8 ms·

Wow, these look great! Does anyone know of any similar resources for mechanics, specifically the Hamiltonian & Lagrangian formulations? I've had a bit of troubl

Wow, these look great! Does anyone know of any similar resources for mechanics, specifically the Hamiltonian & Lagrangian formulations? I've had a bit of trouble finding good resources online to supplement my mechanics modules at uni.

mhh__ 6y ago
Based on "uni" I'm guessing you are at a UK institution (as am I). The notes are utter dogshit because there's no culture of publishing them online for the public. Kibble's classical mechanics book is deep, easy to read and cheap, I'd start there. Most physics books past a certain level end up with an increasingly hand-wavy derivation of the Euler-lagrange equations in some context
abhinav22 6y ago
Look for Dover books, particularly from Russian authors. Cheap and good!
- Tomte 6y ago
  For linear algebra: Shilov.
  - abhinav22 6y ago
    I own four copies of that book :-) Two hard copies since I moved countries, one on kindle and one on Apple Books. Great book :D
blewboarwastake 6y ago
I found these lecture notes by David Tong to be really good at a glance [1]. A free introductory physics book [2]. I don't have much physics stuff and I know almost nothing about it, I mostly focus on Math/CS, this is some stuff that I had bookmarked. Maybe someone else here can share some good Mechanics resources. [1] http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.html http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.html [2] http://www.lightandmatter.com http://www.lightandmatter.com
posix_me_less 6y ago
Tong is good, most appropriate if you already know a little about the subject. However, it is a "fast-track" kind of resource, it is good to read some standard textbooks on the subject, i.e. Landau & Lifshitz (the most efficient book on theoretical mechanics ever) and Goldstein (broad and interesting).
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Although I have immense respect for them I really don't like L&L all that much. The first one is pretty beautiful but it could use some material on the "deeper" side of things, particularly the connection with geometry and Noether's theorem. As for the others, they're just too "russian" - I like how oddly practical they are, but they're just not structured properly - StatPhys in particular just doesn't flow very well. The typesetting is also a crime against humanity - they should be done similarly to the Feynman lectures, so typed up in LaTeX rather than whatever they are now
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    Regarding geometry and Noether's theorem, I disagree. That stuff is way overblown in general, it gives you very little ( in classical mechanics) for the time and page count the subject requires. I had a lecture on this topic from enthusiast well-respected physicist, and I kept thinking, this stuff is interesting math but completely useless to a physicist.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Classical mechanics is ultimately just masturbation compared to the "real thing", it's all a warm-up for the mind rather than teaching you how to calculate stresses on a beam - Full on symplectic geometry is niche but the basics of Noether's theorem and symmetries are central to classical and quantum field theories which are ultimately the language in which the cutting edge of fundamental physics speaks. So I sort of agree, but take the two Oxford books on QFT and Statistical physics - they pack in enormous amounts of detail in a 3 or 4 hundred pages. There's room to spare if the book is the right shape.

mhh__ 6y ago

Based on "uni" I'm guessing you are at a UK institution (as am I). The notes are utter dogshit because there's no culture of publishing them online for the public. Kibble's classical mechanics book is deep, easy to read and cheap, I'd start there. Most physics books past a certain level end up with an increasingly hand-wavy derivation of the Euler-lagrange equations in some context

abhinav22 6y ago

Look for Dover books, particularly from Russian authors. Cheap and good!

Tomte 6y ago
For linear algebra: Shilov.
- abhinav22 6y ago
  I own four copies of that book :-) Two hard copies since I moved countries, one on kindle and one on Apple Books. Great book :D

blewboarwastake 6y ago

I found these lecture notes by David Tong to be really good at a glance [1]. A free introductory physics book [2]. I don't have much physics stuff and I know almost nothing about it, I mostly focus on Math/CS, this is some stuff that I had bookmarked. Maybe someone else here can share some good Mechanics resources. [1] http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.html http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.html [2] http://www.lightandmatter.com http://www.lightandmatter.com

posix_me_less 6y ago

Tong is good, most appropriate if you already know a little about the subject. However, it is a "fast-track" kind of resource, it is good to read some standard textbooks on the subject, i.e. Landau & Lifshitz (the most efficient book on theoretical mechanics ever) and Goldstein (broad and interesting).

mhh__ 6y ago
Although I have immense respect for them I really don't like L&L all that much. The first one is pretty beautiful but it could use some material on the "deeper" side of things, particularly the connection with geometry and Noether's theorem. As for the others, they're just too "russian" - I like how oddly practical they are, but they're just not structured properly - StatPhys in particular just doesn't flow very well. The typesetting is also a crime against humanity - they should be done similarly to the Feynman lectures, so typed up in LaTeX rather than whatever they are now
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Regarding geometry and Noether's theorem, I disagree. That stuff is way overblown in general, it gives you very little ( in classical mechanics) for the time and page count the subject requires. I had a lecture on this topic from enthusiast well-respected physicist, and I kept thinking, this stuff is interesting math but completely useless to a physicist.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Classical mechanics is ultimately just masturbation compared to the "real thing", it's all a warm-up for the mind rather than teaching you how to calculate stresses on a beam - Full on symplectic geometry is niche but the basics of Noether's theorem and symmetries are central to classical and quantum field theories which are ultimately the language in which the cutting edge of fundamental physics speaks. So I sort of agree, but take the two Oxford books on QFT and Statistical physics - they pack in enormous amounts of detail in a 3 or 4 hundred pages. There's room to spare if the book is the right shape.