Where's these memes but for physics?

sheeeit that's gay, how far below is K&K?

what about Arnold or Goldstien? Are they above Taylor?

That said, single variable calculus is required.
I think this is true for Young and Freedman too, can't remember

I'm ok with the math (have taken calc 1-4, lin alg, discrete math and intro real anal if that's sufficient). I'm just looking for a bee line to getting into advanced physics.

Kinda bummed K&K is so entry level cuz it had a nice cover,layout and I was enjoying reading it. I even read a review saying it was more mathematical than Taylor.

Y/F assumes you're learning calculus at the same time so integrals don't appear when talking about the earlier material like kinematics except for asides.

Goldstein is the standard 1st year graduate text. Taylor is the standard 2nd/3rd year undergrad text.

>I'm just looking for a bee line to getting into advanced physics.

Don't rush life.

what sort of mathematical prereqs are necassary for Goldstein or Taylor?

I assume Landau is way out of my league?

Just read all of Landau Lifshitz

k thx, anything you'd recommend either as supplementary or prerequisite material?

bamp

Ok, listen here buddy I agree with what you're saying, but still, my strategy is sound and three's nothing wrong with enthusiasm,

staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

Here you go.

good, but lacks recommendations for specific texts

Whats the best intro to real analysis?

Tao, now leave my thread unless you have advice to give me.

>Becker Becker Schwarz
Kys Polchinski Vol I and II is way better, but BBS is good if you want some slightly newer M theory topics that sound like they are recounted by someone that got drunk after hearing a real lecture on them.

This is retarded. Just because math is based on set theory doesn't mean that you should start with set theory, literally no actual professor or math educator would suggest something so ridiculous.

Learn math the same way everybody does.
Algebra -> trig/pre calc -> calc -> differential equations -> linear algebra

And begin the advanced stuff from there.

And use actual modern textbooks that are used in universities, not these ancient memebooks.

>Feynman lectures
holy fuck, the amount of bullshit trivia is fucking unbearable

no reason you couldn't, but yeah p dumb

and no, modern textbooks have degraded substantially in rigor and quality

bormp

lots of great books but i'd probably change a few:

Young and Freedman - University Physics with Modern Physics (REFERENCE ONLY - shit doorstop book)
⇓
Taylor - Classical Mechanics (or Kleppner & Kolenkow)
Griffiths - Introduction to Electrodynamics
Reif - Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics (or
Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics
Strogatz - Non-linear dynamics & chaos
⇓
Goldstein - Classical Mechanics
Griffiths - Introduction to Elementary Particles
Krane - Introductory Nuclear Physics
Schutz - A First Course in General Relativity
Fowles - Introduction to Modern Optics
Reichl, L.E. A Modern Course in Statistical Physics
⇓
Landau-Lifschitz Mechanics (completely optional, but recommended for beauty)
Jackson - Classical Electrodynamics (lol good luck)
Peskin & Schroeder - Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler - Gravitation

At this point, you can start getting involved in the academic literature and become a fully fledged physicist, but I'd brush up on your maths at the high end - look at topology, group theory, differentiable manifolds, that kinda stuff. You won't learn much actual physics from the Feynman lectures, but if you already know the physics, they're a great read.

Any freshman book (I used Serway/Jewett)
Calkin mechanics (better than goldstein and LL)
Schutz general relativity (excellent intro to special relativity and tensors as well)
Cohen-Tannoudji qm (maybe too long. Shankar is an alternative)
Peskin/Schroeder qft (gold standard)

Time Harmonic Electromagnetic Fields by Roger Harrington is the best book on electromagnetics that you will ever read

Where's Purcell, Georgi, Fermi, and Eisberg and Reisneck?

How does Anrold's Mathematical Mehtods for Classical Mechanics compare to Landau or Goldstien?

Asking because I plan on following this progression:

K&K - Mechanics, followed later by Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics by Sussman (for Lagranian Mechanics and Hamilton formal systems, so I'm ready for L&L, Goldstein or Arnold next)
Purcell & Morin - Electricity and Magnetism
Georgi - The Physics of Waves
Fermi - Thermodynamics (Dover Books on Physics), with Van Ness as a supplement
Eisberg & Resnick - Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles

Will I make it if I do this?

>Jesus wrote the bible
>t. christcuck and brainlet merged together

>dat autism

way to be a statistic

Replaced by Young and Freedman

Are you trying to tell me that all of those books I listed could be replaced by Y&F?

No, Y/F is a highschool/freshman level textbook. Stick with what you have and supplement with a mathematical methods book if you need one.

Jews are once again superior

Satan confirms

...

recommend a maths methods book plox

bump; interested for a friend

amazon.com/Mathematics-Physicists-Dover-Books-Physics/dp/0486691934

Just make sure to develope relevant math simultaneously.