5 ms·

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

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.
    - spekcular 6y ago
      What are the titles of the two Oxford books you mentioned? I'd like to look at them.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        Quantum Field Theory for the gifted amateur (well not quite...) Concepts in thermal physics Not at the same level as L&L but they are absolute masterpieces in pedagogy and the formula should be extended to a 800page tome to cover more material. It's the way MTW should be written...
- enriquto 6y ago
  > could use some material on the "deeper" side of things The first few chapters are precisely about the extraction of concrete conserved quantities from symmetries. A sufficiently "russian" reader will be able to see immediately the general case from these very complete examples. Noether's theorem is only missing in name, not in content. > 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 The typeseting of the french edition of L&L is extraordinarily beautiful. I'm not sure that is is possible to reach this typographical elegance with freely available LaTeX packages. On the other hand, the re-typed Feynman lectures are a disgrace, and an objectively worsening in quality from the first editions.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I liked that section a lot but I want a jumping off point. I don't think symmetries of the action or groups are discussed, IIRC. I may have been a little vague when I said typesetting - the actual typesetting is a bit dull but the thing that is a disgrace, I should clarify, is that the fonts are terrible, and the text has that "Cheap Dover book" print quality (not far off a good typewriter).
    - spekcular 6y ago
      To amplify this point, all the negative Amazon reviews praise the book but excoriate the print quality.
      - enriquto 6y ago
        This must concern some paperback English print? My copy in French from "Editions MIR Moscou, 1969", hardcover, masterfully typeset and in bible paper is one of the finest books that I have.
        spekcular 6y ago
        Yes, I think it's specific to the English version. You can see examples if you use the Amazon.com "look inside" feature. For instance in volume 3, in the first pages already some of the footnotes are hardly readable. For one of the volumes, a reviewer even posted a picture of his edition with subscripts printed so faint/partially that they were basically missing, and he had to Google the proper formulas!
- spekcular 6y ago
  Yeah, I liked the mechanics and quantum volumes, but the choice of material in the stat mech books (both volumes) just seemed weird compared to what's usually done in a modern graduate course. Do you have any recommendations for good stat mech books? I guess the two volume set by Kardar is trendy right now, but I'm always curious about other options.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I'm remiss to recommend as I'm still learning, but I absolutely love "Concepts in Thermal physics". It's embarrassingly well written and structured. Beyond that the usual suspects are good enough for me, I just don't like L&L. I'm probably forgetting something. It's not exactly statmech but I really like McComb's introductory renormalization methods book.
    - spekcular 6y ago
      Thank you for the recommendations! While I have not seen either of those books before, I have another book by the author of the first one, Stephen Blundell. It's Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, and I think you might like it. Not as a standalone quantum book, but perhaps as a supplement to a more "serious" treatment. edit: I just saw you recommended this below!
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        QFTFTGA is really great. Surprisingly hard as well. I got it when I was 17 and it was an absolute godsend as its really cheap.

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.
  - spekcular 6y ago
    What are the titles of the two Oxford books you mentioned? I'd like to look at them.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Quantum Field Theory for the gifted amateur (well not quite...) Concepts in thermal physics Not at the same level as L&L but they are absolute masterpieces in pedagogy and the formula should be extended to a 800page tome to cover more material. It's the way MTW should be written...
enriquto 6y ago
> could use some material on the "deeper" side of things The first few chapters are precisely about the extraction of concrete conserved quantities from symmetries. A sufficiently "russian" reader will be able to see immediately the general case from these very complete examples. Noether's theorem is only missing in name, not in content. > 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 The typeseting of the french edition of L&L is extraordinarily beautiful. I'm not sure that is is possible to reach this typographical elegance with freely available LaTeX packages. On the other hand, the re-typed Feynman lectures are a disgrace, and an objectively worsening in quality from the first editions.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I liked that section a lot but I want a jumping off point. I don't think symmetries of the action or groups are discussed, IIRC. I may have been a little vague when I said typesetting - the actual typesetting is a bit dull but the thing that is a disgrace, I should clarify, is that the fonts are terrible, and the text has that "Cheap Dover book" print quality (not far off a good typewriter).
  - spekcular 6y ago
    To amplify this point, all the negative Amazon reviews praise the book but excoriate the print quality.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      This must concern some paperback English print? My copy in French from "Editions MIR Moscou, 1969", hardcover, masterfully typeset and in bible paper is one of the finest books that I have.
      - spekcular 6y ago
        Yes, I think it's specific to the English version. You can see examples if you use the Amazon.com "look inside" feature. For instance in volume 3, in the first pages already some of the footnotes are hardly readable. For one of the volumes, a reviewer even posted a picture of his edition with subscripts printed so faint/partially that they were basically missing, and he had to Google the proper formulas!
spekcular 6y ago
Yeah, I liked the mechanics and quantum volumes, but the choice of material in the stat mech books (both volumes) just seemed weird compared to what's usually done in a modern graduate course. Do you have any recommendations for good stat mech books? I guess the two volume set by Kardar is trendy right now, but I'm always curious about other options.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I'm remiss to recommend as I'm still learning, but I absolutely love "Concepts in Thermal physics". It's embarrassingly well written and structured. Beyond that the usual suspects are good enough for me, I just don't like L&L. I'm probably forgetting something. It's not exactly statmech but I really like McComb's introductory renormalization methods book.
  - spekcular 6y ago
    Thank you for the recommendations! While I have not seen either of those books before, I have another book by the author of the first one, Stephen Blundell. It's Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, and I think you might like it. Not as a standalone quantum book, but perhaps as a supplement to a more "serious" treatment. edit: I just saw you recommended this below!
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      QFTFTGA is really great. Surprisingly hard as well. I got it when I was 17 and it was an absolute godsend as its really cheap.