Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

Post by mrcactu5 » Mon, Dec 23, 2013, 12:13 AM UTC

CurtMonash wrote: post #20

tgb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the idea of "mechanics 101 for smart people" - can anyone recommend good books that are the analogs of SICP for other subjects? I'd love to know ones for, say, genetics or evolution as well as stats. I can say that Hubbard + Hubbard "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations" does a good job of being that for vector calculus specifically and for exposure to theoretical mathematics.

On a more elementary level, Michael Spivak's Calculus is an amazing book on first-year calculus. He also wrote Calculus on Manifolds and a 5-volume series on Differential Geometry. Those, to put it mildly, were rougher going. I actually once got a crush on a dorm-mate in large part because I saw Calculus on Manifolds on her bookshelf. It wasn't reciprocal, however. Later in life, she went on to run the Bureau of Labo…

I remember being disappointed with Calculus on Manifolds, since it was very abstract. I was looking for something with more explicit calculations. To this end, I was quite happy with Edwards "Advanced Calculus"

http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Calculus-David-V-Widder/dp/04... http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Calculus-Several-Variables-Ma...

Post by siddboots » Mon, Dec 23, 2013, 2:48 AM UTC

3rd3 wrote: post #22

siddboots wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're completely different. Susskind won't teach you things like friction, drag, or elasticity. But, he will teach you some of the most profound theoretical insights of modern physics. Lewin won't teach you Euler-Lagrange Equations, or Noether's Theorem. But, he will teach you how to think about solving practical physics problems. They also have different sense of humour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUFtLCrU90#…

And how do both compare to Penrose's Road To Reality and the Feynman Lectures on Physics?

FLOP and Susskind's Theoretical Minimum are similar in that they both aim to teach an intuition of theoretical physics, rather than training one to do calculate the solutions of particular physics problems. So, they are similar in that respect.

The key difference that I noticed is that Feynman's intention is to explain nature, and he tends to avoid relying too heavily on the mathematics as part of that explanation.

Susskind's focus is on raw abstractions themselves, often independent of the physical phenomena that are being abstracted. His intent is to exaplain the mathematics, and to give you an intuition and appreciation for the beauty of those abstractions.

For example, Feynman shows you the Lorenz Transformations and says "this is the stuff that is needed to make Maxwell's Equations work out the same to a moving observer." On the other hand, Susskind starts with the notion that light has the same velocity in all reference frames, and uses this to derive the Lorenz Transformations algebraically.

I haven't read Penrose, so I can't comment on that.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics