Should I start with a basic physics book without calculus?

[brainpushups]

Would you say once I’ve read and studied through the conceptual physics book, I would be well equipped and well versed for learning fundamentals of physics without much struggle(I.e, I would then know all the basic science it assumes)?

I wouldn't say that it will save you from things being a struggle. You will be more familiar with the things you will be learning in greater depth later, but new challenge will come each level you advance because you'll be learning more technical content and learning to apply it. However, with the appropriate mathematical background you will be better equipped for Halliday. You will learn to apply calculus to situations that you'll see in physics through the calculus curriculum and then see it again in physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

I’ve got a valid university cirriculum that I am reading from their website.

... and you're not going to let us know the link to such said curriculum?

Zz.

 

[topologyfreak]

... and you're not going to let us know the link to such said curriculum?

Zz.

Sorry I wasn’t sure if I should post it or not. https://www.qub.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/mathematics-msci-g103/#course

 

[jtbell]

As I believe in the pure mathemaics degree there is a course on quantum mechanics that one must take.

In the link that you provided, it appears to me that the courses listed under Stages 3 and 4 (including quantum theory) are merely the available options, not required courses. However, someone who is familiar with UK-type curricula can probably comment on this better than I can.

 

[topologyfreak]

Hi, I am back again.

So I believe that University Physics( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321973615/?tag=pfamazon01-20 )might be a better book to use for self study. Many have said it is better for self study and is more in depth than Halliday and Resnick. My question is, does the book require calculus to be able to be read too?

I also wonder whether or not I need to have a basic pre-requisite physics knoweldge of the high school level, which I could potentially gain from the conceptual physics book( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321909100/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ) or would I need something more advanced to learn from to be able to succeed at reading the university physics textbook? So maybe it is still worth reading conceptual physics first while I don’t yet know calculus, and then once I have learned calculus, to read university physics?

I am looking to also sit physics A-levels and I would believe that university physics would cover all that is needed in the exams? However it may be very overkill to use University Physics as a textbook for sitting physics A-level exams? Maybe I should just use a straight A-level physics book to study from for sitting it? However, I feel like those, exam specific textbooks teach for the exam and not for learning the content that also happens to be part of the exam, whereas I would think that university physics actually teaches physics and what it all means etc, whereas the A-level or any other exam book teaches for factual knowledge related to the exam and not the why behind it all.

 

[symbolipoint]

So I believe that University Physics( https://www.amazon.com/University-P...321973615/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 )might be a better book to use for self study. Many have said it is better for self study and is more in depth than Halliday and Resnick. My question is, does the book require calculus to be able to be read too?

Yes. Learn at least Semester-1 Calculus. An alternative is to study from an Elementary Physics book (I have no specific recommendation) which should only require Intermediate Algebra and mostly basic Trigonometry.

 

[symbolipoint]

I am looking to also sit physics A-levels and I would believe that university physics would cover all that is needed in the exams? However it may be very overkill to use University Physics as a textbook for sitting physics A-level exams? Maybe I should just use a straight A-level physics book to study from for sitting it? However, I feel like those, exam specific textbooks teach for the exam and not for learning the content that also happens to be part of the exam, whereas I would think that university physics actually teaches physics and what it all means etc, whereas the A-level or any other exam book teaches for factual knowledge related to the exam and not the why behind it all.

Too many "Whereas's". Study to learn and to understand.

 

[jtbell]

So I believe that University Physics( https://www.amazon.com/University-P...321973615/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 )might be a better book to use for self study. Many have said it is better for self study and is more in depth than Halliday and Resnick. My question is, does the book require calculus to be able to be read too?

Young & Freedman and Halliday & Resnick are used in the same sort of courses and have similar mathematical requirements.

 

[jtbell]

However it may be very overkill to use University Physics as a textbook for sitting physics A-level exams? Maybe I should just use a straight A-level physics book to study from for sitting it?

I'm in the US, so I have no experience with A-levels etc. My first guess was that A-level physics is calculus based, but then I found the AQA specification via a Google search. The only place where it mentions "calculus" or "derivative" or "integral" is on page 78:

Apply the concepts underlying calculus (but without requiring the explicit use of derivatives or integrals) by solving equations involving rates of change, eg $\frac {\Delta x} {\Delta t} = - \lambda x$ using a graphical method or spreadsheet modelling

This seems to indicate that A-level physics uses even less calculus than a typical university intro physics course in the US (with a book like Young/Freedman or Halliday/Resnick). Furthermore, the sequence of topics (beginning on page 10) appears to be rather different from a Y/F or H/R type book, and omits some topics that those books cover, e.g. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism.

If you use one of these books to prepare for A-levels, I think you'd need this specification or something similar in conjunction, so that you can focus on the topics that you will be tested on, and skip over the others for later. It would probably be easier to simply use an A-level textbook to begin with.

I encourage comments from people who are more familiar with A-levels than I am.

 

[topologyfreak]

I'm in the US, so I have no experience with A-levels etc. My first guess was that A-level physics is calculus based, but then I found the AQA specification via a Google search. The only place where it mentions "calculus" or "derivative" or "integral" is on page 78:

This seems to indicate that A-level physics uses even less calculus than a typical university intro physics course in the US (with a book like Young/Freedman or Halliday/Resnick). Furthermore, the sequence of topics (beginning on page 10) appears to be rather different from a Y/F or H/R type book, and omits some topics that those books cover, e.g. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism.

If you use one of these books to prepare for A-levels, I think you'd need this specification or something similar in conjunction, so that you can focus on the topics that you will be tested on, and skip over the others for later. It would probably be easier to simply use an A-level textbook to begin with.

I encourage comments from people who are more familiar with A-levels than I am.

Thank you for the detailed response. I am not planning on sitting the A-level physics exam due to the complicated and convoluted nature of it as someone who is not in school, however all I wanted was to have or exceed the knoweldge of a physics A-level through these textbooks, such that I could begin my mathematics degree with a physics knoweldge equal to or greater than my peers that have studied and taken the A-level physics exams so I can keep up with them in all physics related things. Also just so I can utilise that physics knoweldge in the future with any mathematical studies I may encounter or research I might like to do pertaining to, or involving, physics.

So would you say that, from having looked at the A-level specification, since University Physics well exceeds A-level physics, that I would be adept at taking a simultenous 2 year physics course along side my mathematics degree when the time comes? The one thing I am not exactly sure of is, would Univesity Physics not cover some select knoweldge that only the A-level exams would require, such that in a physics course which assumes A-level physics knoweldge, I wouldn’t have covered/learned that topic or would it cover all A-level topics and more? The university I plan on going to offers students the opportunity to study another 2 year course along side their 4 year main degree so hence why I’d like to have equivalent A-level knoweldge as all courses assume A-level knowledge when beginning a course.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

You are over complicating things. Start reading the open stacks books. Read it for 3 weeks and work out problems. Summarize all paragraphs you read and draw the diagrams as needed. Work out the examples along with the book and work out problems. If you do not understand what's going on, then re read. If this does not work, then ask here. If this also fails, then brush up the math used in the examples/problems and re read. Consult a second textbook as needed. Rinse and repeat!