7

For various reasons I dislike the layout of modern university physics textbooks as exemplified by Wolfson, Young & Freedman, Hawkes, Giancoli etc.

For teaching I would rather use/recommend a book that is perfectly linear and does not have so many sidebar 'distractions'. I feel that if something is important it should be properly explained in the main text, and if something is not so important skip it for now. There is always google for those students who want to see pretty pictures of somewhat related stuff.

Because I find the modern 'magazine style' layout distracting I was looking for a modern textbook in the old-school format, i.e. no sidebars and smaller pages but I haven't found anything. Hence my question: Are there modern 1st year university physics textbooks using old-schoool layout, i.e. no sidebars and smaller pages?

I would quite like to recommend an old textbooks like Resnick, Alonso, Adair, but the dated notation and language aren't really great for current 1st year students.

If no such book exists, do you know of any lecture notes that are available online? I suspect they might get fairly close to what I have in mind.

user2705196
  • 160
  • 8
  • 1
    Not modern, but distraction-less and probably very good: L.D. Landau, A.I. Akhiezer & E.M. Lifshitz General Physics ( Mechanics & Molecular Physics ) Pergamon Press 1967 -- https://archive.org/details/GeneralPhysics . – Ján Lalinský Apr 11 '18 at 20:58
  • My own open-source texts, http://www.lightandmatter.com , have a less busy layout than the kind of texts you're describing, but although I agree with you as a matter of taste, this seems like a superficial/secondary criterion. –  Apr 12 '18 at 02:16
  • Hi user2705196 (with Cc @dmckee): This topic (v1) seems too broad. Could we limit it to, say, classical mechanics? – Qmechanic Apr 12 '18 at 07:55
  • Hi Qmechanic, I should have specified that I am talking about the content of 1st year physics courses at North American universities. This corresponds to a (fairly) well defined canon which is covered by a handful of textbooks called some variant of "University Physics" and have almost identical Table of Contents like this one here http://www.pearsoncanada.ca/highered/product-showcase/new-solutions-for-science-from-pearson-canada/essential-university-physics-3e/table-of-contents – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 14:01
  • Hi Ben Crowell, thanks for writing such a great textbook and replying to my humble question. You should post it as an answer! – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 14:11
  • I agree with Ben that it is a matter of taste that should be of secondary importance! However, I found that the different format and style seems to affect the content: 1) What seems to happen is a form of "mission creep" with more and more aspects being discussed leading to books with +1,200 pages. 2) The extra material seems to be of relatively low quality (e.g. diagrams that are not very well thought through) as the layout seems to result in a trade-off between quantity vs quality! – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 14:14
  • @Qmechanic I felt that "1st year university physics textbook" was pretty clear, and the examples the OP gives as having the wrong layout agree with my understanding. Most of them have a semester's worth of mechanics and a semesters worth of introductory E&M. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 12 '18 at 15:51
  • But if you feel strongly, the change would not invalidate the suggestion I offered. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 12 '18 at 15:59
  • @JánLalinský Thank you for bringing "General Physics" to my attention. I was only familiar with the (in)famous "Course on Theoretical...". But a quick look at the book you mention showed a beautifully written text that is not too harsh. It's a little bit dated (e.g. using CGS units throughout) but it looks very close to what I was looking for. Maybe it works not necessarily as a recommended textbook for the students but for structuring my teaching it seems a very good fit indeed. – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 16:19
  • @dmckee: I added the corresponding tags. – Qmechanic Apr 12 '18 at 17:32
  • I challenge the premise: there’s nothing wrong with an older textbook! The modern approach you like in, say, Resnick 38th edition is the direct descendent of, say, Resnick 5th edition. The material is not out of date at all, for example the chapter and section titles remain almost exactly the same. I still think Physics, 5th edition by Halliday, Resnick, and Kramer is still the best intro book. – knzhou Apr 12 '18 at 17:39
  • @knzhou Maybe you could clarify your comment? Your first statement is that "there is nothing wrong with an older textbook". And then you end with glowing a recommendation for a book from 2002 that is quite modern. Is that correct? I am a bit confused . – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 20:55
  • @user2705196 Just to make sure we're talking about the same book, it's this one. I thought you were calling this book series old in your question ("old textbooks like Resnick, Alonso, Adair..."). – knzhou Apr 12 '18 at 20:59
  • @user2705196 The book is 'old school' in the sense that it has no sidebars, a nice linear layout, and only pictures when they are actually necessary, in three colors only. The explanations are clean and crisp, with a careful but not pedantic discussion. The questions at the end are very good, with a lot of variety and a wide range of difficulty. It's the calm, intellectual predecessor to Halliday, Resnick, and Walker, which is on its 11th edition and has all the problems of modern textbooks. – knzhou Apr 12 '18 at 21:03
  • @knzhou Thanks for the clarification! And sorry about the confusion caused by my ignorance when posting the original question. The "copy of Resnick" I had was indeed ancient. I simply didn't realize there were much more recent editions. You should make your comment an answer! I think the 5th edition Resnick qualifies as a modern textbook with a close to traditional layout in the spirit of the question. – user2705196 Apr 13 '18 at 16:07

1 Answers1

4

R. Shankar's text fundamentals of physics is a two volume set in trade paperback format (the link is to the first volume). And at 400–500 pages per volume the weight is managible: these books are not uncomfortable to hold in your hand. A downsize of that, however, is that they don't lie flat well.

The contents are in linear style without sidebars, boxed "extras", or any of the other junk that makes modern texts so hard to read (they are also in black and white so the pictures don't have as much "Wow!" factor, but they are high quality illustrations that convey what they need to). I find the writing to be comfortable with occasional bursts of humor such as

  • *"... to describe superstrings, which will be discussed in depth in chapter 3,498 of this book.

I've lent a copy to two different students as a supplemental text. One really like it, one was cool to it, so I can't say what reaction to expect if you used it for a class.

One major deficiency of the book is a lack of exercises in the text itself, but those can be found on the Open Yale Courses site associated with the book.

The price is pretty good, too.

dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
  • 86,062
  • 1
    Thanks a lot for your answer! I just ordered a copy from the library and will evaluate it. I wasn't aware of this book and it looks like it could be very useful indeed. Plus, it's good to know there's a book out there with puns just as lame as my attempt at jokes in lectures! ;-) – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 14:18
  • 4
    Another great joke that made me chuckle contradicting the principle of relativity using trains as an example: “I know I am not moving because the sign up there says Amtrak.” – user2705196 Apr 12 '18 at 14:45
  • 1
    Interesting book. My only gripe is the notation on the figures could really use a serif typeface. – cms Apr 15 '18 at 02:01