What are the best intermediate Newtonian mechanics textbooks?

[Quantum55151]

I am currently looking for a good textbook on Newtonian mechanics but am unable to find anything that suits my specific needs. I have already done an advanced high school mechanics course and would like to take a more sophisticated look at the subject over the summer, in preparation for a course in analytical (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian) mechanics that I will be taking in university in the fall. The options that I have been considering so far are Halliday and Resnick, Kleppner and Kolenkow and Morin. All have their pros and cons. Halliday and Resnick seems to be too basic for my needs; from what I understand, it's meant to be a first introduction to Newtonian mech (among other topics in physics). Kleppner and Kolenkow is much better in that regard; however, the book (at least the 2nd edition) is ridden with typos and mathematical errors to the point that, 30 pages into the book, I got really pissed and decided to switch to Morin. Morin is pretty cool, but some of his problems are really insane. Additionally, he leaves out certain parts in his explanations and makes logical leaps that he expects the reader to understand on his own, which cognitively is quite difficult for me to handle.

Can anyone suggest any other good mechanics textbook? I am looking for something that goes beyond standard introductory mechanics but does not go to the Morin extreme of insanely difficult problems and unclear explanations, some kind of intermediate option. I thought that would be K&K but ended up quite disappointed... Or perhaps could someone give me advice on how to go about studying Morin?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Halliday and Resnick seems to be too basic for my needs

Can you work every single problem? If not, its hard to conclude it's too basic.

Further, if typos bother you that much, you will have a hard time progressing. Books have them, and the more advanced the text, the fewer eyes on them, and the more typos slip through.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Why not nab a copy of Marion and Thornton? Although the book does go into Lagrangians and Hamiltonians the first few chapters are Newtonian.

Marion and Thornton will likely be the book you study from for your upcoming course.

Edit: this will also put you ahead when going into the class.

 

[Frabjous]

If Morin is too advanced for you, then Halliday and Resnick is at the right level for you. Other books at that level include Serway, Sears and Zemansky, Young and Freedman.

The only other books that come to mind are the out-of-print books by by French (Newtonian Mechanics) and Kittel (Mechanics).

 

[Dragon27]

I found Taylor's Classical Mechanics easier than Morin. But Morin is good, you should do it when you feel ready.

 

[DrBanana]

Kleppner and Kolenkow is much better in that regard; however, the book (at least the 2nd edition) is ridden with typos and mathematical errors to the point that, 30 pages into the book, I got really pissed and decided to switch to Morin.

Can you mention some examples of these errors?

 

[Quantum55151]

Can you work every single problem? If not, its hard to conclude it's too basic.

There might be some difficult problems, but when I said that "it's too basic," I meant it in a conceptual sense, in that the concepts are basic. Like the book is fairly basic intro-level Newtonian mechanics. I was just reading the chapter on Newton's laws and was dozing off to sleep... At least Morin kept me awake lol

Further, if typos bother you that much, you will have a hard time progressing. Books have them, and the more advanced the text, the fewer eyes on them, and the more typos slip through.

So you reckon I should just learn to accept the typos?

 

[Quantum55151]

Why not nab a copy of Marion and Thornton? Although the book does go into Lagrangians and Hamiltonians the first few chapters are Newtonian.

I took a quick look at it and the Newtonian section seems to be pretty short. I'd prefer something more substantial. Or perhaps I am mistaking - do the chapters you mentioned offer a comprehensive survey of Newtonian mechanics, in your opinion?

Marion and Thornton will likely be the book you study from for your upcoming course.

We will be studying from Goldstein.

 

[Quantum55151]

I found Taylor's Classical Mechanics easier than Morin. But Morin is good, you should do it when you feel ready.

Would you mind expanding on your experience with Taylor? I've heard some good stuff about the book. How good are Taylor's explanations?

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I think if you can do Marion and Thorntons first few chapters you’ll be in excellent shape to learn Lagrangians and Hamiltonians for the first time.

But Goldstein for a first course in Lagrangians and Hamiltonians…….that’s quite intimidating/bizarre.

 

[Quantum55151]

I think if you can do Marion and Thorntons first few chapters you’ll be in excellent shape to learn Lagrangians and Hamiltonians for the first time.

Oh nice!

But Goldstein for a first course in Lagrangians and Hamiltonians…….that’s quite intimidating/bizarre.

Well the main text of the course is the prof’s own notes, but he also provides a list of supplementary literature, including Goldstein, Arnold, Landau and Lifschitz and others. Goldstein seems to be the main one from what I’ve been told by former students.

 

[Frabjous]

It sounds like the course will require a fair amount of sophistication. You should reflect on whether you have it and probably consult with the department.

Greenwood’s Classical Dynamics would be a nice supplemental reference for the course.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

Does anyone else think OP is better served by NOT fixating on Newtonian Mechanics and just jumping into Calculus of Variations, Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, and Central Force Problems (Chapters 6,7,8) and later chapters if you get the chance? After all, in a way Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Dynamics is sometimes easier/more tractable than Newtonian Mechanics (because you posit constraints).

You have 2 months+ until class starts you can beast the hell out of chapters 6,7,8. Read the entire thing, take thorough notes, do all the problems (examples and end of chapter problems), again this is easily doable if you really want it.

Edit1: Ideally one would have "mastery" of Newtonian Mechanics before delving into different formulations but for the sake of getting ready for the class in front of him he has to compromise and fill in the gaps later down the road if there are any. He has a tall mountain to climb if the book his class uses is Goldstein (IIRC they start with Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics).

Edit2: At some point M&T prove the equivalence between Newton's Law and Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics in the aforementioned chapters.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Does anyone else think OP is better served by NOT fixating on Newtonian Mechanics

I am not going to try and delve into the OP's psychology. It would be nice if he answered the questions "can you work every single problem in Halliday and Resnick"? and "give us an example of a typo/mistake in Kleppner and Kowlenjow that is so terrible".

 

[Dragon27]

Would you mind expanding on your experience with Taylor? I've heard some good stuff about the book. How good are Taylor's explanations?

I'm an autodidact and I think it worked very well for me as an autodidact. It's more verbose and friendlier on the explanations than Morin and the problems are easier. It still has the usual stuff like basic Newtonian formulation (and things that follow from it, conservation laws, etc), oscillations (including coupled oscillations and normal modes), two-body central-force problem, noninertial frames, rigid bodies, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation, special relativity, etc.
On the other hand, Morin (although sometimes concise) goes deeper, problems are harder (up to some insanely difficult ones, for the novice/intermediate learner) and it will give you much more bang for your effort, but you have to be better prepared. I personally really liked his special relativity chapters, learned a lot from them.

 

[DeBangis21]

Following this thread attentively, will peruse the text books. I am going to start PHY301 Analytical Mechanics in the next three weeks, God's willing.

 

[Quantum55151]

It sounds like the course will require a fair amount of sophistication. You should reflect on whether you have it and probably consult with the department.

He has a tall mountain to climb if the book his class uses is Goldstein (IIRC they start with Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics).

I wouldn't overestimate the difficulty/sophistication of the course. It is generally considered to be a fairly straightforward class. Goldstein et al., in my understanding, are more like additional references for curious students.

 

[Quantum55151]

I am not going to try and delve into the OP's psychology. It would be nice if he answered the questions "can you work every single problem in Halliday and Resnick"? and "give us an example of a typo/mistake in Kleppner and Kowlenjow that is so terrible".

I believe I have already answered the first question:

There might be some difficult problems, but when I said that "it's too basic," I meant it in a conceptual sense, in that the concepts are basic. Like the book is fairly basic intro-level Newtonian mechanics. I was just reading the chapter on Newton's laws and was dozing off to sleep... At least Morin kept me awake lol

As for the K&K typos/errors, I can give you several examples:

• On p. 29, they confuse the chain rule with the product rule.
• On p. 37, in the equation just below equation 3, they forgot a 1/2 factor in front of -T₀x (they have it in the next equality).
• On the same page, when differentiating equation 1, they write the derivative of a₃x³ as 3a₃x³ instead of 3a₃x².
• On p. 38, they confuse Taylor series with MacLaurin series.

The errors seem to creep in in the notes following ch. 1, so perhaps it's just that section that was not proofread well. If you think that I shouldn't throw K&K out the window so fast, I am open to your thoughts :)

 

[Muu9]

Try Halliday Resnick and Krane - it's often used as an honors freshman physics course at selective schools and for preparing for physics Olympiads. Get the 5th edition if you can. You can do it along the Yale physics lectures by Shankar

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's start with the second point. If those typos make a book unusable, you will not make it through a physics program. You should seriously consider majoring in something else. You will find all upper-division books have such errors. All of them. And if you exclude every textbook, you will have a tough time moving forward.

This situation is far from ideal, but it is what it is, and we have to deal with the world as it is, and not as we wish it would be.

Now as far as understanding the concepts, nut just not being able to work all the problems, I have heard this more times than I can count. The way you demonstrate that you understand the concepts is to apply them - i.e. work problems. You would likely be better served by reinforcing your foundation than moving ahead on your own.

 

[gmax137]

Now as far as understanding the concepts, nut just not being able to work all the problems, I have heard this more times than I can count. The way you demonstrate that you understand the concepts is to apply them - i.e. work problems.

This^^^

One could say they "understand the concept" of Newton's laws: a given acceleration will require a force in proportion to the mass of the accelerated object. Fine. Now tell me where the cannonball lands.

As to the typos: the only way I could ever learn from a textbook was to sit with the book and using paper and pencil, follow along, deriving everything. When my notes don't match the book, I have to figure out what I did wrong/different, or if there is a typo. It's not difficult for this kind of thing:

they write the derivative of a₃x³ as 3a₃x³ instead of 3a₃x²

Other typos can be pernicious, with luck the instructor warns you in advance.

 

[JasonK]

I am currently looking for a good textbook on Newtonian mechanics but am unable to find anything that suits my specific needs. I have already done an advanced high school mechanics course and would like to take a more sophisticated look at the subject over the summer, in preparation for a course in analytical (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian) mechanics that I will be taking in university in the fall. The options that I have been considering so far are Halliday and Resnick, Kleppner and Kolenkow and Morin. All have their pros and cons. Halliday and Resnick seems to be too basic for my needs; from what I understand, it's meant to be a first introduction to Newtonian mech (among other topics in physics). Kleppner and Kolenkow is much better in that regard; however, the book (at least the 2nd edition) is ridden with typos and mathematical errors to the point that, 30 pages into the book, I got really pissed and decided to switch to Morin. Morin is pretty cool, but some of his problems are really insane. Additionally, he leaves out certain parts in his explanations and makes logical leaps that he expects the reader to understand on his own, which cognitively is quite difficult for me to handle.

Can anyone suggest any other good mechanics textbook? I am looking for something that goes beyond standard introductory mechanics but does not go to the Morin extreme of insanely difficult problems and unclear explanations, some kind of intermediate option. I thought that would be K&K but ended up quite disappointed... Or perhaps could someone give me advice on how to go about studying Morin?

 

[JasonK]

Classical Mechanics, by Curry is interesting. It's very geometrical, and it's funny, too. He doesn't cover the mathematics there, but in his linear algebra books. It's accessible to undergraduates, but covers most of what's in Goldstein. If you are ready for it, it's a really interesting book.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I believe I have already answered the first question:

As for the K&K typos/errors, I can give you several examples:

• On p. 29, they confuse the chain rule with the product rule.
• On p. 37, in the equation just below equation 3, they forgot a 1/2 factor in front of -T₀x (they have it in the next equality).
• On the same page, when differentiating equation 1, they write the derivative of a₃x³ as 3a₃x³ instead of 3a₃x².
• On p. 38, they confuse Taylor series with MacLaurin series.

The errors seem to creep in in the notes following ch. 1, so perhaps it's just that section that was not proofread well. If you think that I shouldn't throw K&K out the window so fast, I am open to your thoughts :)

A MacLaurin series is a Taylor series centered at 0.