<p>A few that leap to mind</p><p>(1) Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics - Elmer Anderson</p><p>(2) Quantum Mechanics - Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.</p><p>(2) Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences - Boas</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
- Status
<p>A few that leap to mind</p><p>(1) Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics - Elmer Anderson</p><p>(2) Quantum Mechanics - Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.</p><p>(2) Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences - Boas</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest</p><p> </p><p>CRC Mathematical tables and formulas. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest</p><p> </p><p>CRC Mathematical tables and formulas. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas. <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV></p><p>aka "The Rubber Book"</p><p>Wayne<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas. <br />Posted by Leovinus</DIV></p><p>aka "The Rubber Book"</p><p>Wayne<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. <br />Posted by doubletruncation</DIV><br /><br />1. Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3: An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet. Can be read at many levels. Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety. </p><p>2. Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10. A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.</p><p>3. Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics. The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory.</p><p> 4. Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics. The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. <br />Posted by doubletruncation</DIV><br /><br />1. Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3: An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet. Can be read at many levels. Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety. </p><p>2. Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10. A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.</p><p>3. Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics. The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory.</p><p> 4. Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics. The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3: An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet. Can be read at many levels. Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety. 2. Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10. A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.3. Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics. The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory. 4. Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics. The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Jackson as a useful book? Its a classic to be sure, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used it to solve a work-related problem. I think of it more as a "rite of passage book". </p><p>Wayne</p><p>p.s. A good friend of mine who took E&M after me had a professor who thought he whould be cute and make a minor change in a Jackson problem and assign it for a take home test. He ended up with an insoluable problem that kept most of them awake for most of the weekend.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3: An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet. Can be read at many levels. Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety. 2. Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10. A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.3. Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics. The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory. 4. Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics. The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Jackson as a useful book? Its a classic to be sure, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used it to solve a work-related problem. I think of it more as a "rite of passage book". </p><p>Wayne</p><p>p.s. A good friend of mine who took E&M after me had a professor who thought he whould be cute and make a minor change in a Jackson problem and assign it for a take home test. He ended up with an insoluable problem that kept most of them awake for most of the weekend.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jackson as a useful book? Its a classic to be sure, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used it to solve a work-related problem. I think of it more as a "rite of passage book". Waynep.s. A good friend of mine who took E&M after me had a professor who thought he whould be cute and make a minor change in a Jackson problem and assign it for a take home test. He ended up with an insoluable problem that kept most of them awake for most of the weekend. <br />Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>I still think Jackson is useful, primarily to refresh one's memory. On the other hand I must admit that I can count on one hand the number of time that I have found the direct solution to any work-related problem layed out in any book. In fact I don't think I would use up nearly all of the fingers on that hand. I generally had to work them out myself.</p><p>Changing problem "a little bit" is pretty dangerous. E&M problems like other problems involving partial differential equations are generally only solvable by hand in closed form when there are symmetries to be exploited. Take away the symmetries and you find yourself having to rely on approximations and numerical solutions. </p><p>The "stealth fighter" you may recall has lots of facets and funny-looking flat surfaces.It looks like it can barely fly -- pretty close to the truth. There is a reason for the strange appearance, and it is not that it is optimal for stealth. The reason for the faceted surfaces is that at the time the plane was designed it was designed for stealth, using a good deal of numerical simulation to evaluate its radar signature. The computer codes at the time could not handle curved surfaces, so the design was compromised in order to make the analysis feasible. The B2 was designed later, after the codes had improved and it is rather aerodynamic.</p><p>The situation with fluid dynamics is even worse. The Navier-Stokes equation is truly difficult to work with. It is in fact the subject of one of the prizes being offered by the Clay Institute.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jackson as a useful book? Its a classic to be sure, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used it to solve a work-related problem. I think of it more as a "rite of passage book". Waynep.s. A good friend of mine who took E&M after me had a professor who thought he whould be cute and make a minor change in a Jackson problem and assign it for a take home test. He ended up with an insoluable problem that kept most of them awake for most of the weekend. <br />Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>I still think Jackson is useful, primarily to refresh one's memory. On the other hand I must admit that I can count on one hand the number of time that I have found the direct solution to any work-related problem layed out in any book. In fact I don't think I would use up nearly all of the fingers on that hand. I generally had to work them out myself.</p><p>Changing problem "a little bit" is pretty dangerous. E&M problems like other problems involving partial differential equations are generally only solvable by hand in closed form when there are symmetries to be exploited. Take away the symmetries and you find yourself having to rely on approximations and numerical solutions. </p><p>The "stealth fighter" you may recall has lots of facets and funny-looking flat surfaces.It looks like it can barely fly -- pretty close to the truth. There is a reason for the strange appearance, and it is not that it is optimal for stealth. The reason for the faceted surfaces is that at the time the plane was designed it was designed for stealth, using a good deal of numerical simulation to evaluate its radar signature. The computer codes at the time could not handle curved surfaces, so the design was compromised in order to make the analysis feasible. The B2 was designed later, after the codes had improved and it is rather aerodynamic.</p><p>The situation with fluid dynamics is even worse. The Navier-Stokes equation is truly difficult to work with. It is in fact the subject of one of the prizes being offered by the Clay Institute.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Changing problem "a little bit" is pretty dangerous. E&M problems like other problems involving partial differential equations are generally only solvable by hand in closed form when there are symmetries to be exploited. Take away the symmetries and you find yourself having to rely on approximations and numerical solutions. Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Bingo.</p><p>As a humorous aside on me, Jackson is, at this very moment, sitting on top of some books on my shelf here at work because one of those few times I referred to was only a month or two ago.</p><p>By the way, welcome to the forum!</p><p>Wayne</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Changing problem "a little bit" is pretty dangerous. E&M problems like other problems involving partial differential equations are generally only solvable by hand in closed form when there are symmetries to be exploited. Take away the symmetries and you find yourself having to rely on approximations and numerical solutions. Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Bingo.</p><p>As a humorous aside on me, Jackson is, at this very moment, sitting on top of some books on my shelf here at work because one of those few times I referred to was only a month or two ago.</p><p>By the way, welcome to the forum!</p><p>Wayne</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<p>"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan</p><p>??? (Maybe better than "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." but I prefer Dick Feynman's approach):</p><p>"To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get adcross the real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultues. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. " -- Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan</p><p>??? (Maybe better than "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." but I prefer Dick Feynman's approach):</p><p>"To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get adcross the real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultues. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. " -- Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan??? (Maybe better than "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." but I prefer Dick Feynman's approach):"To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get adcross the real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultues. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. " -- Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I gave up math for physics. 
</p><p>A joke with a basis in my history - I started college as a math major, for no definable reason, and changed to physics for an even less of a definable reason - but, perhaps, the eddies and currents of time and fate carried me to where I was supposed to be.</p><p>Or perhaps I was meant to be an obscure history professor somewhere in the country.</p><p>Wayne</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
</p><p>A joke with a basis in my history - I started college as a math major, for no definable reason, and changed to physics for an even less of a definable reason - but, perhaps, the eddies and currents of time and fate carried me to where I was supposed to be.</p><p>Or perhaps I was meant to be an obscure history professor somewhere in the country.</p><p>Wayne</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan??? (Maybe better than "Kill 'em all. Let God sort them out." but I prefer Dick Feynman's approach):"To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that 'the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician'. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get adcross the real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultues. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once. " -- Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I gave up math for physics. </p><p>A joke with a basis in my history - I started college as a math major, for no definable reason, and changed to physics for an even less of a definable reason - but, perhaps, the eddies and currents of time and fate carried me to where I was supposed to be.</p><p>Or perhaps I was meant to be an obscure history professor somewhere in the country.</p><p>Wayne</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
</p><p>A joke with a basis in my history - I started college as a math major, for no definable reason, and changed to physics for an even less of a definable reason - but, perhaps, the eddies and currents of time and fate carried me to where I was supposed to be.</p><p>Or perhaps I was meant to be an obscure history professor somewhere in the country.</p><p>Wayne</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
-
China test-fires 5 new rocket engines in a single day. But what are they for? (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram