Is this good enough?

Math:

>Calculus - Apostol

>Linear Algebra - Hoffman/Axler

>Analysis - Abbott

>Algebra - Artin

>Differential Equations - Tanenbaum

>Partial Differential Equations - Evans

>Complex Analysis - Zill

>Differential Geometry - Pressley/Do Carmo

Physics:

>University Physics - Freedman

>Feynman Lectures - Feynman

>Classical Mechanics - Taylor

>Special Relativity - Woodhouse

>Electrodynamics - Griffiths

>Quantum Mechanics - Griffiths/Townsend/Zettili

>Particle Physics - Griffiths/Thomson

>General Relativity - Woodhouse/Schutz

Did I miss anything? Would you not recommend some of those books? Keep in mind that this is all for undergraduate level.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |

My man, get studying instead of obsessing over what the "best" textbook is. It does not matter. It's your brain tricking you into procrastination.

I’ve been studying electromagnetism for 20 consecutive days, don’t project your shitty habits onto me

>20 consecutive days

rookie numbers

>I’ve been studying electromagnetism for 20 consecutive days

So you already completed the book? What did you do the other 10 days then?

Then let's test if you are lying or not.

Give me the formula for the electrical energy stored in an arrangement of N point like charges q1, q2, ..., qN located in r1, r2, ..., rN (vectors in R^3). Explain the steps to derive it.

You mean the electric potential energy? I just finished chapter 23 of Young and Freedman, I still need to revise it to understand some concepts better.

Focus less on individual textbooks and more on important milestones.

ex. Basic Mechanics

>Can you derive the equations for linear motion with constant acceleration and use them to solve basic problems?

>Can you extrapolate this to 2D and 3D problems, projectile motion, etc.?

>Can you derive the equations of motion for an arbitrary time-dependent acceleration with initial conditions?

>Do you understand Newton's Laws of Motion? How to describe and produce free body diagrams? How to translate FBDs into equations for Newton's 2nd Law? And how to solve for acceleration from these equations?

>Do you understand the concept of work and how to calculate work done along a course?

>Do you understand the concept of kinetic and potential energy? The relationship between conservative forces and potentials? Conservative and nonconservative forces? Work energy theorems? The conservation of mechanical energy?

>Do you understand the concept of momentum? The relationship between forces and impulse? Impulse and changes in momentum? The conservation of momentum? Collisions?

>Do you understand how to describe simple circular motion? Rotational displacements, velocities, and accelerations?

>Can you relate rotational and linear motions? Tangential and radial accelerations and forces? Do you understand why rotation produces inertial forces?

>Do you understand how the distribution of matter affects the dynamics of an object? Can you calculate the center of mass and moment of inertia for discrete and continuous distributions of matter?

>Do you understand how to determine torques? How torques affect rotation? Can you see how the rules for forces, work, energy, momentum, impulse, etc. translate into rotational terms?

And this is at an introductory level, without yet tackling fluids, thermodynamics, oscillations, etc.

At each level and with each topic, focus on the big picture:

>What are the core concepts, the mathematical tools, and the problem-solving methods I need to master?

Why would study calculus and then.. analysis again?

This is material for 3 years at the least. Start with any analysis / linear algebra / classical mechanics textbooks and when you're through with them (it's going to to take half a year, when you're seriously studying), then ask again.

I can't tell you about physics books but for math you should do:

>Linear algebra - Shilov

>Analysis - Rudin, then Stein and Shakarchi quadrio

>Algebra - mclain

>Diff eq - Arnold

>PDE - Evans

>Complex analysis - see above

>Differential geometry - Lang if you're up for a challange, otherwise do Jeffrey Lee

>Rudin, Arnold, Lang, Lee

Those books are for geniuses, I’m just an average student.

I’m planninng on reading all that in 2 years.

They're not. I'm 118 IQ and was able to read those books.

Mine is 109 though.

Geometry, euclids elements

Abbott is an 'easy' analysis book, which is as stepping stone you won't need if you're reading Apostol first. Go straight to something good like Amann/Escher.

Feynman lectures + Morin's Mechanics is a good combination.

Just focus on a handful of books at a time, and once you've built up a basis of knowledge, you'll be more opinionated about which books interest you next. Don't be put off by some of these books being for "advanced" students, the funny trick is that the books intended for bright students are usually the best, because they're written by brilliant professors who know how to teach it, so these books end up being clearer to understand. Of course, avoid reddit recommendations.

I lost 4 IQ points visiting IQfy today, but even with the 196 remaining I can understand all of the above books just fine.

Shit list

https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/

Georgiy Shilov – Linear Algebra

Lev Landau, Evgeny Lifshitz – Mechanics

That's quite the leap, and it just starts off assuming the following.

>Beyond Shilov’s book, this list assumes knowledge of basic mathematics, calculus in a single variable, and multiple variables. Another landmark book introducing a geometric perspective on ordinary differential equations by Vladimir Arnold can be found

Is it? You people act like it's impossible to understand the physics if you haven't taken proof-based math up to that point. Not knowing symplectic geometry does not mean you can't learn classical mechanics, nor is a rigorous course on calculus of variations necessary just because landau and every complete mechanics book use techniques from it.

The list seems to be built around first getting exposed to higher math in physics books and then learning the theory rigorously, which I don't see an issue with.

No, the list tells you to go frick off and learn calculus all the way up to Arnold's ODEs, and then come back later. Pretty useless for OP. That's like a parent telling their kid to go away and not bother them until they're 18 and ready for an adult conversation.

>You people

Das racist.

eh, that's certainly not necessary for L&L. Some vector calculus and exposure to ODEs suffices from my experience. Arnolds book is also just recommended because it's well-written.

I’m just an average student, that list is too advanced for me.

How the frick do you know? It's books for frick's sake. The only thing that could happen is that you learn something new.

>Is this good enough?

Nope, read https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02031

Congrats, ALL of the physics books listed are utter garbage.

If you’re gonna say that you should back it up with some actual arguments.

Don’t use Feynmans, it’s garbage. Just transcriptions of lectures. There’s a reason Caltech stopped teaching his material. University physics is good.

Here’s what I used in UG as Physics major (Freshman/Sophmore)

Kleppner/Kolenkow ‘Introduction to Mechanics’

Morin ‘Introduction to Classical Mechanics’ (Chapters 1-4)

Purcell ‘Electricity and Magnetism’

After covering basic integrals, you should be able to do most intro physics math. Many of the physics majors in my department were able to manage 2 semester intro Physics sequence while concurrently taking Calc 1/2. Bon voyage anon.

Griffiths ‘Electrodynamics’ is very good too. Standard text, and manageable for average student.

Griffith is a terrible text to learn from. I don't get why morons write books that offer nothing new, even Maxwell's original book on EM is better.

There's a difference between trying to write something for a course vs trying to actually explain physics well.

Landau starts in 4d special relativity in his second book while most other EM ones have that at the end for no reason whatsoever. Landau continues writing down how a 4 dim. EM vector potential acts on a charged particle; only this way can it be seen that there is one single observer independent EM field and the equations simplify DRAMATICALLY.

Those other books, Griffith's worthless pile of shit included, write down electric and magnetic fields seperately in 3d instead and derive stupidly complicated formulae with many corrections to account for the implicit change of observer frame.

ON TOP OF THAT, they randomly insert chapters about how the forces are modified inside of materials (to please engineers forced to take the course?) and it ends up just being a scatterbrained mess. Landau has all that stuff in vol.8 and treats it much better too

TL;DR: If you want to learn physics, read landau

Once I stop being such a mathgay, I'm going to certainly read Landau (and probably Feynman for the alternative narrative).

What someone like OP needs is a good path to getting to that stage. Apostol I/II would probably be enough, but I'd prefer the longer route of recommending Amann/Escher 1-3, but perhaps this is too long.

I suppose another very good and distinctly Russian approach would be Piskunov Calculus I/II or those calculus books for physics students 'Higher mathematics for Beginners' (I forgot the title of the follow up) which Zeldovich/Yaglom wrote. Shilov or also Schafarevich is good for linear algebra.

^-- And Arnold for DE.

OP won’t have the maturity to hop immediately into Landau. Something like Griffiths would be a good bridge. Landau is typically something you’d delve into after seeing the material at least once before. Though, it definitely is kickass, it is not suitable for the uninitiated.

If you're 18 year old and cannot hop into Landau, it's unironically over.

>He learned differential calculus at age 12 and integral calculus at age 13. Landau graduated in 1920 at age 13 from gymnasium. His parents considered him too young to attend university, so for a year he attended the Baku Economical Technical School. In 1922, at age 14, he matriculated at the Baku State University, studying in two departments simultaneously: the Departments of Physics and Mathematics, and the Department of Chemistry. Subsequently, he ceased studying chemistry, but remained interested in the field throughout his life.