Math major here looking to learn some physics on the side. So far all of the physics textbooks I've read have all felt a bit too... "hand-wavy". It's a bit difficult to explain, but they don't feel formal enough. It just feels like a bunch of disjointed information and ways to model it.
So I'm looking for a textbook that does this physics thing a bit more rigorously. Definitions, with motivation, and then builds upon that every step of the way. Is there a name for this approach by the way? Is it a stupid way to go about things, or no?
>>7735184
It's your brain telling you you have no innate talent and you're too stupid to understand physics. Stick to math if you constantly need everything spelled out to you like a retard.
>>7735188
I have no trouble understanding it. I simply wish it was more rigorous. We should be able to derive more complex physical truths from basic ideas.
>>7735192
well, you could 'derive' all the classical mechanics from the newton's laws, good luck
ITT: OP saw the canonical subsitution in a QM book.
>>7735184
Spivak or Marsden and Hughes depending on how much math you know.
>>7735184
In all seriousness check out Szekeres's "A course in Modern Mathematical Physics."
Skipped to the applied chapters.
>>7735184
You've had this autistic troll thread countless times already, do you people ever get tired of posting the same shit every few days?
>>7735184
What textbooks are you using? If they're undergrad tier of course they're going to be nonrigorous; sciences in general are handwavy until you start grad coursework, and then only if you actually need rigor (I'm being VERY general/unfair here, but think of theoretical vs experimental). Undergrads simply don't have the mathematical exposure (read: time and/or care/need for such rigor), as do probably at least half the grad students. Remember that it wasn't until von Neumann (and Dirac too I suppose) came in and actually formalized the math of quantum mechanics that it became what you might consider "rigorous." But in general, most working physicists have no need for such treatments, and so the courses aimed at the general physicist are, as expected, light on the mathematical rigor.
I'd recommend looking up mathematical physics texts, but understand that the math is only being used to rigorously describe the physics - it is not an equivalent truth. The only truth comes from nature, and we can only translate her language into mathematics.
>>7735236
Never made this thread before.
>>7735252
>Remember that it wasn't until von Neumann (and Dirac too I suppose) came in and actually formalized the math of quantum mechanics that it became what you might consider "rigorous."
What about reformulations of classical mechanics then? Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics? Those are considered more rigorous formulations of it, yes?
Is the term I'm looking for mathematical physics?
L.D. Landau & E.M. Lifshitz
Hi, guys. Does someone have solution manual for Blundell's Concepts in Thermal Physics? Just want to go through it myself and need to check exercises.
Or any other good books on thermal physics with solutions?
>>7735184
>Not doing General Physics I and General Physics II in your major.
I don't know how to react to that.
Should I feel sad for you because your math curriculum is shit and incomplete?
Or should I feel jealous because you don't have to do bullshit laboratories like I do even though I'm a fucking math major that will never fucking touch a fucking laboratory.
...
I'll stroke my ego and go with sad.
>>7735827
>took modern physics and chem in the same semester
>we did the Balmer series experiment in both labs
>the chem lab had a hydrogen and helium tube and spectroscope for each station of two people
>the physics lab had two stations, and everyone was huddled around the fucking lamps like a bunch of undergrad hobos around a trashcan fire
Did anyone else's physics labs feel a bit "sparse" in comparison to their Chem labs?
i fucking hate anime
>>7735912
>on a mongolian scripture imageboard
>>7735184
Most of physics isn't founded on mathematical rigour, it is (as you've noticed) a series of models and ways to approximate the data.
>>7735847
Yep. My chem labs are done in these large rooms, with fairly expensive modern equipment. Meanwhile my physics labs were in cramped rooms with equipment that literally came from the 60s. I think its because chem brings more money to the university and so gets more spent on it.
>>7735777
This, pretty much
what an autist
and you had to make a shit thread here, google wasn't enough for you, right?
L A N D A U
A
N
D
A
U
>>7735184
Landau Lipchitz
Physics for Mathematicians by Michael Spivak
VI Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics
