Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Book Recommendations For Maths To Astrophysics?

Posted by kdawson on from the take-a-left-at-newton dept.

sexy_flying_yoda writes "I have just graduated from 3 years doing a BSc in Mathematics in the UK and will be beginning an MSc in Astrophysics and Astronomy in September. I have very limited knowledge in physics, and as my new course of study is basically physics, I'm currently searching for books that will enable me to get up to speed. What books would you recommend that would help a mathematics graduate convert to a physicist?"

195 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can heartily recommend "The road to reality" by Roger Penrose, there'll be a lot of stuff that's old-news to a math major, but it's essentially an undergraduate course in mathematical-physics for the lay-reader (of course this normally means scientist from another discipline :-)

    Best of luck!

    1. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by efagerho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would assume that what he wants is a physics textbook that assumes that you're very fluent in math (not a book about handwaving), thus making the presentation a lot more dense, thus faster... I'm myself a Ph.D. student in math and I've tried to find such a book myself. It's very booring to read physics books that really do calculations the hard way (e.g. use pages to do something with matrices that directly follows from a theorem concerning linear operators etc.). Unfortunately, I don't think such books exists...

    2. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      This 1000-page brick is probably to long and theoretical to be of much practical value. It gives broad views of many fields, but many of them are already known to a BSc math (complex analysis) or too far-reaching (brane theory).

      I'd recommend something more detailed in his specific fields of interest. Or rather leading up to his field of interest.

    3. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by RedOctober · · Score: 3, Informative

      Disagree. Sure there is some rehashing of material that mathematicians will be familiar with, but unless said mathematicians are familiar with applications in physics, the book will cover plenty of new material for them. Take complex analysis : the initial chapter on complex analysis will be a rehash, but later chapters on its applications in QM, QFT, GR will NOT be a rehash.

      That it is very broad is a good thing: it looks like the reader WANTS an overview. For further detail, good use can be made of Penrose's excellent bibliography.

      I've got a maths background, and found much of the maths in this book new: much of it is idiosyncratic to physics. The holes I had in my knowledge of physics I was able to fill in via Penrose's bibliography.

      I'll finally say that "Dancing Wu Li", "Tao of Physics", etc, are all pop physics that are easy to get through, but useless to learn anything. The danger with these books is that you can walk away with a completely wrong understanding of what they're on about, and you wouldn't be able to tell. They are simply too vague and "new agey", too many slippery concepts that can't be taught properly without mathematics, and dangerous without the appropriate background.

    4. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      Disagree. Sure there is some rehashing of material that mathematicians will be familiar with, but unless said mathematicians are familiar with applications in physics, the book will cover plenty of new material for them. Take complex analysis : the initial chapter on complex analysis will be a rehash, but later chapters on its applications in QM, QFT, GR will NOT be a rehash.

      As I understoot OP, he only had a highschool background in physics. In this case the knowledge necessary to start working with astrophysics is more like Caroll/Ostlie, and all you need to understand this book.

      Only some fields within astrophysics have any need at all to know about QFT, and even for these the material isn't what I would call "basic." The fundamental physics of astrophysics (OK, nod to Shu here:) is radiation and thermal physics. Some QM is necessary to understand this, but classical physics is just as important.

    5. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by rasputin465 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I imagine that if he's going into astrophysics, he's probably already familiar with the typical pop-sci material or at least the content.

      No, you will need more technical know-how and fundamentals if you wish to compete in a graduate level program. Here's a list of textbooks that would cover the basics at a bachelor's level. I imagine all of these would be at your University library, and are certainly available on amazon. And IAAP.

      Quantum mechanics: R. Shankar, "Principals of Quantum Mechanics" (the first few chapters should give you a basic foundation of the theory).

      Electricity and Magnetism: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"

      Thermo/statmech: C. Kittel & H. Kroemer, "Thermal Physics"

      Particle Physics: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles" (this covers a little bit of quantum field theory too)

      Statistics: G. Cowan, "Statistical Data Analysis" (as a mathematics major, you might already know the content, but the formalism as used in physics is important to learn).

      Classical Mechanics: S. Thornton & J. Marion, "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems".

      Different people mean different things when they say "astrophysics", but if you're doing this with heavy emphasis on Astronomy, then you would be better off focusing more on the classical mechanics and statmech than on quantum mechanics and particle physics.

    6. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Quantum mechanics: R. Shankar, "Principals of Quantum Mechanics" (the first few chapters should give you a basic foundation of the theory).

      In my undergrad, a physics professor told me, "There's no particularly good book on QM". I thought he was being pedantic, but years later I found out he was actually correct. Every book has some serious deficiency (serious if that's the only book you learned it from). I've read only the first few chapters of Shankar, and they're quite decent - I liked them. I tried reading some of the stuff later in the book and didn't feel he did justice to them (either too brief on the topic or hand-waving). Another problem with Shankar is that it doesn't really challenge the reader.

      I can't exactly recommend a QM book, as I learned it from my professor's lecture notes - which were awesome. But from memory, he consulted a bunch when he wrote them. They included the books by Messiah, Davydov, Landau & Lifshitz, Baym.

      At the undergrad level (in case you did not learn it during your BSc), two common books are the ones by Griffith and Liboff. Again, both have weaknesses but they do complement one another well.

      Electricity and Magnetism: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"

      Best undergrad book on the topic ever. Well worth reading for its insights even if you think you know E&M very well.

      In the US, at the grad level the standard is the book by Jackson. I hear in some countries they sometimes use that in the final year of undergrad. It's a standard and a must if your program requires you to know EM.

      In general, people speak very highly of the series by Landau & Lifshitz. Might want to keep them as references and read them at some point.

      --
      Beetle B.
    7. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the book doesn't exist, write it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by ClassMyAss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I mostly agree with you, I'd still suggest picking up "The Road To Reality," as it's a truly fun read, if for no other reason than that Penrose is just a little bit nuts - he's got to be the first person ever to manage to get a "layman's" (i.e. it shows up at Barnes and Noble) book to include detailed calculations involving tensor calculus... Beyond that, though, he really looks at everything in a different light, and in a very non-standard order, so I think it's 100% worthwhile. The 1000 page thing is annoying (too big to fit alongside your laptop in your bag, to be sure), but as a physics PhD all you're going to be doing is reading and calculating all day anyways, so that shouldn't be a very large deterrent.

    9. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my undergrad, a physics professor told me, "There's no particularly good book on QM".

      I've heard the same thing, and used to think so too, but one book I discovered which I really like is Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai. It is a modern, and reasonably complete treatment which I like.

      I second the vote for Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. I used it in my last undergrad year, and it is very good. In order to do the problems, you really need a solid background in solving PDEs, but with a math undergrad degree, you've likely already had a course in that subject.

      For Classical Mechanics the book I used as an undergrad was Goldstein. Many of the problems are tedious and difficult, but there is a wealth of useful information in the text.

      I also second the recommendation of Kittel & Kroemer for an introduction to Stat. Mech. The problems are all very doable making this a great book for self study. That might not be so true of Jackson or Goldstein, but others have already recommended some less difficult texts.

      Also, if you're going into astrophysics, you'll need some background on relativity. For special relativity, Taylor & Wheeler is a good introduction, and Schutz is a good intro. to general relativity.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    10. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by ClassMyAss · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, I forgot - I wanted to comment on the rest of those books and add a couple.

      Re: Griffiths books - they are both really good as intros to these topics (both are amongst my favorite "pleasure" reading physics books), but in the field they are often considered too elementary to be "serious," for better or worse. It's not that they are wrong, just that they are a little too user-friendly, which to me is a good thing.

      If you can manage to wade through the extreme density that is that Shankar book, that should rectify things for QM - I have to say, though, I did not particularly enjoy that book, which surprised me since I adored his "Basic Training in Mathematics" book (likely too basic for a math major, I'd guess) and found him to be a fascinating lecturer (I never took one of his classes, but I occasionally slipped in and watched while between other classes). I think it's just too difficult to be so brutally thorough and remain interesting throughout an entire tome like that.

      Jackson's E+M book is really the gold standard for classical E+M, though I'd really recommend hitting the literature if you're into stuff like self-action and all that.

      Actually, I just noticed that the Griffith's recommendation was for his particles book, not QM, so scratch my QM comments - though if you find Shankar's book too weighty, pick up Griffith's QM book as a start, like most of his books it's very digestible (should take just a couple days to get through). If you find Griffith's particles book too light, which you hopefully will after a couple reads, you'll want some real field theory. The "standard" here is the Peskin/Schroeder book. That can be a little tough if you don't already know something about it; as a slightly more basic step in that direction, check out Zee's Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, which I was very pleasantly surprised with.

      You'd also be remiss not to pick up something that Feynman has written on field theory, as I don't know that anyone else has understood it in as straightforward a manner as he has - there's always his various QED papers, which you MUST read all of, but as an astrophysicist, your thoughts will likely turn to gravity, in which case the often overlooked Feynman Lectures on Gravitation are definitely worth your time. Take the later chapters with a grain of salt, as some of the claims about stars are wrong; that said, his approach is quite interesting, and his approach to the Einstein equations is freaking amazing (he starts with a "bare" spin-2 theory, figures out how it's "wrong," and "fixes it up" until it "works," and lo and behold, Einstein's equations pop out of nowhere; those quotation marks hide all of the hard work required to get there, of course!).

      Er, and also, I kind of hate to dump another 1000+ page monster of a book on your list, but as an astrophysicist you probably ought to read Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's Gravitation. It's great, though I can't promise it's just a few days work. The Wheeler stuff at the end is too speculative and flowery for my tastes, but the rest is pretty useful, and it's definitely worth keeping in your bookcase to intimidate anyone that might enter!

      Robert Wald also has a great General Relativity book that might be less threatening; IMO, you should definitely own Wald and MTW. I'd suggest you avoid anything written by either Einstein or Dirac on the subject like the f***ing plague.

      Also, check out http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html for Joh

    11. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by You+are+not+listenin · · Score: 1

      "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David Griffiths.
      This author has been mentioned elsewhere in these posts regarding his "introduction to electrodynamics" book, but his book on quantum mechanics is great too and from what I've been able to pick up, a standard quantum mechanics book for mathematically rigorous quantum classes in Universities across the US.

    12. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Although I can give a wholehearted recommendation for the Griffiths and Kittel books (and have heard good things about the Shankar QM book), I had some *serious* qualms about Thornton/Marion's Classical Dynamics book.

      Attempting to work my way through their reasoning, proofs, and explanations was an exercise in frustration and futility. Some important sections were barely described at all, while other trivial topics were covered to death. The texts by Goldstein and Landau/Lifshitz are both vastly better, especially for somebody coming from a Maths background. Your local library should have a copy of both, as they've been around for quite some time.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    13. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect that in the world of modern physics there is plenty of room for people who concentrate on an almost exclusively mathematical approach. Let others conjure up the suppositions and apply mathematics in the search for proofs.

    14. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I would like to add to that list "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carroll and Ostlie. It's a very comprehensive book. Whenever I can't recall something, or need clarification, it's always the first book I grab. There's almost never a need to go to my second choice, Shu's "The Physical Universe" which covers a lot of odds and ends, but is a fantastic resource for anybody learning the basics of astrophysics. It spends several chapters covering the relevant portions of thermodynamics, E&M, QM, and mechanics in depth, and then it shows how they directly applied to the subject matter.

      For an introduction to physics in general, I would recommend Halliday, Resnick, and Walker's "Fundamentals of Physics." It will walk you through the very basics right up to GR.

      --
      Fnord.
    15. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by RedOctober · · Score: 1

      The OP has a three-year university background in mathematics: he's got a BSc. He wants an MSc in astrophysics.

    16. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by Enhypnion · · Score: 1

      This is a good list for most topics in physics. However, he is a grad student in astrophysics and astronomy and would be better served studying optics and image processing. He should also pick up a book on the physics of radiology. It sounds off topic, but this will fill in gaps about how to build astronomical sensors.

    17. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by waxigloo · · Score: 1
      I agree with this list. Especially Griffith's books, which are written at a true undergraduate level and in an understandable way. Definitely not a be all end all resource, but a great intro. I would recommend his quantum mechanics books, too. And Cohen-Tannoudji for a more thurough approach.

      If you are going into astrophysics, you might find "Gravitation" by Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler useful. If you think you will need to know General Relativity, this is the tome to have. It is really more of a maths book, with applications to GR and astrophysics.

    18. Re:Pop-Sci but well worth it... by munpfazy · · Score: 1

      Gotta love Cowan.

      It may be a bit terse to work through all by oneself without a pressing need, and it's hardly a prerequisite to grad work in astrophysics. (The world would be a better place if half the people *tenured* in astrophysics knew the material in that book!) But, it's fantastic none the less, and well worth recommending.

  2. Try a free online course with a berkeley webcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses.php?semesterid=27

  3. Potential jobs, Space Pirate? by jimmydevice · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Well, with one degree in maths and another in astrophysics, it was either that or back to the dole queue on Monday" DNA

  4. Feynman Lectures by Rudisaurus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try "The Feynman Lectures on Physics", Vol.s I - III. I've never encountered a better reasonably high-level introduction to the topic, and they're eminently readable. Here's a site devoted to them.

    --
    licet differant, aequabitur
  5. Intro Astrophysics by RadicalRhinoceros · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure about recommending the intro physics book I had, but as far as intro astrophysics, there's no better than Carroll and Ostlie

    1. Re:Intro Astrophysics by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      Seconded. It's 1000 pages of both facts and theory suitable at a BSc level of physics. Note that these authors appear stronger in solar than in cosmological physics, at least they cover this field much better...

    2. Re:Intro Astrophysics by ChowRiit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thirded. A lot of people are recommending pop-physics books which are fine for an odd read, but are useless for actually gaining an in-depth knowledge of physics. Carroll and Ostlie is the standard catch-all general reference textbook all the Astrophysics lecturers at my (English) University tend to recommend. I find it very good as a reference text for odd topics I have little knowledge of, but it shouldn't assume too much prior knowledge you don't have - the maths is the important thing to have covered separately, and even then it's rarely very advanced.

    3. Re:Intro Astrophysics by jim_deane · · Score: 1

      I think there's still space for a "Fourthed".

      Carrol and Ostlie was a great text in my intro to astrophysics class several years ago, and it remains on my shelf as a great reference.

  6. Try the classics by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    What books would you recommend that would help a mathematics graduate convert to a physicist?

    The Tao of Physics
    The Dancing Wu Li Masters
    To get you thinking the right way, then, for a new classic, try:

    The Road to Reality
    For some seriously heavy slogging.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Try the classics by gilroy · · Score: 1

      The Tao of Physics
      The Dancing Wu Li Masters

      Guh. I know I'll engender flamage but I found these two books to be little more than dreck. It's been a long while since I read them but at my recollection, there was essentially zero useful science in them. It was a lot of "oh, isn't that coincidence MEANINGFUL...?"

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    2. Re:Try the classics by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm afraid I'm old enough to have read both of them when they were first published, which probably colors my view. While I'll admit that neither of them contains any "useful" (i.e: applicable) science per se, I have to say that they were both "mind expanding"/"eye opening" regarding physics.

      Tao taught me that where there was nothing (literally no thing), there could suddenly be a few particles which would almost instantaneously annihilate themselves, to leave "no thing" behind. The notion of the quantum ground state "bubbling" like that has never left me.

      Wu Li (admittedly the fluffier of the two) demonstrated that commutativity does not apply to the real world, particularly in regards to electromagnetic radiation (polarization). I remain flabbergasted by this notion.

      Sure, they're both "popular" science, but if you read them with an open mind, and let it wander, you'll find yourself pondering some of the wonder in physics.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Try the classics by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Generally being aware of other directions of thought will, I expect, become more and more important in future -- current directions are getting heavily worked out and it's important to be aware of what might have been missed by the mainstream. Also, a popular science book can be read much more quickly than a serious textbook, so a one-to-one comparison is inappropriate -- read popular stuff for casual-but-enlightening bedtime reading and the more serious textbooks when you're at your best.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    4. Re:Try the classics by gilroy · · Score: 1

      read popular stuff for casual-but-enlightening bedtime reading and the more serious textbooks when you're at your best.

      I totally agree. I just didn't find anything in Tao or Dancing Wu Li to actually be enlightening. Buy hey, YMMV.

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
  7. Roger Penrose - The road to reality by alanw · · Score: 1

    http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/2145236

    Coincidentally, I started reading it last night, so a review will have to wait weeks/months(/years?)

  8. Physics for Dummies? by William+Robinson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Physics for Dummies might help u.

    --
    hilarious
  9. Cover the foundation physics by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

    You should cover all of the foundation physics. At least mechanics, electromagnetism, classical radiation, a ground course in modern physics, and heat theory.

    Depending on your research topic, also pick up more advanced books in necessary fields. Eg. for cosmology, you'd want to be familiary with relativity and prior work in this area, while for plasma physics a strong knowledge of thermodynamics and radiation is necessary.

    Actually, radiation is the thing to know anyway:)

  10. Re:Feynman Lectures by cjmilne · · Score: 2, Informative

    I second this. As far as a general intro to Physics these are by far the best set you can get. Here's the amazon link. There are audio copies of the lectures as well.

    One caveat, many Physics & Astrophysics/Astronomy Departments are separated & have little overlap so take a careful look at your MSc course curriculum before leaping to the conclusion that you need to learn large amounts of general physics.

    CJM

  11. Re:Feynman Lectures by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Ooooh, forgot about those. But do get the audiobooks (with course notes) also.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  12. Re:Other news... by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

    Geophysics books would be of little value, I'm afraid. There are some overlapping fields, but these could be found in physics / astrophysics book, with more relevant examples.

  13. For the classical mechanics side of things.... by Ibag · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recommend "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics" by V.I. Arnold for the classical mechanics side of things. I am not sure what to read for general relativity. The bit that I know I learned from "Semi-Riemannian Geometry" by Barret O'neil, but I don't feel that the book is a good place to learn general relativity unless you already have a very strong background in differential geometry. I hope this helps.

    1. Re:For the classical mechanics side of things.... by azaris · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recommend "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics" by V.I. Arnold

      Seconded, but make sure you have another textbook in mechanics handy for the inevitability that you get confused by Arnold's presentation. Goldstein is probably a good choice.

    2. Re:For the classical mechanics side of things.... by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 1

      Considering you'll be doing astrophysics, you'll probably need to learn a lot about general relativity. For a really solid mathematical treatment (not shying away from serious differential geometry, which shouldn't scare you too much if you're a math guy), I like the classic "Gravitation," by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.

      Cheers,
      IT

      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

  14. Oh Boy, Math to Astro-Physics? by smackenzie · · Score: 4, Funny

    In that case, I recommend:

    Get a Financial Life
    Dating For Dummies
    Paint the Sky with Stars: The Best of Enya
    Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity

  15. the classic Feynman by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    the Feynman lectures on physics.

  16. Spivak video lectures on elementary mechanics by Singularitarian2048 · · Score: 1

    Michael Spivak is a mathematician who wrote the very popular math textbook, Calculus on Manifolds, which you've probably used in a class. Apparently he has given some video lectures on elementary mechanics. I haven't watched them, but he's an excellent teacher so they are probably great.

    http://www.math.hc.keio.ac.jp/coe/videos/spivak2004/

  17. Biologist turned software engineer by DerCed · · Score: 1

    I'll shamelessly hijack this post.

    What books would you recommend for a molecular biologist who always wanted to study computer science but decided not to and now turns to software engineering?
    I know lots of stuff, but lack some of the fundamentals and also applications of computer science and software engineering. I am currently reading those books, which are really helpful:

    * The Elements of Computing Systems, Noam Nisan & Shimon Shocken
        http://www1.idc.ac.il/tecs/
    * Head First: Design Patterns
        http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007126/

    Could anyone recommend other books that "complete" my knowledge? Classics? Stuff about data structures, algorithms, programming theory.

    I prefer books written in a fresh, modern style, if possible :-)

    1. Re:Biologist turned software engineer by mrboyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Molecular biology to software engineer....

      Try that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioship I mean someone has to program the bio-organism main nerves center to calculate FTL jump properly right?

      ok, joke aside, this is the list of book I built and that we give to new recruits around here.
      • The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master (ISBN-10: 020161622X)
      • Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series) (ISBN-10: 0201633612)
      • AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis (Paperback) (ISBN-10: 0471197130)
      • Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code (The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series) (ISBN-10: 0201485672)
      • Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in Java or C++ (Java: ISBN-10: 0201357542)
      • Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms (3rd Edition) (Art of Computer Programming Volume 1) (ISBN-10: 0201896834)
      • Internetworking with TCP/IP, Vol 1 (5th Edition) (ISBN-10: 0131876716)
      • The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems (ISBN-10: 0201379376 )
      • Joe Celko's SQL for Smarties: Advanced SQL Programming (ISBN-10: 1558605762)
      • Database Systems: The Complete Book (GOAL Series) (ISBN-10: 0130319953)
      • C Programming Language (2nd Edition) (ISBN-10: 0131103628)
      • JavaScript: The Definitive Guide (ISBN-10: 0596000480)

      Please discuss. I'd love to know what other people would add to that list.

      To the original question I would answer: Did you ask your future teachers? They teach physics for a living they should be able to tell you what background you need to understand their courses. They should know what book they use in class better than the hippies like me who troll slashdot instead of working.
      Otherwise why don't you go look at the MIT opencourseware and see how the curriculum are organized. (http://ocw.mit.edu/).

    2. Re:Biologist turned software engineer by DerCed · · Score: 1

      Thanks very much for this interesting list of books. I will use this a guideline for my next book purchases! I appreciate your reply very much!

    3. Re:Biologist turned software engineer by DerCed · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

  18. Recommended topics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most astronomy degrees are basically physics degrees with the addition of astronomy classes and without the 400 level physics courses. If you wish to prepare yourself for astrophysics I recommend the following topics:

    1) Classical Electrodynamics (you need to know Maxwell's equations backwards and forwards--this usually takes a year at the undergraduate junior physics level). You need to be able to solve line integrals and surface integrals without blinking an eye.
    2) Mathematical physics. Unless you have an applied math degree or focus, your math education isn't going to be a great help here. Courses in this area would include complex analysis, partial differential equations (that's graduate level physics baby!), and a shitload of knowledge knowing how to work with Fourier transforms, Laplace transforms, and series solutions to ordinary and partial differential equations. Your BSc in mathematics should cover up the other odds and ends (a little group theory, eigenvectors, eigenfunctions, Hilbert spaces, etc.)
    3) Mechanics at the junior level. You need to know mainly how Hamiltonians and Lagrangian operators work. This is not the same thing as introductory mechanics or a statics and dynamics class. The important things you care are about energy functions, potential functions, and conserved quantities.
    4) Quantum mechanics. You will probably get a lot of help at the graduate level here as most schools don't expect astronomy majors to have a lot of knowledge in this topic. Just make sure you know what the postulates of quantum mechanics are and some of the basic concepts (like state vectors, the Schrödinger equation, and Dirac notation). If possible, learn how the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian operators work in quantum mechanics.

    The minimum of all of this that you should learn is the mathematical physics and classical electrodynamics portions. This entire list assumes that you have the 'basic' physics prerequisites for these courses as well.

    1. Re:Recommended topics by phobos13013 · · Score: 2, Informative

      For number 4), probably your best choice is Steven Weinberg's books: The Quantum Theory of Fields. It is a three volume set, and can be pretty pricey, but its a gold standard for sure. Many of the studies of Cosmology and Astrophysics are these days bound with QED and QM because quite often you are looking for undiscovered particles hanging out in space. Beyond that, the mathematical systems that explain quanta of fields for instance obviously extrapolate to vast expanses by way of symmetry! Get this book and understand it, you will thank me later!

      --
      ...and it should be known by now
  19. Re:Have you read.. by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

    I understand that you're getting an MS(wtf is an MS"c"? Is that asshole for MS?)

    Bachelor of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science)? A more advanced and theory-focused degree...

  20. Byron and Fuller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Frederick W. Byron, Jr and Robert W Fuller
    Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics
    1992, Dover Books
    ISBN 0-486-67164-X

    This is a reprint of an original 1969 2 volume set by Addison Wesley, which will probably have a different ISBN.

  21. Always Best To Go To The Source ... by strelitsa · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've audited several of MIT's OpenCourseWare offerings in Physics. Some are ridiculously easy while others have thrashed my intellectual behind back and forth across the Internet. And the best part? They're free. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/ [mit.edu]

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
  22. tips from a physics nerd by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 1

    hi,
    you should know that I have nothing more than a high school diploma, but physics was my favorite area of geekery for many years during and after school I had an awesome physics teacher for three years in high school.. actually the best teacher I ever had, so you may be way ahead of me on this stuff, but I have a couple of tips to pass on that helped me to understand some fairly advanced physics stuff. it is very important when you are getting started in physics, that you understand the historical time line of which theories were popular at different times.

    I would recommend digging through a couple of those paperback physics overview kind of books. I don't know what the latest popular ones are, but I am talking about the ones that you find at a regular book store in the science section. I have read a bunch of these, they cover nothing in detail but discuss chronologically how each important physicist built on previous works. usually they start with newtonian stuff and work forward to present day.

    since you already have a math background, I would say it is more important to go over stuff conceptually in the beginning. The most important book I can recommend, if you haven't already read it, is in search of shrodinger's cat: quantum physics and reality. by John Gribbin

    that book will get your mind around the important ideas in quantum physics, making it much easier to apply math to it later.

    good luck, --k

    --
    Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  23. Halliday, Resnick, and Walker by BlenderFX · · Score: 1

    Fundamentals of Physics (Extended) by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker

    1. Re:Halliday, Resnick, and Walker by tenco · · Score: 1

      I found it insufficient for undergraduate courses.

    2. Re:Halliday, Resnick, and Walker by jandoedel · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand why people recomment Halliday Resnick Walker. Okay, nice book, but in my view, it's a lot of bling bling and pictures, but not very good for serious physics studies. When I look at it, i really have this feeling of "damn this must be an American book, so much presentation, so little real content".

  24. From an Astrophysicist by laughing_badger · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll second those people recommending Feynman - great series of books.

    Physics to a degree will get you thinking like a physicist - it covers most undergraduate topics in physics with tutorial style questions and answers.

    I found Introduction to Modern Astrophysics an interesting read after I graduated. It covered most of the stuff we did at Birmingham and did so very well.

    Our introductory book was Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics by Michael Zeilik, which was ok, and then Astrophysics: Stars Vol 1 by Richard Bowers and Terry Deeming, which was very good and Vol 2 similarly.

    You don't mention what your course is going to cover or what its aim is - you are not going to cover the whole of astrophysics in 9 taught months. You also don't mention your interest in astrophysics - numerical simulation? So it is difficult to come up with any more specific recommendations.

    Good luck anyhow. Post below with more info if you want any more detailed recommendations.

    --
    Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    1. Re:From an Astrophysicist by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 1

      I'm also an astrophysicist. I second the suggestion of Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie. This is the only book I needed to pass all of MIT's Ph.D. coursework in astrophysics. It efficiently goes from introduction to deep and advanced, and covers all topics very thoroughly and as up-to-date as you will find in any textbook.

    2. Re:From an Astrophysicist by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Ah, BOB. So many memories.

      The Big Orange Book was a good friend.

  25. 3rd Time by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    "What I tell you three times is true." I'm saying it once but two others already have.

    Feynman's "Lectures" + "Tips"

    If you want an expert's opinion, ask the chancellor of John Moore's University in Liverpool. He's an astrophysicist, as well as a member of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club For Scientists, which counts for naught save as an indicator of a sense of humor and thus probably approachability. And he's a bit of a musician so I hear. He has a web site with a contact link: http://brianmay.com/main.html#

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  26. Read textbooks, work problems by mako1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're going to be getting into grad-level physics books, like Goldstein (Mechanics), Jackson (Electrodynamics), and Sakurai (QM). They are not really the best places to start your physics education. As you have a math background, the math will not be so much of a problem. Rather, you lack familiarity with physics concepts. What you need is the equivalent of an undergraduate physics education. You can probably skim the Feynman Lectures for the rest of the summer and come out OK. Work through physics problems. Lots of them.

    Popsci books are good too, for getting the big picture.

    1. Re:Read textbooks, work problems by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Sakurai isn't a terribly good book to start with: it's more of a reference. IMO a better one would be Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development by Leslie Ballentine. Also, the Feynman Lectures are quite dated and cover many topics that either aren't covered any more, or aren't covered in that depth. Not to mention some notational issues. I'm always in wonderment as to why people recommend them. Though answering my own question, it's probably because there doesn't exist a good introductory book any more.

    2. Re:Read textbooks, work problems by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      Wow, Ballentine must really be good -- it has unanimous 5-star reviews on Amazon. I'll have to check it out.

  27. Anthony French's books (easy to understand) by bob242 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Newtonian Mechanics

    Vibrations and Waves

    Special Relativity

  28. Re:Feynman Lectures by gTsiros · · Score: 1

    came here to say the exact same thing.
    (yes, i am a physicist... just not have completed my studies yet :( )

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  29. Re:Might I suggest... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

    Some books on how to get women? I think you'll need to get up to speed. Once you start down the path to astrophysics you'll be swarming in the ladies, and you need to know how to deal with them.

    One in fact wonders how large a percentage of buyers of Neil Strauss' The Game were math or physics majors. Male academics working in other fields are usually so surrounded by women, due to the high proportion of female to males in universities nowadays, that there's not much challenge.

  30. Basic physics crash course by dronkert · · Score: 1

    Goldstein/Poole/Safko - Classical Mechanics
    Kittel/Kroemer - Thermal Physics
    Bransden/Joachain - Physics of Atoms and Molecules
    Sakurai - Modern Quantum Mechanics

    Have a good summer!

  31. QM for mathematicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You might find "Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians" useful. It's quite sophisticated, but if you've got a solid grasp of partial differential equations, you should be okay. Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0505059v1

    I second the recommendation of Feynman's Lectures. They're a good overview, although I think you'll find that they're not sufficient to get you to a point where you can solve problems.

    MIT's OpenCourseWare has many physics courses online, most including sample tests and exams. This will be useful to practice your skills.

  32. Re:Might I suggest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Male academics working in other fields are usually so surrounded by women, due to the high proportion of female to males in universities nowadays, that there's not much challenge.

    Being surrounded by women doesn't mean that any of them want to talk to you.

  33. Galactic Astronomy by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Learning about the basic theories on how galaxies form is going to be underlying a lot of your work if you would like to more than dabble in cosmology. I found this book rather useful.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  34. General intro to physics books by 16384 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The suggestions from other posters about science books for the general public won't help you much. You need to learn the basic physics, such as mechanics, thermodynamics and electromagnetism. Thankfully there are good books that teach all of these areas at a basic level, and you'll be able to go through them quickly.

    Although in a different way, I also changed from math to physics. One thing you should know is that physicists use math as a tool, and don't worry about convergences, approximations, etc. Prepare to be shocked with all the approximations made: Physicists keep expanding stuff in Taylor series and keeping only 1 or 2 terms, without worrying about what they left out, treat differentials basically as numbers, use distribution functions intuitively, without a proper theoretical support, say a differential equation is "solved" when they find one solution that matches what they need, etc.

    I would recommend the introductory physics books by Paul A. Tipler, because they cover the whole physics you need to get up to speed, and are simple.

    Another similar book is "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday and Resnick.

    These two books / books series are simple, written for the beggining physics undergrad. I think they are what you need. However, if you are very good at math, and want grad student level physics books, the series "Course of Theoretical Physics" by Landau and Lifshitz is suberb. They are very advanced though.

    After you master the books at the level of Tipler and/or Halliday and Resnick, you should move on to individual books about the various areas, such as mechanics, electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    "The Feynman lectures on physics" are a classic, and almost required reading for wanting to be a physicist, however they won't teach you much actual day to day physics. It was written to be a physics course, but to me it is more of an inspirational book than a manual, so you can always read these latter.

    1. Re:General intro to physics books by MikTheUser · · Score: 1

      Physicists keep expanding stuff in Taylor series and keeping only 1 or 2 terms, without worrying about what they left out, [...]

      I'm sorry to say, but sometimes even the equations of motion of a simple pendulum are analytically unsolvable unless expanded to nothing but the second order, so sometimes us physicists don't have a choice. But I do agree that, in general, we disregard the finer aspects of the mathematics we use - and gladly ;-)

  35. Re:This is UK we are talking about... by xaxa · · Score: 1

    ...so don't worry about it! I've had complete IDIOT friends go to what are considered top UK universities (not top-5, like Oxford or Cambridge, more like top-10) and breeze through the programs without actually learning anything.
    So, you don't really need to learn any Astrophysics to get your degree, I mean they already accepted you without any background, right?
    Yes, it looks like obvious trolling so mod away, but I don't have the time to analyze for those who don't know how the UK higher education system works (hint: $$)...

    Not so much as political targets to have 50% of young people attend university. They can't make people more intelligent, so instead university has to be easier.

    I don't know how much easier it gets as you go from a top-5 to a top-10, top-20 university (mostly because I go to a top-5 university and rarely discuss work with students who don't go to a similar place).

  36. Re:Might I suggest... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    > One in fact wonders how large a percentage of buyers of Neil Strauss' The Game were math or physics majors.

    Unfortunately Neil Strauss' methods look like a lame joke compared to "Blueprint Decoded" from "Real Social Dynamics" (try O:-} or buy).

    It's not that the Mystery-Style was not the forefront of their knowledge back in the days... It's just that we are way more advanced now. So far that we know that in the long run, that method rather makes it worse.

    I'm not associated to them in any other way than that I bought the dvd-set and am very impressed, because he comes very close to psychology and it helped me much.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  37. Landau & Lifshitz by RedOctober · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wanted to recommend Feynman's lectures also, but it seems many others have done so already. Also Penrose's "Road to Reality", already mentioned.

    What people haven't mentioned are Landau & Lifshitz's series of books, "Course on Theoretical Physics". This is stuff to read AFTER you have got through Feynman, and find his lectures too elementary. Landau is more demanding, but it will be a LONG while before you can finish reading his works.

    1. Re:Landau & Lifshitz by bierik · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Landau & Lifshitz books are quite advanced but absolutely worth reading (well, "reading" is not the correct term to use here; it is very demanding and will take you a lot of time). I've never really been too fond of Feynman's lectures, but the again I'm more of a "lots of equations and exercises" guy.

      Another book worth mentioning is Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics".

  38. Start with Newton by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica contains his 3 laws of motion, everything follows from there.

    1. Re:Start with Newton by RedOctober · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You're recommending that book to him? Anyone that recommends that book to a physics student, for any other reason than historical interest, probably hasn't read it himself.

  39. a good maths text book by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

    one thing i find when talking to mathematicians is that they often have little knowledge of maths for physicists, though they can acquire this knowledge very quickly. for this reason, i'd recommend you have a look at something like "mathematical methods in the physical sciences" by Mary L. Boas. she also covers a great deal of physics from a mathematical perspective.

    1. Re:a good maths text book by habig · · Score: 1

      Mathmatical Methods for Physicists by Arfken. If it's not in here, you won't be using it in a physics class till you get into some really hard core theory.

      The Amazon links to a newer version than I have, but presumably it's the same beast.

  40. obligatory xkcd comic by frenchbedroom · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's one for every Slashdot discussion !

    http://www.xkcd.com/435/

  41. Re:Might I suggest... by The+Bender · · Score: 1

    wtf is that?

    The website is more unintelligible than TimeCube!

  42. Recommendations from a Physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've got a degree in physics, and the two most important physics books there are, baring quantum mechanics, are:

    Classical Mechanics - Goldstein
    Classical Electrodynamics - Jackson

    If you want something a little easier, I would recommend their 'little brothers' of sorts:

    An Introduction To Mechanics - Kleppner and Kolenkow
    Electricity and Magnetism - Purcell

    1. Re:Recommendations from a Physicist by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1

      As a mathematician who was nearly a math/physics double major, I can second the "little brothers"; those were my texts for the first two years of physics. Plenty of vector calc necessary for those.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
  43. Re:Feynman Lectures by massivefoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Feynman lectures are good, and are pretty good at getting you to think about the physics, but are aimed at first year undergrads. I've just completed a BA in maths and I find them interesting, but a little easy.

    I'd suggest just googling for course notes for the relevant topics. I'm assuming your vector calculus is already good. Other than that you need to know:
    Basic QM
    Probably some fluid dynamics
    Special and general relativity
    Statistical physics / thermodynamics
    Some programming experience might also help, Fortran is still in quite common use in physics and is easy to learn.

    If you really do want to buy dead trees, I recommend:
    Quantum Mechanics by Alastair IM Rae (IOP publishing)
    Gravity by James Hartle (Addison-Wesley)
    Any of the Landau & Lifshitz books (Butterworth-Heinemann)

    They should cover the relevant physics whilst not insulting your intelligence.

  44. It's all maths anyway... by Bazman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I did a BSc in Physics with Astrophysics, and the astro classes were more maths than even my friends who were doing maths had in their mathiest maths classes.

    For our stellar structure course the lecturer used every letter of the alphabet in his equations. Upper and lower case. Latin and Greek. He may even have sneaked in an aleph when we weren't looking (which was often). We used to test ourselves by someone picking a random letter, say 'p' and someone else going 'partial gas pressure!' or whatever it was.

    Okay, I suppose the equations were all based on physical properties of fusion plasmas, but with a maths degree you shouldn't have any trouble with the numbers.

    Good to see people calling it 'maths' and not 'math' in this thread - I don't think the USA has woken up yet :)

  45. One of the best by Doofus · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the best, and most consistently relied upon, physics texts is Fundamentals of Physics, by Halliday and Resnick. The link leads to the 2007 edition - prior editions are still available for lower cost.

    I used this book in high school, and then had the opportunity to use it again during several courses in college. The text is now in its 8th edition, and has been regularly updated and improved. Depending on where most of your colleagues went to school, its likely some or many have been exposed to H&R.

    H&R does not spoon-feed; some of the exercises are difficult. Working through the text is assuredly not going to be a random walk in the park.

    A number of the other comment threads discuss Feynman's lectures, which are also excellent.

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
    1. Re:One of the best by jobin · · Score: 1

      Or Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Tipler and Mosca. I used a previous edition of this book for AP physics in high school, while the regular physics students used Halliday, Resnick, and Walker.

      I don't have much ground to compare the two texts, but I can say that Tipler is a solid textbook. The exercises have a broad difficulty range; you'll probably want to skip the first few in each section (trivial "do you have any clue what this section is about?" questions) and go directly to the harder exercises, some of which are quite challenging.

  46. jump right into the upper level books by disputationist · · Score: 1

    Do NOT use the Feynman lectures as a starting point. They are fun to read and will give you a lot of insight if you already know what he is talking about, but I don't know anyone who learned intro physics for the first time from them. I tried it myself in the 11th/12th grade, and didn't get very far. I would suggest you try books that are somewhere between upper level undergrad and beginning grad level. The main obstacle undergrads face while reading this books is not having the requisite math background; but this should not be a problem for you. So for class mech, use Goldstein. For QM, Sakurai's Modern QM. For EM, use Griffiths, I don't think you should jump into Jackson just yet. For thermo, Schroeder. Supplement all of these with Boas' Mathematical Methods, if there is any math you need to review or learn. After you've skimmed through Goldstein, you might also wanna try Hartle's Gravity, this will probably be the most useful for astrophysics.

    1. Re:jump right into the upper level books by habig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wish I had mod points here. Goldstein, Sakurai, and Griffiths are the books the questioner missed while taking a math degree instead of a physics degree. Throw in Carrol & Ostlie for the astrophysics side of things, and he's covered.

      However, I disagree about the "skimming" part. The only way any of these things will be useful is if you actually work through some of the problems. Do a few random problems from each chapter and they'll make a whole heck of a lot more sense.

    2. Re:jump right into the upper level books by disputationist · · Score: 1

      I only meant that he will be ready for Hartle if he has a general idea of field mechanics, and he doesn't have to put off reading it until he is thoroughly done with Goldstein, which will take quite a while.

  47. Re:Feynman Lectures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    As a physicist I should tell you that the Feyman Lectures on Physics are not really en vogue anymore. The style is often very nice and entertaining and they contain a few brilliant chapters. But they severely lack mathematics: hence inappropriate for a mathematician. They also lack a structure that allows you open the book at a random topic and teach yourself about just that.

    I would recommend you to get a general Physics book like the Tipler,Mosca "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" which you can probably buy as a used book for cheap. Just so you have something to read before going to bed and get a general Idea about a myriad of physics topics.

    And then you really want to learn analytical mechanics. Maybe the Landau, Lifshitz "Course of theoretical physics: Mechanics" isn't so bad... it might be a bit of an overkill, but the other ones that I like have not been translated yet.

    After that it really depends what you want to specialize in:
    If your goal is very mathematical like relativistic magneto-hydrodynamics you would need very different books from something like spectral lines or kinectic gases.

  48. Re:Feynman Lectures by pallmall1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    For a solid mathematical background (and a price that won't force your bank account to violate the second law of thermodynamics), try Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker. Excellent mathematical descriptions, but short on the kind of insight you can find in Feynman's work. A used, earlier edition costs very little and would be good reference for a person with a degree in mathematics.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  49. Mathematical Methods for Physicists by Arfken by helixcode123 · · Score: 1

    I used this text for a physics class of the same name during my undergraduate studies in geophysics. I think it would be an excellent bridge, since you're coming from a mathematics background. Some of the criticisms of the book (not being complete, mathematically, in its treatments) wouldn't be relevant.

    --

    In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.

  50. Suggestions from a Physics Prof by TheTiff · · Score: 2, Informative

    Having gone through a physics undergrad, an astrophysics-slanted grad and currently teaching undergrad physics, I am always on the lookout for good texts. Here are my suggestions...

    Firstly, if you have never taken undergrad physics or are looking for a reference, you will want a good intro text. Feynman is good for conceptual understanding but is a bit short on worked examples and problems for you to try. There are several good intro texts out there, my personal favorite is Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Serway & Jewett. Used copies of older editions are the way to go price-wise.

    As for advanced undergrad texts, here are my suggestions.
    Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths (a real standard)
    An introduction to Thermal Physics by Schroeder (has astrophysics examples)
    Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Shankar
    Classical Dynamics of Particles & Systems by Marion & Thornton (Classical Mechanics)
    Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's General Relativity by Hartle

    1. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by disputationist · · Score: 1

      Marion and Thornton sucks monkey balls. Stay away.

    2. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Haha. Marion and Thornton is an *excellent* advanced-undergraduate text for classical mechanics. For that level of student, you really can't go wrong with it.
            Goldstein is (of course) much more advanced, but reasonably good. If the poster wants a very mathy introduction to mechanics at the graduate level, he should try V.I. Arnold's "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics".

            One book I'd suggest he stays away from (though he won't be able to, probably), is Arfken for mathematical methods. Instead, try to find a copy of Morse and Feschbach (super expensive if you get a new copy of both volumes). The rigor might make a dyed-in-the-wool mathematician weep, but it's all there.

    3. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by disputationist · · Score: 1

      Haha. Marion and Thornton is an *excellent* advanced-undergraduate text for classical mechanics. For that level of student, you really can't go wrong with it.

      Bullcrap. My undergrad mechanics course was based on Marion and Thornton, and I was disappointed with how little we learned of variational methods and hamiltonian dynamics. And of course, there is no field mechanics AT ALL. Advanced undergraduate my ass.

    4. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by L'homme+de+Fromage · · Score: 1

      I agree with all your choices except for:
      * Quantum mechanics. I think Baym's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" is better than Shankar. Other good ones are Powell & Crasemann's "Quantum Mechanics" and Rojansky's "Introductory Quantum Mechanics".

      * Electrodynamics. I've always thought Griffiths was overrated, and I found his writing style annoying. I much prefer "Foundations of Electromagnetic Theory" (3rd ed.) by Reitz, Milford and Christy. There's a new (4th) edition out, but the 3rd edition is great and can be had for cheap.

      I think books on "mathematical methods in physics" would be useful, too. Someone else mentioned "Mathematical Physics" by Butkov, which I agree is excellent. Another good one is "Classical Mathematical Physics" by Thirring.

      Also, "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler is a good (and sometimes overlooked) introduction to special relativity that may be helpful.

    5. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Then your professor probably didn't focus on those aspects. You're right -- there is little field mechanics specified in M&T. But you have to realize that almost anything (certainly at the undergrad. level) involving Lagrangians or Hamiltonians implicitly involves field mechanics, since Laplacians are only definable on fields (the derivatives sample configurations close to the point in question in phase space).

          It sounds like you're mad you didn't take a fluid mechanics course or that electrodynamics didn't cover gravitational fields. Maybe you were too advanced for the course. How did your contemporaries feel about the level covered?

    6. Re:Suggestions from a Physics Prof by disputationist · · Score: 1

      I don't care much for fluid mechanics, I was just miffed that we only did Lagrangian/Hamiltonian dynamics for systems of discrete particles (and that is all there is in M&T). That semester I was starting some independent study on QFT (well I was just looking at rel. QM and classical field theory at that point) so it really would've helped if we had generalized to fields instead of just discrete/finite particles. We spent a lot more time on boring Newtonian crap instead (who wants to study stupid Newtonian gravity, even if it is in-depth, their junior year?), which I blame on the content of the book. The rest of the class actually did very poorly in the course; but that is what happens when you ask too little of students. It was so boring I missed 90% of the lectures.

      Thus: an M&T based class mech course certainly does not cater to an advanced undergraduate.

  51. from a physics PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should have totally mastered:

    classical: Landau vol. I (amazingly beautiful and concise)
    E&M: Griffiths
    quantum: Griffiths
    stat mech: Reif

    And have moved on to learning:
    E&M: Jackson
    quantum: Sakurai supplemented with Schiff
    stat mech: Landau vol. V (check the footnote on Jacobian methods).

    Work lots of problems!

  52. Re:Might I suggest... by hostyle · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean studying astrophysics can introduce you to generating your own gravity field and pulling nearby females into orbit? Where do I sign up?!

    --
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
  53. Best Textbooks by E3nder · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the important thing to realize in your situation is that whatever you _need_ to know to do your masters your classes and your professor will point you to the right books. As such, what you really need to do is go back and fill all the wholes that were left from a non-physics undergraduate degree. Most of these textbooks that I will list are the standard for MIT, and Harvard and the like. So let's begin.
    Classical Mechanics:
    Kleppner and Kolenkow
    If you have time: Goldstein

    Electricity and Magnetism:
    This one is a little tricky, I'll give you the 1st undergrad, the Junior level undergrad and then the two Grad texts. You can probably just read the Junior level text.
    Purcell
    Griffiths
    Jackson and Schwinger

    Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics:
    There are really no agreed upon texts here (sorry), I used Baierlein at MIT but that seems to switch every year.
    Same goes for graduate texts, BUT the MIT profesor who has been teaching grad stat mech just put out his own books which I hear are quite good. We'll call them Kardar 1 and Karadar 2

    Quantum Physics:
    What you really need is an introduction to two fundamental ideas, the wave-function formalism and the linear-algebra formalism.
    Wave-function: French and Taylor
    Linear Algebra: Griffiths - Best Book in this list in my opinion.

    Special Relativity and General Relativity:
    Special: French
    General: Carroll

    That should fill in everything that you missed. What we are skipping is every other specialty in physics, but, it seems like you've already chosen one, so no big loss.

  54. Math vs Maths by thermian · · Score: 1

    Actually, as an English clever person with a doctorate and everything (I has a smarts, I do), I've found myself using just 'Math' recently as it seems to make more sense. Certainly in tutorial material.

    It just sounds better really, not least because the word it's shortened form of isn't 'Mathsematics'. I may be committing an Englishness sin by doing this, but since I never studied Mathematics as a single subject, I may be able to plead insanity.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:Math vs Maths by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Seriously, did you study Mathematic or Mathematics? If the latter, you should shorten it to Maths. English is really quite simple.

    2. Re:Math vs Maths by bbhack · · Score: 1

      Actually, as an English clever person with a doctorate and everything (I has a smarts, I do), I've found myself using just 'Math' recently as it seems to make more sense...

      Bravo, thermian. Indeed, "math" used to be plural, circa 1970, about the time I learned that to speak poorly was a fast track to mediocrity. To me, "maths" just sounds retarded to the extreme, like wankerspeak - lets be different just to be different.

      The first time I saw it around here, I thought it was a typo. I totally agree about the sound of it, too. Just sounds so wrong.

      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
  55. Astronomy and theoretical physics by golodh · · Score: 3, Informative
    From your post I gather that you will primarily use self-study. As regards reading material I suggest you have a look here: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html Prof. 't Hooft is a Nobel-prize winner in physics and he has put together a page with "open source" reading material on physics which he recommends to anyone with aspirations of becoming a theoretical physicist.

    As an aspiring astronomer your profile will strongly resemble that of a theoretical physicist. And you'll certainly need to know about just about everything he lists on that page: from classical mechanics, optics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, plasma physics, plain old electromagnetism, to electronics. 't Hooft lists freely downloadable high-quality reading material on just about every topic!

    And although you didn't ask, don't forget the computational side of things! Most astronomers I know are heavy computer users and very good programmers.

    So make sure you know about Fortran and the libraries that are written in it (e.g. have a look at http://www.netlib.org/liblist.html and acquaint yourself with Lapack, Sparsepack, fftpack, cephes etc). Many of those routines can also be found in Matlab, Octave, Scilab, etc., but if you need full control and a standalone executable on a big supermini you might have to go back to Fortran and C++), And make sure (well ... I hardly need tell a mathematics undergraduate but I can't omit it) that you know about Maple and/or Mathematica.

    But ... if I may be so bold ... whilst reading and self-study are an indispensable element of learning physics they are rarely sufficient. You'll also need to learn a special way of thinking that sometimes comes hard to people with a background in mathematics. Which is to know when and where to cut corners and use approximations, and sometimes even go beyond the mathematics you know.

    Think of Paul Dirac (of the Dirac Delta function). His "function" isn't a function at all, it's a distribution, and trying to think of it as a function will lead you to contradictions. But Dirac set up a formalism using it (and got the properties right !) without knowing about distributions (they were invented later partly to put what he had done on a firm mathematical basis). He simply let mathematical firmness go hang at the appropriate moment. Now I'm not comparing you to Dirac (and I'm certainly not encouraging you to take liberties with mathematics), but Dirac was a physicist first and a mathematician second. That's what I mean. Someone suggested the Feynman Lectures ... they're great (if sometimes a tough read) exactly because Feynman makes this very point.

    You see ... in Physics, the physics comes first and the mathematics second; meaning that in thinking about physics problems you'll have to think in terms of physics (of course greatly helped by the mathematical formalisms in which physical laws are couched) but if you'll need to be able to think through a physical line argument without necessarily working through all the maths. Physicists do this as a second nature, and you'll need to learn how.

    1. Re:Astronomy and theoretical physics by dronkert · · Score: 1

      Prof. 't Hooft

      Ah yes! In a distant past I got a perfect score for his Lie Groups course. Alas, it was a once in a student-lifetime experience for me.

      Sorry, carry on.

  56. Re:Feynman Lectures by quizteamer · · Score: 1

    If you've never taken a physics class, Halliday is the place to start. I know you have "limited knowledge" in physics. If you've taken calculus based physics courses, have you considered either an REA Physics Problem Solvers book or a Schaum's outline? It doesn't go into the detail that Halliday will but both will give you many problems to work out.

    --
    Live Long and Prosper
  57. Ask Slashdot? Why not ask..... by Cinnamon+Whirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your Professor?

    A quick check on your universities web site should also furnish a list of your prof's group, (Phds and post-docs). Track them down. What you don't really need at this stage is a full physics degree. That is why they chose a mathematician, right? So find out the specifics of your project, and read around that.
    Also, it shows the people who count that you're interested.....

  58. General Relativity by Robert M. Wald by warrior · · Score: 1

    Tough material, great book. Remember that Einstein had the physical theory first and then looked to mathematicians to help him put it into formal equations. One can't help but feel closer to "God" (whatever that may be) after learning about GR and seeing the implications as truths in our telescopes. Good luck to you!

    --
    Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
  59. Re:Feynman Lectures by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

    The Feynman Lectures aren't nearly as relevant as one might think, for an astrophysicist. They'd be brilliant if he wanted to do a general physics degree, but there are far better specialist texts which don't require all the pain of quantum.

    They're well worth reading, of course, but Carroll and Ostlie is the better read for the course he wants to do.

  60. Re:Feynman Lectures by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

    Some programming experience might also help, Fortran is still in quite common use in physics and is easy to learn.

    C/C++ is generally better than Fortran these days for physics, as it seems to have overtaken Fortran as the most used langauge, although I'm finding myself having to learn Python for my astrophysics.

  61. I'd recommend: by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1
    A good classical mechanics textbook: Classical Mechanics, Herbert Goldstein. It it IMHO the defacto standard for graduate classical mechanics, and very very well written. It requires advanced math to understand (but that shouldn't be a problem for you :)).

    A good statistical mechanics book, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I've used serveral, there doesn't seem to be much of a shortage of good stat-mech books.

    Since you are going into astro I'd suspect it would be good to either/or/both read a GR or fluid mechanics book. I'd go with the fluid mechanics because it shares a lot of the math with both GR and EM, (Poisson and Laplace equations, Fourier methods, conservation laws etc). It is also nice to see classical physics in a non-block sliding down a ramp frame of reference :)

  62. Astrophysics with a PC by mangu · · Score: 1

    For a very lightweight text that goes surprisingly deep into the physics theory, I suggest this book: "Astrophysics With a PC - An Introduction to Computational Astrophysics". It's intended for amateur astronomers with an interest in astrophysics, source code in Basic is printed along with the text.

    Take a look at the table of contents in the link I gave and see what you think, it costs only $19.95, which is a very low cost for a book these days.

  63. Depends on the direction, really. by malbrech · · Score: 1

    Done a PhD on theoretical astrophysics myself.

    Now, the trouble with astrophysics is that you find (and must understand) every area of physics included in there. You will need thermodynamics, nuclear and particle physics for star formation; gravitation and fluid dynamics for galaxies; relativity and quantum physics for cosmology; electrodynamics and optics for interstellar fields; and so on.

    The Feynmann lectures are an excellent entry point. The rest depends on the direction you want to take. Theory? Then the Landau-Lifschitz volumes will be your friends. Observational? That will depend of the area, ask your majors.

  64. Since you're mathematically sophisticated, by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    it's hard to believe no one has recommended Gravitation yet. This comprehensive, well-written, and authoritative book on general relativity is tailor-made for the mathematically sophisticated. One of its strong points is it does everything twice using both coordinate-free and coordinate-based differential geometry to help solidify your understanding and so you can do both theory (coord-free) and calculations (coords).

  65. One great book, from an astrophysicist by sdjc · · Score: 1

    I will recommend three books at three distinct levels. First, to give you a basic familiarity with the night sky, I recommend, Nightwatch: A Practical Guide to Viewing the Universe, it has been one of my favourites. No astrophysics in this one, just decades' worth of experience in star gazing. Also, for a familiarity with the solar system and planetary geology, I recommend Moons and Planets. Finally, for rigour, I recommend Introduction to Cosmology, it is clear, concise, and introduces elements from general relativity without much of the required differential geometry. These books were all part of required classes in my undergrad and I really enjoyed them. Hope they serve you well!

  66. Some undergraduate texts from courses at Berkeley by xiphosuran · · Score: 1

    Charles Kittel, Herbert Kromer, Thermal Physics
    Consise, a small set of problems, at least look at every one

    Hans Ohanian, Gravitation and Spacetime
    Could prevent you from boggling at Misner, Thorne and Wheeler

    Stephane Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing
    Thorough, a math processor here told us that the demand for rigor could invariably be handled by saying "Lebesgue limit theorem."

    Cornelius Lanczos, The Variational Principles of Mechanics (a paperback from Dover books)
    Classic introduction to the calculus of variations and analytic mechanics

    Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill, The Art of Electronics
    The first edition, before they threw in all the microprocessor stuff, is focused on what experimental physicists need to know.

    One of the grand old men of analog chip design, Bob Pease, has written a column for years that you can read on the web.
    http://www.elecdesign.com/Departments/DepartmentID/6/6.html
    http://www.national.com/rap/

  67. Re:Feynman Lectures by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > They'd be brilliant if he wanted to do a general physics degree, but there are far
    > better specialist texts which don't require all the pain of quantum.

    It's first year general physics. I can't believe that a astrophysicist wouldn't benefit from it. I'm surprised that his astrophysics program doesn't require at least first year physics as a prerequisite.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  68. Undergraduate level texts: by Gryphia · · Score: 1

    My favorite undergraduate physics texts (as a physics and math B.A.):
    Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker - Great intro book (very basic). I still go back to it as a great intro level reference.

    Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor - A very good book covering all of the 'basics' of Classical Mechanics. This is basically an introductory treatment of some of the higher level concepts of classical mechanics, including air resistance, the lagrangian and hamiltonian, rotational frames of reference, etc.

    Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths - Probably *the* standard text for 3rd year undergraduate E&M. A very well written, readable introduction to higher level E&M concepts.

    Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths - Not as standard as his electrodynamics book, but still a very good introduction to quantum mechanics, from the schrodinger equation and particle in a box through time dependent perturbation theory and more.

    An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie - A very broad treatment of almost everything you could ever think of in astrophysics. I'd personally consider it a must have reference for astrophysicists, but I'm not one, so take that with a grain of salt. The second edition may be worth shelling out the extra cash, because a *lot* has changed in astrophysics in the last 15 years (for example, WMAP, to name just one of the many important experiments that have changed our view of the cosmos)


    In addition to these textbooks, as others have already mentioned, there are the Feynman lectures, which many people take as gospel. They're good, but in my opinion they don't beat a good textbook devoted to the topic, like the ones I've listed above.


    Other books that I don't think are quite as good, but you might consider, depending on your needs: Modern Physics by Serway, Moses, and Moyer - Not a great text, but I haven't encountered *any* good modern physics texts. Really, I'd say you're better off ignoring this, and going straight to quantum.

    Solid State Physics by Hook and Hall - A fine solid state text. Not the standard one by any means, but I find it fairly readable and easy to follow.

    An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Schroeder - I don't have much experience with thermal physics texts. This one was adequate.


    None of the above texts are graduate level, but no doubt you'll have to buy the appropriate graduate level texts as you take the classes. Between all of them, if you understand the material, you'll have a more than adequate background in physics to start your degree. Cherry pick as best fits your needs.

  69. Cosmology by modicr · · Score: 1

    Hello!
    Since you're a mathematician, maybe you'll be interested in cosmology (=theoretical astrophysics).
    Here is one recommendation:
    Cosmology: A Very Short Introduction - Peter Coles (1)
    http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780192854162

    OTOH, the following book is quite provocative:
    The Trouble With Physics - Lee Smolin (2)
    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/08/lee-smolins-trouble-with-physics.html

    BTW, http://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/the-trouble-with-smolin/

    ------------
    (1) Professor of Astrophysics, University of Nottingham
    (2) Researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario

  70. Re: Landau by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'll second the Landau Mechanics book which is very concise and goes right into lagrangian formalism which takes other books hundreds of pages. CAUTION: there are a *lot* of crappy copies of this book. Try your best to get one of the original hard covers, I think it was first printed around 1961.

    I would strongly suggest getting the basics under your belt first - mechanics and E&M before going onto quantum mechanics. As far QM, I think Morrisons Understanding Quantum Phyics A User Guide is by far the best intro/mid-level QM book and will get you through many of the trickier points. In E&M I've heard a few good things about Franklins Classical Electromagnetism but haven't used it myself. Once you are all past that you may need some nuclear under your belt - the two tomes by Feshbach and Shalit are classics and still relevant though Wong is probably the way to go for a quick spin.

  71. Understanding Physics by entropybydesign · · Score: 1
    Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov is a great introduction to basic physics.

    http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0880292512

  72. Two quick reads by lelitsch · · Score: 1

    Two of the books I kept after graduating in nuclear physics might help to get a quick rough overview in about 10% of the pages of the Feynman lectures. None of them replace the other suggestions, but they might work well as a kick start and quick reference.

    -From Newton to Mandelbrot. The fractals section is probably completely out of fashion now, but the first 2/3rds of the book are a lightning fast course through most of theoretical mechanics, electrodynamics, relativity and quantum physics

    -Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics--a 400 page almost pure math romp through all kinds of physics. It's ok for getting a quick overview. Be a bit careful with this one, all the content is sound, but the editing is fairly sloppy. But it's the only place I know where you can get, for example, the basic equations for fluid dynamics in 15 pages, rather than 150.

  73. Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshi by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  74. I'm getting my MSc in the same field by topastro · · Score: 1

    I retired from a thirty year career as a software engineer to do the same thing you are doing. I am in my 4th semester towards my MSc in astrophysics and astronomy with grades of High Distinction each semester. If you know math up through calculus and advanced differential equations, then the physics will come easily! Your first semester may require some spherical trigonometry (which even most math majors aren't familiar with), but essentially you've got it made with your math background. I'm familiar with practically all of the books that others have recommended to you in other comments, but I've found that the most relevant are the David McMahon "Demystified" books such as Relativiy Demystified , Quantum Mechanics Demystified , etc. These books assume you are familiar with advanced math but not necessarily physics (though be warned I have found some mistakes in these, but these errors are easily recognizable). I honestly think you don't have much to worry about given your math background.

  75. Re:Try a free online course with a berkeley webcas by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    The Feynman lectures on physics are nice because they contain more insight than actual grindstone physics. And in the long run insight wins, though you still need to know the mechancis.

    The nice part for you is you understand Maths already which is really the connective tissue of physics. Most textbooks are geared toward students who are still learning math. So in your search for books aim for ones taught in first year graduate courses rather than undergrad. (e.g. Jackson for Eletcrodynamics).

    I'd also reccomend reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by hunter S thompson and shakespeare in the original klingon.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  76. Re:Feynman Lectures by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked these were the Freshmen text on the subject at Caltech

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  77. You just need to master the basics by kwashburn · · Score: 1

    Hey! If you master the basics you'll be fine. I got my undergrad in math & physics and my grad in astronomy so I can attest to this. Pick up a good calc-based freshman physics book and go through it. Halliday & Resnick or Knight will cover everything you need to know from the physics world - mechanics, waves, optics, electromagnetism, and introductions to atomic, nuclear and quantum physics. Round it off by reading a freshman-level astronomy book like The Cosmic Perspective. And like others suggested, do some of the problems, don't just read and pretend you're really absorbing it. Physics problem solving can be quite a bit different from math problem solving at first. It sounds like a lot of people are trying to recommend the junior and senior level textbooks but if you've thoroughly mastered the first year stuff that will make more of a difference than having skimmed Jackon's E&M or Carroll & Ostlie. Apart from that, when you get to grad school go to a lot of colloquia to pick up the jargon. Good luck!

  78. Re:This is UK we are talking about... by mikael · · Score: 1

    I go to a university which is in the top-10 for research funding. As far as the undergraduate courses go, the recommended textbooks are the same as any university (eg. Deitel for Operating Systems, Watt for 3D Computer Graphics, Gamma for C++), and students are encouraged to read IEEE/ACM/BCS papers, along with applying for student membership. Students accomodation has broadband Internet access with institution wide access to research journals.

    Unfortunately, it is really up to the motivation of the students as to whether they take advantage of all the resources available. The main problem is that they all have part-time jobs as bar tenders and waiters in order to pay their way through three years of education.

    Consequently, they don't really have much time for doing coursework assignments. For exams, questions used to be based on "Explain how a .... works". Now, they are "Explain how you would implement .... using [Programming language/API]".

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  79. Re:Feynman Lectures by massivefoot · · Score: 1

    Good point about EM.
    And who's Jackson?

  80. Re:Feynman Lectures by massivefoot · · Score: 1

    Not sure which would be better (fortran lets you get away with things that C doesn't, I find I get more runtime bugs), but certainly fortran is still in wide use. I believe that up until last year all Cambridge physics undergrads were still being taught it.

  81. Texts from a PhD Student by DrLudicrous · · Score: 4, Informative

    The vast majority of the recommendations here are top notch. A lot of which book to use really is personal preference and background. Here are my personal choices after having been in 3 separate Physics departments. Also, you should consider looking at ANY of the Landau-Lifshitz texts. These Soviet scientists wrote comprehensive texts that might be right up your alley as someone with a math background. I only wish I could understand them more, their physics is really beautiful.

    First off, a general reference book. I recommend the Halliday and Resnick series. Buy this used. It is basically an encyclopedia of physics that is presented at the intro undergraduate level. I use it frequently when working through problems outside my specific area of expertise.

    Electricity and Magnetism: Three books. Griffiths, Purcell, and Jackson. The first is a classic undergrad text, the second is a more advanced undergrad text, and the last is the standard graduate text in E&M.

    Quantum Mechanics: Griffiths' undergrad text is a must, though it is not very mathematically rigorous. I recommend Shankar as a supplement- Shankar is used as both a grad and undergrad text. I'm an experimentalist who stopped learning formal quantum mechanics after 1 year of graduate study, so Shankar may not be enough for you depending on your interests. Check out other's recommendations. Griffiths and Shankar are very good intro and reference books.

    Statistical Mechanics- I used Kittel and Kroemer as an undergrad, and it's OK, a little dated. Huang was my grad text, and it is also OK. I don't have strong feelings here. Landau and Lifshitz may be better for you

    Classical Mechanics- Marion and Thorton was my undergrad text. Personally, I don't think the CM text really matters. They are all equally bad. The basics they teach you are what a Langrangian is, and unfortunately always underemphasized what a Hamiltonian is (used REPEATEDLY in QM).

    Finally, make sure to get a good Mathematical Methods book, even if you really understand math well (I am sure you do). I recommend Arfken as a reference tome, and the Schaum's outline as a handy desktop reference for solving various partial differential equations. Past that, you should be able to pick up texts cheap used from fellow students, or on eBay. Good luck!

    1. Re:Texts from a PhD Student by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Personally, I don't think the CM text really matters. They are all equally bad. The basics they teach you are what a Langrangian is, and unfortunately always underemphasized what a Hamiltonian is (used REPEATEDLY in QM).

      Try Goldstein. A solid treatment of both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations, as well as canonical transformations, Poisson brackets (which become commutators in QM), and the least action principle.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Texts from a PhD Student by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? This many books? It'd cost a fortune. I got by with two books for my undergraduate degree (of which one proved useless) and one for my phd -- though this was in computer science so maybe it's different for physics.

    3. Re:Texts from a PhD Student by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      I whole heartedly disagree. Anyone should run screaming from anything Griffiths'. Not only is his QM book not mathematically rigorous, it's exceedingly light on theory as well. All it really does is skim the surface of something that you really need to go pretty in depth from the start. Not to mention the price. Two good options are:

      Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development
      Leslie E Ballentine
      Google Book link

      Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction
      Greiner

      E&M doesn't really have many good books. Or really any if one considers pedagogy. It's just from a different time that doesn't really agree with modern minds. I could ask my wife which are good books, but who really cares? Just get an elementary intro from the relevant sections of Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers and be done with it. Pick up the rest as things progress or as directed by ones supervisor.

      Classical Mechanics does have good books though. One of them being Goldstein's, Classical Mechanics. Also, to say it doesn't really matter just shows you how much you experimentalists haven't a clue. You need to know Classical Mechanics to a GREAT degree to really understand the higher stuff like Quantum Mechanics. But, then again, you guys don't get that far. Continue pushing your buttons and leave the theory to those that understand it.

      For mathematical methods there's Boas', Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. A good table of integrals is also a necessity for any Physicist. I'd recommend "the big Russian book." I've actually called it that for so long I can't remember the real name of it and don't have immediate access to it. Ask around and someone will tell you or hand it to you. It should be in any decent library.

    4. Re:Texts from a PhD Student by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      Seriously, yes. Comparing physics to computer science is like comparing apples to UNIX. There is a little cross-over, but not much, and certainly not in the manner in which each subject is taught. It also might speak a bit about the lack of quality CS texts (not that there are many quality physics texts overall). The level of rigor in graduate texts is much higher than in undergrad texts, and from my own personal experience, there is simply no way I could have handled most of my grad texts when I was an undergrad- I didn't know enough, and my math skills sucked (and are only slightly improved now). It does get a bit expensive, but some foolish physics students actually sell their books back, enabling people like me to buy perfectly good used texts on the cheap, or sometimes, they even GIVE them away. Physics texts are invaluable as references, even after taking a class, which is why most physicists have stacks of them- we can't remember how to do everything we've ever learned, but a little reminder goes a long way.

    5. Re:Texts from a PhD Student by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      I personally disagree about Griffiths, but hey, that's what great about Physics- everyone is entitled to their own opinion about which books are best, because everyone learns different. I have a hard time with math, and my theory isn't that great (if I haven't mentioned above, I'm an experimentalist), so Griffiths was really good for someone like me. One size does not fit all!

      I'm not familiar with those QM texts. I also have used Baym (and was taught by the man himself) and Merzbacher, but Shankar was by far my favorite. His first chapter finally made the language of QM (linear algebra) click for me. Again, I think my opinions are heavily influenced by my mathematical abilities and my lack of knack for theory.

      I've heard so many good things about Goldstein that I may just go ahead and pick up a copy for myself. My intro to the Hamiltonian was rough and incomplete (I never attended a CM lecture in undergrad due to a schedule conflict), and I've always wanted a better handle on it for the purposes of QM. I totally agree with your stressing of the importance of CM in that it makes understanding QM easier, and a little more physical.

      I've heard good things about Boas. For some strange reason, I don't have a copy of this, and Arfken has sufficed for my needs, which are not very high when it comes to math methods. An aspiring astrophysicist may need more math than a condensed matter experimentalist (all that GR), so it may behoove such a person to pick up Boas. Good recommendations.

  82. Re:Feynman Lectures by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    I've just completed a BA in maths...

    Maths is a Bachelor of Arts?

    What the... ?

    Sorry, but this seems a bit strange to me.

  83. Half.com by menace3society · · Score: 1

    Buy some previous editions of textbooks. For less than the price of one new textbook, you can probably get a whole undergraduate course of learning, as long as you read a lot.

    But, make sure any books you buy have answers to problem sets in the back. I learned that lesson the hard way.

  84. It depends on your focus as well by My-Kung-Fu-Is-Best · · Score: 1

    Not sure if this was covered above... I suppose it depends on what areas you will focus on. As in most fields, astrophysics and astronomy have many sub-fields that would require a more extensive background in that area. It also depends on which route you are taking (experimental or theoretical). With a math background, I would expect a theoretical route would be very appropriate. Additionally, some schools have different notions of what to include in an Astro grad program. I know someone in one now in which the program assumes little or no previous Astro experience, while some assume extensive undergraduate coursework. I completely encourage you to pursue this, but it may be a daunting task. If you made it through math, it is likely that you have the brain juice to do the physics. There is just a lot of physics out there to learn... so keep a pot of coffee on at all times... :) For the basics (as most have suggested) check out the Feynman Lectures. The Schaum's Outline series provides a good overview of many subjects. Your instructors will probably tell you what to read for your particular astronomy and astrophysics courses. Most basic and intro areas in astro or physics have a wide variety of books to choose from. Yes, some are better that others, but they all have the information you're looking for, so just grab a few and dive in! (just a few thoughts from a fellow astrophysicist / college professor)

  85. tche_leao by tcheleao · · Score: 1

    I recommend "physics" by Halliday, Resnick, Krane.
    Good Luck
    http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Robert-Resnick/dp/0471568988

  86. mathematically oriented astrophysics book by rfresneda · · Score: 1

    Try Straumann's General Relativity: With Applications to Astrophysics: http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Applications-Astrophysics-Mathematical/dp/3540219242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215965048&sr=1-1

  87. Re:Good intro to QM by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

    When I took an introductory QM class for my physics minor, we used this book. I thought it was pretty well written and it seemed to have a decent selection of good examples.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  88. Re:Might I suggest... by colmore · · Score: 1

    Math groupies exist.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  89. Solid undergraduate-level physics texts by cyberanth · · Score: 1

    Landau and Lifshitz Classical Mechanics - concise and beautifully written. Might be stylistically appealing for someone with a background in mathematics.

    Griffiths Introduction to Electromagnetism - A classic and clear introductory text. Probably his best book.

    Griffiths Introduction to Quantum Mechanics - Another classic. It's also a short book. If you are looking for more Dirac notation, check out Shankar, another classic at the undergraduate level.

    Reif Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics - Great and very complete introduction to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. If you find the text daunting, you could substitute it for Schroeder.

    Taylor and Wheeler Spacetime Physics - Great introduction to special relativity. You'll find a more mathematical treatment in Griffiths EM or any GR book.

    -----

    If you are interested in reading a bit of undergraduate-level general relativity and astrophysics as well, good books are

    Hartle Gravity - An UG-level intro to General Relativity. Focuses on the physics and providing you with metrics. Fun book. Try Carroll if you want something more mathematical.

    Ryden Introduction to Cosmology - Great, recent introduction to cosmology at the UG level. Will give you a lot of intuition into your later studies of cosmology.

    You might want to check out a good UG-level text on stellar astrophysics as well, but there's probably more than enough on your plate, unless you're some sort of robot.

  90. Re:Feynman Lectures by massivefoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yup, it is. The only bachelor degrees Cambridge award are BAs, and the degree certificate doesn't even state the subject or class, that's all in some other document called a results transcript.

    Anywhere else would have done the sensible thing and changed the title of all the science degrees, but here the attitude seems to be "well no one's complained too much in the last 800 years..."

  91. Brush up on your complex analysis by comingstorm · · Score: 1

    If you've been doing pure math, you might not be as practiced with analysis and applied functions as people who've been doing physics for a while. Just because you know Bessel functions, elliptical integrals, and stuff doesn't mean you're familiar enough with their use to pass a time-limited exam...

    The books I have are:

    • Mathews and Walker's Mathematical Methods of Physics
    • Arfken and Weber's Mathematical Methods for Physicists

    If you don't already have it, I also recommend the Handbook of Mathematical Functions as a classic reference.

  92. Lyman Spitzer hasn't been mentioned by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

    I would add the two plasma physics books in print by Lyman Spitzer. There's a reason they named an observatory after him.

    I concur with the recommendations of Feynmann and Landau & Lifshitz.

    It's been some 37 years since I made the switch from math to plasma physics, then applied superconductivity and now accelerator physics.

  93. Clayton's Principles of Stellar Nucleosynthesis by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 1
    The above is a fantastic text describing all necessary physics (from radiation transport to nuclear reaction rates) to understand stellar processes and, by extension, other astrophysical systems. The author has a consummate understanding of the field and his prose is insightful. In my opinion, the dated nuclear physics are actually a boon, as this book has one of the few comprehensible treatments of "nuclear physics you can use" I have found.

    Additionally, I like Schutz and D'Inverno's texts for introductions to General Relativity, and Stuart and Shapiro is dense but delicious for learning about compact objects.

    These are suggested from a physicist's perspective; I'm sure there are plenty of good classics known to an astronomy grad student that are outside of my purview. Anyway, best of luck!

    --

    To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  94. Dover by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    There are a series of "classic" physics textbooks published by Dover. They're not hardcovers with glossy paper and amazing color diagrams, but they are about $5-$10. They're generally reproductions of text books which went out of print a few decades ago. Given that most core undergraduate physic curricula stop at ~1930, that's not too bad.

    A better suggestion may be to ask the professors at your university, that's what they're there for. If you walk in to someone's office, they may just hand you the perfect book right there.

  95. Way more than Pop-Sci and worth it by marcus · · Score: 1

    Penrose's "Road to Reality" is quite a bit more than Pop-Sci. I bought it a few months ago as a refresher. It has been 25 years since I got my degree and while I have kept up with the news it has been quite a while since I "practiced".

    I'd also recommend "High Energy Astrophysics" V1 and V2 by Longair. Fascinating stuff in there.

    Finally, set up a good newsreader and spend some time on the sci.astro and sci.physics newsgroups. If you can't get an education there, at least you will get some more suggestions from a far more qualified audience than here on /. ;-)

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
  96. How many maths? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

    "Mathematics" is plural? How many mathematics did you study today? Did you find any particular mathematic more difficult than another?

    OT: New Math

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  97. Feynam Lectures in Physics by suburbanmediocrity · · Score: 1
    This is the freshman lecture course from the 1960's (1963?) when Richard Feynman decided to teach an undergraduate course.

    I have not read them in a decade, but from what I remember it is almost all conceptual with little math.

    As both a physics and math student, I would say that these are must reading. I don't remember who said it, maybe Feynman himself, but the quote goes something like the following: "If you can't explain a concept to a kindergartner, then you don't understand it yourself". Feynman truly understands the physics behind events.

  98. Peebles: Principles of Physical Cosmology by macslas'hole · · Score: 1

    Principles of Physical Cosmology by P. J. E. Peebles
    Full of theory and implications with excellent explanations and problems worked out. This isn't going to have the latest and greatest but it solidly presents the basics of modern cosmology. The big bang, Einstein De Sitter solutions of General Relativity, universal expansion, the cosmic background radiation, the distribution of galaxies, baryon creation, etc.
    My math is no better than Diff. Eq. and Lin. Alg. and I found nothing in this book that was over my head.

    --
    Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  99. Re:Feynman Lectures, or Halliday & Resnick by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    I'll also recommend Halliday, Resnick, & Walker.
    When I was a first-year Engineering student 32 years ago, our text in basic Physics was the 2-volume Halliday & Resnick.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  100. QM books by zQuo · · Score: 1

    Out of the books mentioned on QM, I'd recommend Baym's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for this purpose; it's a more methodical treatment of QM. it should appeal more to the mathemetician looking for understanding QM. The advanced viewpoint starts from examining polarized photons to develop the QM framework. The result is a more intuitive understanding of QM.

    The fault of most QM books is the "cookbook" like approach, even the best books sometimes fall in this pedagogical trap. Do these manipulations and the right answer will pop out. Do these types of perturbations, etc. and you can do more complicated problems.

    Landau & Lifshitz, I feel, gets too detailed in the grind of the treatment. For a mathemetician trying to get the "essence" of QM, I'd recommend Baym.

  101. Re:Other news... by meburke · · Score: 1

    It could be I'm 'way out of date. I thought I was going to be an astrophysicist back in the early 70's, and was astounded at how much Geology and Geophysics I had to study. I also remember assisting in a beginning Astronomy course at a Junior College in 1975, and finding out that over half the materials in the current textbook had been added since I took my first Astronomy course in 1965.

    In the long run, I doubt that simply learning just the concepts of Physics is what the poster needs; math and Physics are two different types of thinking (IMO). Whereas the greater portion of Math is derivable through axiomatic thinking within a domain of reason, graduate-level Astrophysics creates new knowledge though a rigorous discovery process (as do most Physics).

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  102. Re:Feynman Lectures by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

    As a physicist I should tell you that the Feyman Lectures on Physics are not really en vogue anymore. The style is often very nice and entertaining and they contain a few brilliant chapters. But they severely lack mathematics: hence inappropriate for a mathematician. They also lack a structure that allows you open the book at a random topic and teach yourself about just that.

    Meh - while I'd agree that you can't call yourself a serious physicist just based on having read the Feynman lectures, I can't think of a single physicist that hasn't read them (or at least browsed them from time to time), and they are basic enough that it just takes a couple days of dipping in and out of to get through them. The Feynman Lectures for me fall into the category of light pleasure reading - there's just enough detail to keep you thinking, but overall, you read them for fun, not to grind up your skillset.

    If for no other reason, they are worth reading so that you have some idea how a good teacher explains things to people not already familiar with the subject. Most physics PhDs at some point or another will have to teach introductory physics classes, and I think they could do a lot worse than to base some of their lectures on Feynman's style, if not his actual content.

  103. Re:Feynman Lectures by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

    The Feynman Lectures aren't nearly as relevant as one might think, for an astrophysicist. They'd be brilliant if he wanted to do a general physics degree, but there are far better specialist texts which don't require all the pain of quantum.

    For a math major, QM should be a cakewalk. However, nobody should be learning QM from Feynman's lectures, there are far better texts to use for that (Shankar comes to mind, Griffiths if Shankar is too hard, Bohm if you want to be totally weird and pervert your brain).

  104. Focus on mechanics and relativity by vinn · · Score: 1

    Lots of people here are suggesting a super-broad physics education focusing on everything from themo to relativity to quantum mechanics. These are VERY diverse areas and I really don't think you have time to learn any of them very good, let alone all of them. Therefore, I'd focus on the areas you're likely to delve into first - things like relativity and basic mechanics/dynamics.

    In that regard, Feynman's Lecture series is excellent. For a quick read, I'd recommend Feynman's Six Not So Easy Pieces. You might be able to blow through it in a day.

    After coming up to speed on some of that stuff, delve into thermodynamics and electromagnetics. Save quantum mechanics for the very end - it's probably the furthest thing from what you'll need to know.

    --
    ----- obSig
  105. Book at SLAC by c0d3r · · Score: 1

    At SLAC: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/ I saw an interesting book in a Nobel Winner's book shelf:

    Quantum Mechanics - Albert Messiah

    Can anyone comment on whether or not this book is just a book cover or if it's for real?

  106. Re:Feynman Lectures by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    At risk of self-deprecation, I find Feynmann's lectures to be far too brief to gain a sufficient understanding of the subject, and that the lectures would almost immediately dive off into a fairly advanced treatment of the material, and provided few if any examples.

    If you're looking for an introduction to the subject, I can't say that I give them the same sort of recommendations as others are giving here. They're certainly not horrible, but they also take a very different approach to the material than most texts do, especially at the undergraduate level.

    If you want a comprehensive "survey" of Physics, I'd more highly recommend the Landau/Lifshitz series of texts (although these too are somewhat different from what you'd find being taught in a classroom in the UK or US).

    Failing that, there are a few widely-used undergraduate texts that are hard to go wrong with (Griffiths, Kittel, Shankar, etc....), especially given that most of your colleagues will have learned from them as well.

    Also consider that I've never heard of Feynman being taught at a UK university, and that it's not particularly popular in the US, apart from at Caltech (which is where he wrote them).

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  107. T. M. Helliwell and Rhinos by rhesuspieces00 · · Score: 1

    Agreed about the Feynman Lectures. Halliday and Resnick are ok as well. It's not widely available, but my favorite text book of all time is Thomas M. Helliwell's "Introduction to Special Relativity". Its the only textbook I've ever read cover to cover. The sample problems are great fun, frequently involving a rhinoceros traveling at 0.99c (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum). He also has an excellent two volume introduction to mechanics, but its much harder to find. It basically only exists as spiral bound sets of photocopies made for Harvey Mudd students.

  108. Very dense and compact in its axiomatic approach by quax · · Score: 1

    I think you will find this one is right up your ally.

    Pricey but worth it.

  109. I'm confused by http · · Score: 1
    How the HELL did you get a BSc in mathematics without learning physics?
    • Geometry - setting up static load problems.
    • Calculus - too many to itemize. Area, rates, and vibrating things as starting points.
    • Linear Algebra - Optimization problems, filtering, translating co-ordinate systems.
    • Probability - Quantum ElectroDynamics.
    • Group theory / Abstract algebra - Quantum ChromoDynamics, and proof methodologies. Admittedly, engineers aren't usually interested in proof, just what works. However, physicists are generally uneasy about using mathematical techniques that lack proofs.
    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  110. Re:Feynman Lectures by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

    I believe you are thinking of this.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  111. Maths is not Physics by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

    Why do so many people insist on confusing the two? Mathematics is merely the language used to describe the Physics. It's a tool folks, and nothing more.

    That said, having a Maths degree can be either a very good or very bad basis for pontgrad physics. If you insist on seeing Physics as nothing more than messy but fun maths, you'll never be a great Physicist. If however you see the Maths as a succinct and powerful way to describe the Physics you are on the way to being good at Physics. A lot has to do with what kind of Maths degree you have - don't expect number theory to be a great help, but if you have done lots of analysis, partial differential equations and statistical mechanics you have a good basis to work from.

    I'd suggest that the "pop-sci" books are a good way to get a focus on the physics, and from there start to read subjects that build the maths. Get your head around the Physics - you'll be able to learn the specialised maths as you go IF you keep in mind that the maths is not the same as the physics.

    The suggestion to look at Maxwell's Equations is a very good one. If you can "perform the surface integrals without blinking" and move between bases fluently then you'll have a good start to a common point were many freak out.

    The above is written from the perspective of a mathematician who used to lecture in maths and physics by the way. Physicists have a different perspective, but all the really good ones I know were great physicists who happened to be good at maths, not the other way around.

    1. Re:Maths is not Physics by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      "Mathematics is merely the language used to describe the Physics. It's a tool folks, and nothing more." mathematics is MUCH more than a language for physics.

      Yes, but in the context of this discussion I don't think that the deeper philosophical questions about neo-platonism or the nature of cognition really apply. In the context of becoming an astrophysicist maths is just a tool or language that succinctly describes relationships between observed or hypothesised entities.

  112. Astro"physics" by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't worry too much about this. What I'd recommend is:

    Boas, "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences"

    That'll take you from proving things to applying the actual Math that you've learned. Given your background, you should be able to go through this quickly. You'd probably also benefit from:

    D'Inverno, "Introducing Einstein's Relativity"

    Since Relativity is in there quite a bit. But, as astrophysics applies many different fields of Physics, you'd probably benefit from:

    Serway, Jewett "Physics for Scientists and Engineers"

    All those are targeted at an Undergrad and should provide a decent foundation for you to take off from. But, you're still going to have a steep hill to climb given your lack of background in your chosen subject area.

    That being said, I have a question for you: Why are you asking here instead of you future supervisor? (S)he is going to know *much* better what you're going to have to know than anyone here. Programs differ you know.

  113. Coming from a budding astrochemist.. by laasworld · · Score: 1

    I second nearly all of the above listings (especially Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and the Feynman Lectures) but I'm surprised three particular jewels were left out:

    "On the Shoulders of Giants" by Stephen Hawking 'illuminates the origins of modern physics and astrononmy' by including the breakthrough papers of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein with brief introductions to each in a single volume. It's useful that you understand the historical context of what you're getting yourself into and it doesn't get much more convenient than this by requiring only a single [fat] textbook.

    "Space-Time-Matter" by Hermann Weyl is his first big treatise on combining general relativity with electromagnetism. Check it out if you intend to get into some heavy stuff but beware the heavy reading!!

    "The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium" by A.G.G.M. Tielens is an amazingly comprehensive introduction to the crazy complex system we call outer space. I recently obtained it from Amazon and my nose has not been out of its pages much since. Perhaps it's a bit more chemistry than most appreciate (losers!) but you may find it to be one of the most valuable texts on the ISM and the author includes a 'Further Reading' section at the end of every chapter to review each of the chapter's references.

    Also, you're going to find that thermodynamic process are the driving forces of space and it doesn't hurt to have a good background in physical chemistry. I recommend the Physical Chemistry texts of Levine or McQuarrie to serve you. I'm sure you, as a mathematician, will appreciate these much more than most chemists I know!

    Good luck on your academic journey and I hope these references serve you well!

  114. Woah there cowboy! by biglig2 · · Score: 1

    I seem to be the only one thinking, that maybe if you don't know anything about physics, a Masters in "basically physics" is not a great idea?

    I mean, supposing you don't like physics?

    When I was doing my Maths degree I foolishly signed up for a physics course. I was learning real rigor in my Maths classes, then had to sit a squirm as the physicists did some terrible things to equations. Should have gone for English instead.

    --
    ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  115. mechanicsmadeeasy.com by CiarnOS · · Score: 1

    Has to be "Mechanics Made Easy (How To Solve Mechanics Problems)" by David Reynolds

    A great overview with clear & concise howtos for all the examples and formulas a must me thinks.
    Keep it near by and always remember...
    http://mechanicsmadeeasy.com/

  116. Books for Math - Physics by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    Grab yourself a copy of Ohanian (Physics, combined, 2nd edition)

    After that, go to a Blackwell's, and sit in the physics section. Pick some books off the shelf, examine them, see what resonates. Rinse, repeat.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  117. UK-oriented reading list by cbrew · · Score: 1

    Many of the comments in this thread look as if they come from the US perspective, so might be hard to apply to the UK situation. There are major differences in what people understand by Masters-level in the two places. Being neither an astronomer nor a mathematician I have no way to fully assess the advice, but Jodrell Bank has a sane looking reading list for people doing a UK M.Sc similar to the one you are taking. ( reading list at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/postgrad_course/readls.html) Roughly speaking, US undergraduate degrees are less specialized than British ones, so Masters degrees usually have at least two years of course work, and must cover a lot of ground. That's why several of the commenters can't imagine how a Masters degree could be squeezed into just one year. At the same time, the final year of a UK undergraduate degree is often just as intense and focused as a US graduate program, so the jump up in level may be less than some commenters are assumng.

  118. I've completed an astronomy masters. My recs are: by syousef · · Score: 1

    These two books were texts I found particularly good through my course:
    http://www.whfreeman.com/universe5e/ - Very good easy to read
    http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Astrophysics-Bradley-Carroll/dp/0805304029 - This one's heavier reading, but very comprehensive.

    Even after finishing my Astronomy masters, I'm finding new insights in this book. It doesn't go into the heavy math though.
    http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  119. Decent texts by Beefpatrol · · Score: 1

    I have not done a complete MSc level course in astrophysics, but I have done most of a complete MSc level course in Physics, and I have taken a course on astrophysics. In my opinion, you will get the majority of the background that you need from a "modern physics" textbook. (There is a class that most physics students in the US take called "modern physics" that includes a wide variety of topics that is meant to be preparation for some more specific advanced courses. The textbook that I studied from is called "Modern Physics from (alpha) to (Z0)", (with the alpha and z0 substituted for their greek renderings). The author is James William Rohlf. While I haven't looked extensively at other texts, this one is pretty decent in that it gives a good overview of most of what you will need. It is several years old, (at least the version I have), so you might be able to find it cheaply.

    If there is a one single topic that I would suggest you study for background, it would be statistical mechanics. I would probably say that about any scientific discipline, however, so perhaps you will find that the core of astrophysics is really something else.

    Good luck!

  120. Re:Try a free online course with a berkeley webcas by novakyu · · Score: 1

    As much as I like listening to some of those webcasts (esp. Physics 10, "Physics for future Presidents and CEOs"), I doubt any of them will be useful for someone with decent background in mathematics trying to give himself a quick course in physics.

    I mean, the only "real" physics classes on that list are Physics 8A and 8B, and those are physics for biology majors (not to mention that they are lower division, so they don't include a proper treatment of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics).

    I'd agree with the sibling post and say that Feynmann lectures in physics would be better, although as those are also meant for lower division physics, he does not take the advantage of additional mathematics knowledge that someone with a B.S. in Math ought to have.

  121. Use the source Luke by tqft · · Score: 1

    Quantum Mechanics by PAM Dirac if you can get hold of a copy

    Old but still good. as one of my lecturers said - most books have too many words between the formulas. This one doesn't.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  122. Fundamentals is a bit watered down... by Daverz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would go for an older edition (e.g. the 4th edition) of H&R's Physics, rather than the watered down Fundamentals of Physics.

    I would recommend any of the books by A. P. French in the MIT Physics series. These are all beautifully done and very readable.

    Also, the Berkeley Physics series is good.

    And the Feynman Lectures are essential.

  123. First point of view to start? by meburke · · Score: 1

    I am offering another answer to your question because my earlier response may not have been useful.

    Many people have suggested "Feynman", but I would like to be more specific and suggest you find a copy of "The Character of Physical Law", published by MIT Press. I especially recommend you read Chapter 2, "The Relation of Mathematics to Physics". If you grasp the essence of that chapter, it may illuminate the knowledge you already have in regard to your new choice of study.

    Back in the "old days" (early 70's) I was taking a triple major in Math, Physics, and Computer Science at a nice University in Chicago, and I intended to be an Astrophysicist. As I got into upper-level classes I had to study a LOT of Geology, Geography and Geophysics. Since my earlier response I've checked with some of my friends, and they tell me that the great majority of their time is spent analyzing hypotheses at the quantum level. So, my earlier response is somewhat dated.

    What you CAN learn from studying a good Geophysics text is the thinking processes and the way they differ from Mathematics.

    As I said, many people will talk about the value of "The Feynman Lectures", but most of them won't have actually read them. (The same is true of Korzybski's, "Science and Sanity", Fuller's, "Synergetics", Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", and De Toqueville's, "Democracy in America".) Information becomes dated, but the value of "The Feynman Lectures" may actually be in the way of thinking about Physics.

    Good luck.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  124. Don't click the link by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Don't click the link, you may learn something... http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=095393D5B42B2266

  125. Re:Might I suggest... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    You mean studying astrophysics can introduce you to generating your own gravity field and pulling nearby females into orbit? Where do I sign up?!

    No, I think you're thinking of astrology and David Copperfield. As far as I'm aware, astrophysicists do not reproduce.

  126. For the broad spectrum.... by rickshaf · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072472170/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller= I always recommend this book to the beginning Physics student, and I get thanked by my students often. Another bit of advice: Quite a few of my fellow astronomers have never spent much time actually looking at the night sky, either with the naked eye or through a telescope. Doing so will round out your education. (Of course, if you become a radio astronomer, as I did, you can play frisbee inside your telescope!) Good luck in your new endeavor.

  127. As an astrophys graduate by Claws+Of+Doom · · Score: 1

    I have to confess that sometimes the gentlest intoductions were the best. The most expensive book on my reading list was Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, by Zeilik. I still love reading it to this day. Yes, maybe too many pictures for those that like the heavy stuff. If you really want to understand the basic principles - introduced in an absolutely clear manner - you won't get better.

  128. some recomendations by cbacba · · Score: 1

    You've got a tough road.

    Many graduate programs have core graduate physics courses, perhaps 4 to 6. The enduring standards over the last few decades are Classical Mechanics by Goldstein, Electromagnetics by Jackson, Statistical physics by Reif, QM (not sure if there are enduring classics there).

    You've got to be able to work problems out of these books quite well.

    I would reccomend that you read a survey course book in astronomy like Chaison's Astronomy today. It's a gentle introduction into the current astronomy suitable for even a freshman. A good intro to physics is a University physics book such as Sears and Zemansky (now written by Young and Freedman). This covers the calculus version of the basics - 1100 pages covered in two to three semesters.

    Then, in order to get to the level of the graduate texts, there are typically one to three courses between the basics and the graduate level. This is in electromagnetics, quantum theory, statistical physics, classical mechanics, thermodynamics. Optics is another probable option.

    The feynman lectures are great for explanations and concepts. Use them in concert with other texts for good results.

    you also need to learn error analysis and basics of experimental methods taught in undergrad labs.

    Remember, math has the principle tools of science but it is not the science.

  129. i recommend by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    a book that tells smitty that there is only one math. Start there.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  130. I'm probably being thick by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    But why/how would you do a postgraduate degree in something you knew so little about?

    I mean, say I have a BA in medieval history, would I really expect to follow it up with an MA in French literature, or something?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  131. Re:Feynman Lectures by Darby · · Score: 1

    Yup, it is. The only bachelor degrees Cambridge award are BAs, and the degree certificate doesn't even state the subject or class, that's all in some other document called a results transcript.

    For US schools, they often have a BA program geared more towards potential teachers and a BS program geared more towards Math nerds going to grad school. They have a lot of the same requirements, but (at least at UC Santa Barbara some years ago) the BS requires "Harder" Real Analysis and Algebra courses as well as Complex analysis which the BA program doesn't. I think the math electives you could choose from were "harder" for the BS as well.

  132. One book is all you need for now by Xzing_Quippo · · Score: 1

    Dear sexy_flying_yoda, First of all I think it is wonderful to have another math major falling to the dark side. But in answer to your question I have one recommendation for you to start with, Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Serway. It is bit expensive but depending on the university you go to there is a good chance it will have been the intro course book used there. It covers pretty much every topic from vectors to QM (although briefly) but it can help in getting you up to speed. If you start reading now before summer is over then you can jump into the straight E&M and QM texts that will be useful for your courses. With the basics under your belt (assuming you are shaky in them) you should be well prepared by the time classes begin. I have read several comments by others and I have to say that there are a lot of good recommendations being made to you but if you are just starting in Physics this is a good book to have, if only for reference. Good luck in your new major!

  133. A Unified Grand Tour of Theoretical Physics by fperez · · Score: 1

    By Ian Lawrie:

    http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0750306041/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

    is an excellent overview of the key ideas in 20th century physics, with an eye for the unifying mathematical principles that underlie them all.

    In your situation I think it would be very useful, because it gives you a big picture of what the main concepts in physics are like, rather than dwelling too much into the details of any one topic. Give it a read first, and then move on to a few more topic-specific books like others recommended here.

  134. background reading by munpfazy · · Score: 1

    Two books that are at a somewhat low level, but provide a really thorough and balanced overview and lots of important background are

    Frank Shu's The Physical Universe

    James Rohlf's Modern Physics from alpha to Z0

    They're both an easy read and a great introduction to their respective fields. If were to go over everything in those two books and selectively work through a set of any of the standard standard advanced undergrad E&M, classical mechanics, and QM texts, you'd start out ahead of most incoming physics and astro grad students. (As far as the coursework goes, I'm a big fan of Cohen-Tannoudji for QM and Purcell supplemented by the advanced text of your choice in E&M. Haven't yet found a classical mechanics book that doesn't suck.)

  135. George Joos by infaustus · · Score: 1

    I think the best overview for you would be George Joos' Theoretical Physics. It's very mathematically based and provides a comprehensive overview of most undergraduate material.

    --
    Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.