble is that you can't do well on the test if you just go in and try to solve as many questions as you can: it's 100 questions in 170 minutes, and many (most?) of the questions look like full fledged homework questions (that would take even a pretty good student 5-10 minutes to solve, or sometimes much longer). Instead, you need to learn all of the common tricks and shortcuts that the test writers expect you to know and use (including things like checking the units on all of the multiple choice answers to eliminate some choices, or testing that the choices have the right limits like time->0 or mass->infinity). It's a pretty obnoxious test, to be honest. Once you've learned the types of strategies to use, the GRE is testing something meaningful about physics knowledge and intuition, but I don't know how well that something correlates with either "successful in classes" or "successful in research".
- Szel 10y agoIs there something similar for math?
- ipnon 10y agoThere's something here for everybody: https://hbpms.blogspot.com/ https://hbpms.blogspot.com/
- camikazeg 10y agoI understand the appeal of self learning physics for the sake of knowledge, but is there a market for self taught physicists in the same way that there is for self taught web devs? I feel like you'd have to go through the university system. If not, what would that pathway look like?
- lisper 10y agoPhysics is made much harder than it needs to be by the fact that physics pedagogy is generally terrible. Physics texts start by just throwing equations at you, telling you "This is how it is" with no background or foundation about how we know that this is the way it is, or what it means that this is the way it is. There are some very good popularizations out there (like David Mermin's "Boojums all the way through") but very little that bridges the gap between these and "real" physics books. One of the things on my to-do list is to write a book to try to fill this void, at least for quantum mechanics.
- trevortheblack 10y agoI would on the whole agree that physics pedagogy is generally terrible. But there are a handful of textbooks that do an excellent job on explaining the WHY before the math. Griffith, as mentioned 3 times in the article is famous for his excellent books. I'm not sure if you have read the Griffith's textbook on Quantum, but I would agree it does a reasonable job of introducing the topics before going too math heavy. The first 2 chapters are devoted to introducing concepts before the "boojums" of chapter 3. But I wholly disagree with your assertion that QM should be taught _how we know_ before what it means. QM tends to need to get across 3 things to the introductory student, broadly, it's what the tools are (e.g. Schroedinger's, uncertainty principle), how they depart from the classical understanding, and what the mathematical foundations are (e.g. commutators and linear algebra). I think that just teaching the tools, then the math, then the departure is by far the best means of teaching QM. It's just too weird to contrast to classical. Contrasting to classical at all would lend the student to an understanding of QM in terms of classical, that is absolutely the wrong mindset to be. I'm an EE and Phy MS at UCLA.
- lisper 10y ago> But I wholly disagree with your assertion that QM should be taught _how we know_ before what it means. I didn't assert that, so you can't disagree with it :-) I think the how-we-know and the what-it-means should both precede the math, but I don't have a strong opinion on which of those should come first. I have not read Griffiths, but I took a quick look at: http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%... and I was not impressed. It seems like a completely traditional presentation, and like all traditional presentations it completely misses the absolutely central role that entanglement plays in the conceptual foundations of QM. (In fact, the word "entanglement" does not even appear in the table of contents! Alas, the on-line text I found at the above link is not searchable so I can't tell you if he doesn't address it at all.) [EDIT] I've now read more of Griffiths and I would like to revise and extend my above remarks :-) My original criticism still stands, but aside from that the book is actually quite good.
- godelski 10y agoThere is a classical mechanics missing in the grad school section. One of the primary books used is by Goldstein. I also recommend Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems by Marion and Thornton. As was mentioned in another post Linear Algebra is a must, and I think David Lay's book is a great one to start with. As the author mentions, to learn physics you MUST DO PROBLEMS. On another note I can't seem to find anyone that has mnemonic techniques for learning equations. So if anyone comes across a good method I'd like to hear it. And I'm not just talking about something like "low d high minus high d low, square the bottom and away we go". But to more complex equations, like memorize "memorize Einstein's field equation." A method that could potentially work for any arbitrary equation.
- antognini 10y agoI think the only way to consistently memorize an equation is to deeply understand it. Not just how to apply it, but essentially how to derive it. What motivates it. Why it must take the form that it does. With fundamental physical equations you have to be a little hand-wavy, because they are, well, fundamental, so they can't be derived from anything else. But you can motivate the form of the Schrodinger equation from the classical wave equation. (I should note that Feynman disagrees with this claim, but you can find a nice motivation for the form in Penrose's Road to Reality.) Regardless, going through these motions will serve to embed the form of the equation in your mind. It also helps to write the form of the equation in a number of different ways. Some may be easier to remember than others. Maxwell's equations, for instance, are pretty easy to remember if you write them in terms of the EM stress-energy tensor.
- godelski 10y agoThis is always how I have memorized them, really through repetition (back to doing problems). The thing is that except for the basic ones and ones I use excessively, I forget; I think this is common. In comparison I can remember mnemonic lists of random items created years ago. I can't help but think there is a way to store math information similarly. Because that would suggest that it is a problem with the storage of the information. I've always looked for more effective ways to study. And to counter your suggestion you can definitely fully understand the principles of an equation without being able to remember the equation itself. A simple example of this would be the Laplacian in spherical coordinates. It is easy to understand what is being done and the Cartesian form is trivial (most people have this memorized even) and the spherical can be derived from it simply. Problem is this takes way too much time. I don't think an example like this you could argue that there isn't an understanding of what is going on, just a familiarity issue. And thus how the information was stored. I'd argue that most of those that know this off the top of their head do so from repetition and not because of a better understanding than their Cartesian only counterparts.
- melling 10y agoHN post about the best way to learn physics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11216668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11216668
- vortico 10y ago't Hooft's guide is really fantastic as a complement to an undergraduate curriculum. http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~001/goodtheorist/index.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~001/goodtheorist/index.html Edit: Looks like this has already been posted. But it's so good it needs another bump.
- FarhadG 10y agoCongrats, Susan! I remember having a philosophy class with you (many) years ago
- kapilkaisare 10y agoI would love to see similar lists for Chemistry, Biology, Architecture, Urban planning... The world of autodidactism needs a list of list of textbooks, providing learning paths for all sorts of subjects.
- sn9 10y agoThese lists basically exist, though not conveniently in one place. Just look at the required and elective courses at a few decent undergraduate programs for your field of interest, form a DAG from the list of prerequisites (which is sometimes conveniently shown as a flowchart by the program), and track down the required textbooks. If your field of interest exists as a well-studied undergraduate major, then this list can be compiled in an hour or two.
- Hydraulix989 10y agoFor GR, I really liked Bernard Schutz's "A First Course in General Relativity" -- I read it from cover to cover. Extremely lucid explanations of some very complex topics, and reading it for the first time blew my mind. This book "teaches" you well (compared to other books where I feel like I really am putting in a ton of mental effort just to learn what the book is trying to say, much like reading mathematics articles on Wikipedia), and it still manages to move fast.
- aidenn0 10y agoI didn't see any optics textbooks listed, so I'll propose two: Fundamentals of Optics, Jenkins & White Nonlinear Optics, Boyd
- shamino 10y agoI think this is a great list, and I'm so glad Susan took the time to lay all of this out! I have to add these two books to the list. I was surprised to see they didn't make it, even though she nailed some of the other "bibles". The following were my favorite books as an undergraduate physics major: - Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow - Electricity and Magnetism by Edward Purcell No true physics education would be complete without reading and going through the problems in those books. I knew physics was my passion before, but these books helped me fall in love with physics even more.
- sp527 10y agoWondering if anyone here has run into the same issue as me: I've wanted to learn Physics properly (post college) but can't find time to balance it with a job/having a social life. I've had a few false starts where I try for a week or two and give up because the whole enterprise feels insurmountable. Anyone else experience this/figure out a good strategy?
- mathattack 10y agoThe post made me wish I majored in Physics!
- yati 10y agoAnother good resource (compiled by Nobel Laureate Gerard 't Hooft): http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/
- LHxB 10y agoIs someone aware of a similiar post replacing "Physics" with "Computer Science"?
- tofupup 10y agoneat