I am a third year mathematics student whos always neglected physics. Frankly speaking, past the material my differential equations lecturer tried to force down our throats I dont know jackshit about physics. Is there a book (that includes exercises) that can teach me what I need to know in order to start looking into doing a physics minor?
University Physics by Young & Freedman
>>8176469
I would actually skip this and look to pick up something more mathematically sophisticated, something more at your level. you might give classical mechanics by taylor a try, or maybe kleppner and kolenkow. Alternatively, if you have a solid knowledge of ODE, linear algebra, and know a little group theory, you might just start off with Arnold's "mathematical methods of classical mechanics" which provides a full overview of the subject from a rigorous perspective grounded in differential, and more specifically, symplectic geometry.
>>8176489
I took a real analysis based ODE class and I am pretty comfortable with group theory. Should be alright. My only concern is that I would like a broad basis so I can pick and choose courses at my uni rather than learn about a specific subject now, would this book be suited for this?
>>8176469
Will look this one up now
>>8176489
if he said he doesn't know jack shit about physics, then University Physics is the book. it isn't "mathematically sophisticated", but grants basic understanding of physical phenomena, shows the equations from where to start and contains plenty of exercises.
basic physics (mechanics, electricity etc.) isn't even that hard mathematically, just very simple vectors, integrals and differentials
>>8176469
I'm doing my 1st year physics exams in a months time for which I need to know the contents of Y&F.
This would usually be very easy as I've sailed through all of education up to now by just reading through the textbook the night before, but Y&F is not read-able (it seems to say a whole lot of nothing a lot of the time) and I lose focus in seconds. Is there any other textbook that would teach me what I need in a more digestible form? I have an ADD examination booked but it is not until after the exams so I won't know if that is what's causing my problems or just laziness/disinterest.
>>8176443
>I have always neglected physics
>I know jackshit about physics
>Now I want to get a physics minor
Why the fuck would you do that? Why do people do this to themselves? Why do you want to do something you don't enjoy?
Fucking hell.
>>8177307
Have you got reading problems with any other books? I get easily distarcted when starting to read, but after focusing for 30 minutes I get the flow going.
>>8176443
You could read 'The Road to Reality' by Roger Penrose for a broad overview of Theoretical Physics coming from a Mathematical perspective
>>8177332
Because 6-figure debts towards degrees that "sound cool" are all the rage. No one wants to know what their degree consists of or what they'll be able to do with it. They want to be "enlightened" and follow the completely unknown footsteps of their favorite pop sci celebrity. That's what science REALLY is, right? Knowing things and being smart?
>>8176443
You could read a mathematical physics book:
Scheck - From Newton to Chaos Theory (can't remember the exact name)
Spivak - Physics for Mathematicians
Arnold - Mathematical methods for Classical Mechanics
I second Y&F as a starter. After that, "Mathematics and the Physical World" by Kline. He has a brilliant writing style for a Mathematician.
I do not recommend reading graduate level texts if you haven't even been through a Mechanics course.
I never understand whay a matyematican would want to read "X ... for mathematicans". " for Y" are to make it easier.You know the proper math and those books skim over math. Yoy're not helped by it being written by a matyematican, i.e. second rate physicist.
>>8178000
I prefer them. I like physics BECAUSE of the math.
And most other texts are so handwavy I don't trust any of their results.
>>8177978
Spivak's not a "graduate text". It assumes a real linear algebra course, and I think that's about it.
Arnold is rough, might want to breeze through David Tong's notes on physics before getting into it.
He has a baby book for mechanics too...very similar name.
Scheck, I'm not sure of,
>>8177332
I never was interested in it when I was younger and now that I am willing to actually try for it I need to catch up first. Im not sure if I will enjoy it, but chances are I will.
>>8177955
Yadda yadda fuck you
>>8177956
Arent those again too specific?
>>8177978
Noted!
>>8178000
I did not mean to say I was looking for a text taking a mathematical point of view, what I meant by it was that I am not daunted by the maths behind it. Because, you know, Ive gotten my feet wet with maths. I agree on the sentiment youve described.
>>8178020
>And most other texts are so handwavy I don't trust any of their results.
This is something Im both afraid of and looking forward to. On one hand, I dig being rigorous. On the other hand, Im down for something less about proving every fucking point.
Thanks for the replies (so far) my niggas.
