To be a good physicist, the best is to go through dedicated textbooks for Complex Analysis, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Variational Calculus, Functional Analysis, Fourier Series and Differential Geometry. Krantz, Zill, Saff&Snider have great books for Complex Analysis and ODE, i suggest going through 4 books out of the 6. For PDE Asnar and Haberman are the best options, but Pivato too is great, only a bit more sophisticated. For Variational Calculus Komzsik and Cassel (there aren't many options). Sasane for Functional Analysis, Olson for Fourier. For Differential Geometry i would suggest Oprea, Tapp and also an advanced textbook like the one by Loring Tu or the one by Lee. As for Mathematical Methods, i would skip this basic textbooks like Arfken or Kreysig (just use them as review if you really want), and go through something more "meaty" like the 3 books by Cahill, Appel and Nakahara.
Reif Stat Mech is also good, Barton Zweibich(MIT) has written a quantum text for undergrads that is awesome,if you want to read Indian authors read PB Pal’s Mathematical Structures, quantum mechanics and Stat Mech..Pal is a theorist with Phd from Stony Brook University…..For optics read AK Ghatak( Cornell Univ Phd)….For electronics learn from Video Playlist of ‘Ankit Goyal’..no one will teach you electronics for free like him ,he’s IIT trained electronics engineer…
Well everybody has their preferences. Riley and Hobson is a good book but in my opinion, Arfken, Weber and Harris is like a treasure (but that's just my opinion... we can disagree on this). One area where Riley and Hobson takes a bit of an edge over Arfken, Weber and Harris is tensor analysis. I think Arfken, Weber and Harris should have taken more time with tensor analysis. They hurried through it. Riley and Hobson took their time to explain things in their description of tensor analysis.
Is it okay that instead of reading a book on classical mechanics i can watch Stanford lecutres on classical mechanics by leonard susskind since thats the way i have been studying classical mechnaics up until now
Well I hold the opinion that lectures can never replace books/papers. So, if you want to understand the details, I would recommend going through a book. Moreover, Leonard Susskind's lectures are supposed to give you basic ideas but they aren't designed to go into the meat of the calculations. So, you can watch his lectures for an introduction but afterwards, go through a book for more details. For example, when I was learning GR, I watched his lectures on GR and they were good as an introduction but you can't do long GR calculations after watching his lectures.
Firstly, Feynman's lectures aren't a complete source that is required for a physics undergraduate. They are good for learning the very basics and to get some interesting perspectives on some topics though. Landau and Lifshitz mechnaics is good. If you resonate with it, you should definitely read it. However, I would recommend that you still check out the topics in Goldstein's book so that you are sure that you aren't missing any important topics that are considered standard in the discourse of classcial mechanics.
Why actually you think University Physics is better than Halidey Resinick? The problems seem more difficult in Fundamentals of Physics isn't it a plus ?
Well, firstly I disagree that problems are more difficult in HRK. I think that overall, the problems of HRK and University Physics are at the same level. The things that make me like university physics more are the explanations and illustrations. It isn't the case that HRK doesn't have explanations and illustrations. I just like the explanations and illustrations of university physics more than their counterparts in HRK.
I think Zangwill alone can be better than Jackson when it comes to explaining stuff. Jackson's problems constitute the bigger challange. Zangwill's problems aren't easy either.
Thanks for your answer! Yes I oversimplified... Jackson remains a classic but less pedagogical than more modern books like Zangwill or Maggiore. Still it has very tough exercises, which is great to get better at problem solving! Maggiore has a very elegant theoretical treatment, but lacks exercises 😆
To be a good physicist, the best is to go through dedicated textbooks for Complex Analysis, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Variational Calculus, Functional Analysis, Fourier Series and Differential Geometry. Krantz, Zill, Saff&Snider have great books for Complex Analysis and ODE, i suggest going through 4 books out of the 6. For PDE Asnar and Haberman are the best options, but Pivato too is great, only a bit more sophisticated. For Variational Calculus Komzsik and Cassel (there aren't many options). Sasane for Functional Analysis, Olson for Fourier. For Differential Geometry i would suggest Oprea, Tapp and also an advanced textbook like the one by Loring Tu or the one by Lee. As for Mathematical Methods, i would skip this basic textbooks like Arfken or Kreysig (just use them as review if you really want), and go through something more "meaty" like the 3 books by Cahill, Appel and Nakahara.
Thank you for your recommendations! I’m glad you got straight to the point, not like other TH-camrs who take sooo long to get to the point.
Thanks
Thank you for sharing your insights.
My pleasure
Awesome! Thank you for this video!
My Pleasure
Agree, however i resonates most with RHK physics
Sure. Read whatever you resonate with 👍
Also Kardar Stat Mech, Morin Classical Mechanics, Morin Purcell Electrodynamics, Berkeley course all books…
Reif Stat Mech is also good, Barton Zweibich(MIT) has written a quantum text for undergrads that is awesome,if you want to read Indian authors read PB Pal’s Mathematical Structures, quantum mechanics and Stat Mech..Pal is a theorist with Phd from Stony Brook University…..For optics read AK Ghatak( Cornell Univ Phd)….For electronics learn from Video Playlist of ‘Ankit Goyal’..no one will teach you electronics for free like him ,he’s IIT trained electronics engineer…
Also for Math Methods Riley Hobson Bence is better for beginners than Arfken.
Well everybody has their preferences. Riley and Hobson is a good book but in my opinion, Arfken, Weber and Harris is like a treasure (but that's just my opinion... we can disagree on this).
One area where Riley and Hobson takes a bit of an edge over Arfken, Weber and Harris is tensor analysis. I think Arfken, Weber and Harris should have taken more time with tensor analysis. They hurried through it. Riley and Hobson took their time to explain things in their description of tensor analysis.
@@Phymaths Correct but I learnt all of tensor by watching MathTheBeautiful(Pavel Grinfield) rather than from college classes or any book.
Is it okay that instead of reading a book on classical mechanics i can watch Stanford lecutres on classical mechanics by leonard susskind since thats the way i have been studying classical mechnaics up until now
Well I hold the opinion that lectures can never replace books/papers. So, if you want to understand the details, I would recommend going through a book. Moreover, Leonard Susskind's lectures are supposed to give you basic ideas but they aren't designed to go into the meat of the calculations. So, you can watch his lectures for an introduction but afterwards, go through a book for more details.
For example, when I was learning GR, I watched his lectures on GR and they were good as an introduction but you can't do long GR calculations after watching his lectures.
How is mechanis by Landau after Feynman
Firstly, Feynman's lectures aren't a complete source that is required for a physics undergraduate. They are good for learning the very basics and to get some interesting perspectives on some topics though.
Landau and Lifshitz mechnaics is good. If you resonate with it, you should definitely read it. However, I would recommend that you still check out the topics in Goldstein's book so that you are sure that you aren't missing any important topics that are considered standard in the discourse of classcial mechanics.
Why actually you think University Physics is better than Halidey Resinick? The problems seem more difficult in Fundamentals of Physics isn't it a plus ?
Well, firstly I disagree that problems are more difficult in HRK. I think that overall, the problems of HRK and University Physics are at the same level.
The things that make me like university physics more are the explanations and illustrations. It isn't the case that HRK doesn't have explanations and illustrations. I just like the explanations and illustrations of university physics more than their counterparts in HRK.
Awesome
Thanks
Zangwill + Maggiore >> Jackson
I think Zangwill alone can be better than Jackson when it comes to explaining stuff. Jackson's problems constitute the bigger challange. Zangwill's problems aren't easy either.
Thanks for your answer! Yes I oversimplified... Jackson remains a classic but less pedagogical than more modern books like Zangwill or Maggiore. Still it has very tough exercises, which is great to get better at problem solving! Maggiore has a very elegant theoretical treatment, but lacks exercises 😆
Which university do u study in the usa ?
SUNY Albany
Ericwientien of india