by imb on 5/14/13, 4:13 AM with 49 comments
by weichi on 5/14/13, 1:06 PM
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/s...
The idea behind the book is to make the "mathematical notations be explicit and precise enough that they can be interpreted automatically, as by a computer." Since Sussman is involved, that means that they (and you, when you do the problems) write scheme programs.
In a more traditional vein, _Mechanics_ by Landau and Lifshitz is (in my view) among the 2 or 3 best physics textbooks available. It's a great supplement for two reasons: (1) it takes a somewhat different approach to the material than most other textbooks (emphasizing the consequences of symmetries from the very beginning) (2) it's quite short, which I find to be very helpful when self-learning.
by vyrotek on 5/14/13, 4:28 AM
It's as if he made the courses just for me! :) Thanks for sharing this.
by mrcactu5 on 5/14/13, 5:21 PM
"One of my mother’s closest friends, when she was a young girl, was among those who could not grasp fractions. This lady once told me so herself after she had retired from a successful career as a ballet dancer. I was still young, not yet fully launched in my activities as a mathematician, but was recognized as someone who enjoyed working in that subject. ‘It’s all that cancelling’, she said to me, ‘I could just never get the hang of cancelling.’ She was an elegant and highly intelligent woman, and there is no doubt in my mind that the mental qualities that are required in comprehending the sophisticated choreography that is central to ballet are in no way inferior to those which must be brought to bear on a mathematical problem. So, grossly overestimating my expositional abilities, I attempted, as others had done before, to explain to her the simplicity and logical nature of the procedure of ‘cancelling’."
by ivan_ah on 5/14/13, 7:06 AM
The intro chapter is quite good ... very condensed material, but could be very interesting read.
by imb on 5/14/13, 7:47 AM
by JonnieCache on 5/14/13, 12:03 PM
The maths is kept into self-contained bits, so a lecture will typically be 40 minutes of words and pictures, then 20 minutes of calculation. I'm sure if you do get the maths then it will be perfect for you, but I encourage you to watch it anyway.
Overall, highly recommended, especially the cosmology ones.
EDIT: actually my memory is probably biased towards the cosmology course. I imagine the classical/statistical mechanics stuff does have a lot more maths running through each lecture.
by altrego99 on 5/14/13, 7:13 AM
I did Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, and now General Relativity. All of them enlightening, provides pure joy that only science can. And he is incredibly easy to follow, despite being a leading and esteemed Physicist of modern times - falls in similar class as Hawking. (The holographic principle anyone?)
by igmor on 5/14/13, 7:59 PM
by tMcGrath on 5/14/13, 12:03 PM
The video lectures in combination with the text would, I think, be a great subject for a regular meet up - its dense enough that there's lots to discuss but doesn't have too many prereqs. Anyone in London interested? Shoot me an email if so (Thomas dot m dot McGrath at gmail dot com)
by quux on 5/14/13, 3:36 PM
by codezero on 5/14/13, 6:45 AM
A lot of the stuff covered in this series of courses wouldn't even be touched in a lot of undergrad Physics programs, outside of a small survey/project as part of a more broad course.
by hanula on 5/14/13, 7:00 AM
by mooze on 5/14/13, 7:38 AM
by abdullahkhalids on 5/14/13, 9:44 AM
by raverbashing on 5/14/13, 8:25 AM
As someone that has studied physics in an undergrad course, and who has learned a lot, but is disappointed that these courses don't go very far, this is very interesting.