List of STEM Masterworks in Physics, Mechanics, Electrodynamics...

[fluidistic]

It's disheartening to see Ballentine's garbage personal theory promoted.

I have found a harsh critics of Ballentine's book, in particular the chapter on irreducible spherical tensors.
I do not how serious the critics is, i.e. how correct it is, but if it's correct, man, I'd stay away from that book for sure. I.e. it's not fixing a typo, it's a nonsensical formula spreading all over the place.
So any QM guru, please let us know your opinion on the critics (not on the book!).
Enjoy: http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~raggio/QM2/bzt.pdf.

 

[Demystifier]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

 

[fluidistic]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

Does it mean that the critics I linked above are well founded?
If so, ok I can understand your preference, because you're already well acquainted with QM and can discern between bs and serious/correct text. But most students will assume the book is correct and try to learn from it. They can doubt on whether there's a typo here and there, but when it's a whole chapter that spreads errors (not typos) of understanding with meaningless mathematical expressions, it has to be publicly well known so that students do not try to decipher a senseless text.
I would prefer a book as of type 2 with the faulty chapter(s) removed entirely. So the book is very good, original, and maybe not 100% correct but at least sensical. I.e. the errors may be typos, and possibly a few math errors here and there that do not change the conclusions. But in no way there should be nonsensical mathematical expressions all over the place. I'd call that "Book 3" because we're not limited to "Book 1" and "Book 2".

 

[Auto-Didact]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

I agree, but I disagree with having such a book as a textbook for students; the book should only be presented to grad students if all known to be false parts are clearly distinguished from the rest of the text.

It's easy to justify this line of reasoning: just imagine the consequences of having a textbook with patently false i.e. counterproductive statements in essential parts of the book become standard in practice.

It isn't hard to imagine, in chemistry or electrical engineering for example, that the occurrence of such a scenario could easily lead to many unnecessary financial losses in the field due to systemic error and at worst even to death in the lab.

 

[martinbn]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

I have read less than 90% of Ballentine, so I could have easily missed the errors, but what are those errors that many people are complaining about?

 

[fluidistic]

I have read less than 90% of Ballentine, so I could have easily missed the errors, but what are those errors that many people are complaining about?

See post #106.

 

[Demystifier]

Does it mean that the critics I linked above are well founded?

I don't know, I'm not an expert in this aspects of QM.

 

[Demystifier]

I agree, but I disagree with having such a book as a textbook for students; the book should only be presented to grad students if all known to be false parts are clearly distinguished from the rest of the text.

Sure, I would never recommend Ballentine as a textbook for undergraduates.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

Demystifier,

Would Greiner's 4 volumes on quantum mechanics, together, qualify for bible status?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674586/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540600736/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540580808/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[martinbn]

See post #106.

I don't understand his point. Can you elaborate? He says that the problem is that Ballantine confuses the rotation matrix $D^{(k)}$ with the matrix associated with the rotation operator $\bf R$. But if you look in the book carefully that is how Ballentine defines $D^{(k)}$, it is the matrix of the rotation operator in that particular basis.

 

[fluidistic]

I don't understand his point. Can you elaborate? He says that the problem is that Ballantine confuses the rotation matrix $D^{(k)}$ with the matrix associated with the rotation operator $\bf R$. But if you look in the book carefully that is how Ballentine defines $D^{(k)}$, it is the matrix of the rotation operator in that particular basis.

No, I cannot elaborate at all, hence me asking the QM gurus (like you!) to know whether the critics was serious or not.

 

[martinbn]

No, I cannot elaborate at all, hence me asking the QM gurus (like you!) to know whether the critics was serious or not.

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

p.s. I am nowhere near a QM guru.

 

[fluidistic]

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

p.s. I am nowhere near a QM guru.

I think they have assumed the critics of post #106 were correctly founded, in which case there would be errors all over the place in that book chapter. But if you've debunked the critics, there is nothing left.

 

[Demystifier]

In that case my question remains. What are those errors, that so many complain about?

Me and @atyy complain about some other aspects. Ballentine argues that the idea of wave-function collapse is completely wrong, and based on this he concludes that the quantum Zeno effect does not exist (which in fact is a measured effect). When analyzed more deeply where does his error come from, it turns out that it originates from his failure to understand the importance of quantum decoherence. Even though decoherence by itself is not collapse, decoherence is an important step towards understanding why the collapse is OK as an effective description of quantum phenomenology. Ballentine fails to understand that.

 

[Demystifier]

Demystifier,

Would Greiner's 4 volumes on quantum mechanics, together, qualify for bible status?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674586/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540600736/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540580808/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540674578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It qualifies by most of the criteria (except that it is not cited very frequently), but why stop on the 4 volumes? The full Greiner series has 14 books.

 

[Dr Transport]

Suppose that we have two books:

Book 1: It is 100% right and accurate. But it contains nothing new that cannot be found in a dozen other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is quite difficult to understand.

Book 2: It is 90% right and 10% wrong. But it contains a lot of new insights that cannot be easily found in other books. In addition, it is written in a style that is relatively easy to understand.

Which book would you prefer? I would prefer Book 2. But whatever one's preference is, I think we can agree that the Ballentine's book is of the type of Book 2.

Textbooks need to be 100% accurate, speculative theories and insights are for monographs.

 

[martinbn]

Me and @atyy complain about some other aspects. Ballentine argues that the idea of wave-function collapse is completely wrong, and based on this he concludes that the quantum Zeno effect does not exist (which in fact is a measured effect). When analyzed more deeply where does his error come from, it turns out that it originates from his failure to understand the importance of quantum decoherence. Even though decoherence by itself is not collapse, decoherence is an important step towards understanding why the collapse is OK as an effective description of quantum phenomenology. Ballentine fails to understand that.

That's just his choice of an interpretation. You wouldn't argue that any book (quite a few of them) that presents QM with collapse is erroneous because there are ways to do it without collapse, would you? The quantum Zeno effect is just one paragraph, which is more of a remark than anything else. Hardly 10% of the book.

 

[Demystifier]

That's just his choice of an interpretation. You wouldn't argue that any book (quite a few of them) that presents QM with collapse is erroneous because there are ways to do it without collapse, would you? The quantum Zeno effect is just one paragraph, which is more of a remark than anything else. Hardly 10% of the book.

Perhaps. But just because the Ballentine's book is otherwise so good (in comparison with other books of that type) I am more austere towards relatively minor shortcomings than I am towards those of other books.

 

[Demystifier]

Textbooks need to be 100% accurate, speculative theories and insights are for monographs.

I agree. But most of the Ballentine's book is excellent even as a graduate textbook.

 

[Hypercube]

@Demystifier Would you consider this a "bible":

Mathematical Physics - Sadri Hassani

I won't pretend I read it all, I self-studied maybe quarter or third of it at best during summer (it was great fun). It seems to have high reputation on PF as a graduate level text on the matter.

 

[Demystifier]

@Demystifier Would you consider this a "bible":

Mathematical Physics - Sadri Hassani

Yes.

 

[Andrea B DG]

Here are some of the books in my library that I have studied form 10% to 100%.
Some are in french and one in italian but english translation exist.
I have used italics fonts for the books that helped me the most in the study of physics.

General Physics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics I - III, Feynman
Physique Générale I – III, Alonso & Finn

Mechanics
Mécanique, Landau & Lifchitz
Mécanique Analytique, Leech
Classical Mechanics, Goldstein

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos
Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Strogatz
An Experimental Approach to Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos, Tuffilaro et al

Electrodynamics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics II, Feynman
Classical Electrodynamics, Jackson
Computational Electrodynamics, Taflove

Quantum Mechanics
Mécanique Quantique volume 1 and 2 (now there is a volume 3), Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloë (CTDL)
Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, Feynman & Hibbs
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, P.A.M. Dirac
Lectures Quantum Mechanics, P.A.M. Dirac
Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Weinberg

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Electrodynamics, Feynman
Relativistic Electron Theory, Rose
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Bjorken & Drell

Quantum Fields Theory (here it is very difficult to find comprehensible and satisfactory literature from the physical and mathematical point of view)
Relativistic Quantum Fields, Bjorken & Drell
Quantum Field Theory, Mandl & Shaw
The Quantum Theory of Fields I, Weinberg
Quantum Field Theory - From Operator to Path Integrals, Huang
An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Peskin & Schroeder
Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur, Lancaster & Blundell
Gauge Theories in Particle Physics, Aitchinson & Hey, volume 1
Quantum Field Theory, Srednicki
An Into to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Cottingham & Greenwood

String Theory
A First Course in String Theory, Zwiebach

Statistical Physics
Statistical Mechanics, Huang
Physique Statistique, Landau & Lifchitz
Physique Statistique, Terleskii
Statistical Mechanics, Feynman
Thermal Physics, Kittel-Kroemer

Thermodynamics
Termodinamica, Fermi

Elasticity
Théorie de l’élasticité, Landau & Lifchitz

Fluids Dynamics
Mécanique des fluides, Landau & Lifchitz
Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Ferziger & Peric

Plasma Physics
Introduction to Plasma Physics, Chen

Lasers
Laser Physics, Sargent et al

Solid State Physics
Introduction to Solid State Physics, Kittel
Solid State Physics, Ashcroft and Mermin
Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules, Parr & Yang

Nuclear Physics
Introduction to Nuclear Physics, Enge

High Energy Physics
Introduction to High Energy Physics, Perkins
Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics, Bettini

Gravitation and Cosmology
Gravitation & Cosmology, Weinberg
Théorie des Champs, Landau & Lifchitz
Gravitation, Minster et al
Principles of Physical Cosmology, Peebles
The Early Universe, Kolb & Turner
Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects, Vilenkin and Shellard

Experimental Physics
The Art of Experimental Physics, Preston & Dietz

Climate
Physics of Climate, Peixoto
An Introduction to 3-dimensional Climate Modeling

 

[BPHH85]

The thread is already long and using the search function hasn't deliverd a result so I will recommend as a bible

Laser Physics
Lasers, Siegman

 

[Andy Resnick]

It's not big and heavy, but it is authoritative and complete:

Moon and Spencer, "Field Theory Handbook".

From the preface:
"Let us first state exactly what this book is and what it is not. It is a compendium of equations for the physicist and the engineer working with electrostatics, magnetostatics, electric currents, electromagnetic fields, heat flow, gravitation, diffusion, optics, or acoustics. It tabulates the properties of 40 coordinate systems, states the Laplace and Helmholtz equations in each coordinate system, and gives the separation equations and their solutions. But it is not a textbook and it does not cover relativistic and quantum phenomena."

 

[DarMM]

Here are my favorite books on Probability Theory:

Basic:
"Introduction to Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes" by Hossein Pishro-Nik (best introduction in my opinion)
"A First Course in Probability" by Sheldon Ross (only to supplement the above's section on combinatorics, Ross does it better)
"Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications" Vol I by William Feller (Detailed alternate presentation and a classic, tends to explain things in a different way to Pishro-Nik so useful reading afterward)

Alternate Viewpoints:
"Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E.T. Jaynes (Objective Bayesian approach, probability as extension of logic. Several interesting food for thought exercises and a good look into some common errors in statistical analysis. Very opinionated)
"Principles of Uncertainty" by Joseph Kadane (Subjective Bayesian à la De Finetti, best introduction to this view of probability as simply coherent beliefs guided by data and no unique best priors)

Kadane's first six chapters are Basic probability from the Subjective Bayesian viewpoint and are the equivalent of Pishro-Nik, Ross, Feller from that viewpoint. For the autodidact I think it might be fun to read in parallel with Pishro-Nik.

Advanced:
"Probability with Martingales" by David Williams
"Probability and Measure" by Patrick Billingsley

Two classics of Measure Theoretic Probability, I prefer the first but I'd recommend reading both.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I found a bible of analytical mechanics. Apparently THE bible.

"Analytical Mechanics: A Comprehensive Treatise on the Dynamics of Constrained Systems; For Engineers, Physicists, and Mathematicians"
by John G. Papastavridis
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195126971/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I found a bible of special relativity.

"Special Relativity: An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions", by Michael Tsamparlis.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3642038360/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[fluidistic]

There's a new condensed matter textbook called "Modern Condensed Matter Physics" by Girvin and Yang. I haven't had the opportunity to check it out yet (except from google books but only partially). Looks promising.

I wonder how it compares to "Introduction to many-body Physics" by Piers Coleman. I guess both might become two bibles.

 

[FourEyedRaven]

I've been meaning to post this bible of topos theory for ages:

"Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium", by Peter T. Johnstone

https://www.amazon.com/dp/019852496X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[marcusl]

The lists so far are excellent. On the practical side I would add:

Smythe, Static and Dynamic Electricity. An amazing book!
Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory
Skolnik, Radar Handbook
Curlander and McDonough, Synthetic Aperture Radar
Balanis, Antenna Theory
Proakis, Digital Communications
Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, v. 1 & 2 (although I find him somewhat hard to read and personally prefer Manolakis, Statistical and Adaptive Signal Processing)
Horn and Johnson, Matrix Analysis

 

[boneh3ad]

Related question:
Many "bibles" (at least in my field) have been out of print for some time and are hard to find. What are some suggestions for finding out-of-print and hard-to-find books?

 

[gmax137]

I prowl used bookstores wherever I go. "Can I help you find anything?" "Yes, where's the nerd section..." Some of these places have 10,000 Tom Clancy paperbacks, and not much else, but I have made a few surprising finds this way. It depends on the area. I would think college towns would be the best bet. Grey Matter Books in Amherst Mass usually has a pretty good selection of science & math books, as does Bookbarn in Niantic CT.

Local public libraries will often have annual booksales. They typically ask people to donate books (in addition to thinning the library's holdings). Like the used bookstores, the selection varies by location. I got a copy of Bird Stewart & Lightfoot this way.

Online, I find that alibris.com is usually pretty good. Even amazon will turn up some goodies. This is more for when I know what I want. I like the bookstores for finding things I didn't know I needed :). Browsing lists online isn't fun for me.

I got some nice textbooks when my company decided that paper libraries were obsolete (idiots!). They told us we could take whatever we wanted. There's some I regret leaving behind but I have only so much space and available domestic patience.

 

[boneh3ad]

I've definitely picked up a handful of used goodies and new Dover editions at local bookstores, but I haven't identified the good stores in town since I moved to my current location.

I have also managed to poach a few classics from my department's library when they said they needed to make space. For the fluids/aerodynamics-minded folks, I got a Prandtl & Tietjens; a Shapiro; and a Hayes & Probstein that way.

 

[bhobba]

Those are certainly good books, but I am not convinced that they deserve the title of "bible". Does someone has other suggestions? Perhaps Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe?

I have some different bibles than those mentioned eg Landau Mechanics and Schwinger Electrodynamics. Trouble is they are not big like MTW etc Would the whole Landau and Lifchitz course In Theoretical Physics as mentioned by Vanhees and at least one other count?

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

I'd call only very outstanding textbooks "bibles". For me these are (in order of bible status and sorted in categories of 3 books/book series in any category, but only for theory, because I don't feel any experimental book deserves this title ;-)))

It's of course highly subjective, and

General theory books (including a broad overview over all topics: mechanics, classical electromagnetics, quantum mechanics)

A. Sommerfeld, Lectures on theoretical physics, 6 vols. (it's only classical physics but for me still the unreached favorite)

L. D. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Course on theoretical physics

R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Physics Lectures, 3 vols.

Classical electromagnetics

J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics

J. Schwinger, Classical electrodynamics

M. Schwartz, Principles of electrodynamics

General Relativity

C. W. Misner, K. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler Gravitation

S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology

M. Blau, Lecture notes on general relativity
http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html
Non-relativistic QM

P.A.M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics

W. Pauli, Wave mechanics

S. Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

Relativistic QFT

S. Weinberg, Quantum theory of fields, 3 vols.

A. Duncan, The conceptual framework of quantum field theory

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of the Standard Model

Statistical Mechanics

A. Katz, Principles of statistical mechanics

L. P. Kadanoff, G. Baym, Quantum Statistical Mechanics

H. Callen Thermodynamics