Image not available



🧵 Landau Series

Anonymous No. 16176814

Level with me /sci/, is this the "install gentoo" of the physics world, or is it actually something you recommend? It has really positive reviews for a supposed hard book, and surely they cannot all be posers.

Has it been surpassed?

Anonymous No. 16176817

I think it's just something you namedrop for clout even here in Russia, like "Yeah, of course I 've read Landavshitz (opened it twice)". But you don't have to be a Nobel laureate to teach physics, there are surely better books around (not a physicist, so don't ask me).

Anonymous No. 16176824

If you have a graduate level of mathematics then there is a lot good in the series but there isn't so much a learning curve as a vertical slope. Think of them as reference books with the most rigorous mathematical derivations.

tl;dr If you want to learn physics, pick other books first.

Image not available



Anonymous No. 16176858

How about the Pauli lectures, same deal?

Anonymous No. 16176862

It's the Fichtenholz of physics

Anonymous No. 16176866

That sort of sounds like Knuth's Art of Computer Programming series. It's good, but people buy it for clout and claim they've read it. (It's also unfinished, and he never ever will finish)

>Institute of Physical Problems
Just sounds intimidating, and I'm sure the guys who designed Kinzhal missiles have all read Landau.

Anonymous No. 16176867

No idea. I didn't even know they existed until now so they can't be that popular.

Anonymous No. 16176868

Which would be the Dieudonné of French Mathematics?

Anonymous No. 16176869

Same, I found out about them from the wiki.

Anonymous No. 16176870

The Pauli lectures are more of a mixed bag, some volumes are relatively accessible but others are completely unreadable even if you already know the subject, volume 6 is especially bad. I definitely wouldn't recommend trying to learn from them as a first book and IR's nor even good as a reference since it leaves out so much stuff.

Anonymous No. 16176910

>and surely they cannot all be posers
You would be surprised.

Anonymous No. 16177091

landau is good, like bourbaki for physics

Anonymous No. 16177108

The texts are phisically rigorous and straigh to the point.

That said, wwmastery of basic mathematic (i.e. multivariate calculus, tensor analysis is required

Anonymous No. 16177173

>graduate level of mathematics
Lmao no.

Anonymous No. 16177337

Depends on what you mean by "hard". They are harder than undergraduate books yes, but I didn't find them harder to use than the typical graduate texts (Goldstein, Jackson, Sakurai). You have to fill in a lot of the steps, but the equations you need are usually referenced.

Landau's books aren't difficult at all compared to other books covering the same subject. The problems are even worked out for you.

Anonymous No. 16177730

>Landau's books aren't difficult at all compared to other books covering the same subject. The problems are even worked out for you.
Are we talking about the same books? The book on classical mechanics is a tiny wide margin book of about 150 pages. There are 10 questions per chapter and no walk through.

Anonymous No. 16177819

>tl;dr If you want to learn physics, pick other books first.
I figured they couldn't just be perfect for anyone with a high IQ as the primary prerequisite, otherwise elite universities would just hand it to their first year undergrads and tell them to have a lot of fun.

Anonymous No. 16178043

They're perfectly fine books, the "hardness" of the book is more to do with the fact that its graduate level material rather than how the material is presented.

Anonymous No. 16178044

I studied first year physics and did a minor in mathematics along with 2 classes on applied mathematics
Is there a good textbook which will revise both my physics and my mathematics all at once?
Preferably one with very good pedagogy so I can study it myself

Anonymous No. 16178056

With so many ITT claiming that it's not hard, I think "posers could be here."

Anonymous No. 16178905

What was your favourite part of Landau?

Anonymous No. 16179026

There are better books to learn from. That being said, on a second pass they are quite good, thorough and informative. They are also really good as a refresher. The biggest downside is very few problems, but afaik it wasn't really designed to be a problem book.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It contains a broad overview of the subject without going too much into overly specific details. It leaves a lot of the in-between to the reader, but you'd normally either do that yourself or find an easier source.

Since another anon mentioned the CM book and I've read it recently, there's a very nice part where LHO position is treated as complex and then solved by using the classical equivalent of the quantum creation/annihilation operators. I don't think I've seen that anywhere else, maybe it's in Goldstein but I haven't encountered it. I found it neat and insightful, it makes Dirac's contribution motivated instead of "he pulled it out of his ass". Similarly, I've found the proof for isochronicity (or lack thereof) for an arbitrary force oscillator neat.

Anonymous No. 16179035

I have Landau 1, 2 and 5 because an acoustician I work with told me they'd be helpful for understanding acoustic physics.

As an EE who is not a physicist (though I do the systems side of EE so it's not too far away) I find them interesting and rigorous but very tedious. If you aren't either highly motivated or required to for a course you probably won't get through them.

They kind of remind me of Rudin's books from analysis or Kallenberg's book in probability theory. Considered a Bible of the field for a reason, but who actually reads the Bible cover to cover unless they are either extremely self motivated or more or less forced to?

Anonymous No. 16179203

To those that have read it, would you read Arnold's 'Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics' first?

Assume the reader is sufficiently autistic to have worked through the Amann/Escher trilogy and has an understanding of ODE/PDEs. I'm not a Physicist, my background is in computer science and mathematics, with a growing interest in electronics, radio applications, and signal processing; which provides the motivation to study the physics behind these things.

Anonymous No. 16179207

Signal Processing is mostly math. If you want to learn signal processing your best bet is to learn some basics of Fourier analysis from a signals and systems book and then jump right into a digital signal processing book like Oppenheim or Proakis.

Image not available



Anonymous No. 16179212

It's inevitable to some degree as every board has its touted books that as a result have become a bit of a meme, just look at /g/ and SICP

Anonymous No. 16179309

Right, what I meant was that as my interest in signal processing grew, I became more interested in how the physical side of things actually worked, beyond just being abstract inputs and outputs. I have read Oppenheimer's first book (some time ago) and also recommend it.

Anonymous No. 16179313

I never found SICP to be that tough to be honest. Knuth on the other hand, back when I was a mathlet, seemed intimidating.

Anonymous No. 16179420

I don't think that SICP is considered to be that hard, just that some people on /g/ haven't gone through it despite the fact that they talk about it

Anonymous No. 16179429

The more important question, are the Landau Lifshitz books fun?

Anonymous No. 16179465

Depends, what make a physics text fun?

Anonymous No. 16179519

A reward worth the struggle.

Anonymous No. 16179529

In that case, sure. Though its not like the Pauli lectures or Sommerfield are bad in terms of how they cover the material.

Anonymous No. 16179574

Reddit thinks
>No sane person would expect you to digest Landau & Lifshitz in one year, let alone a month. Putting this kind of pressure on a second year grad student makes me believe your PI is a sociopath and I would stay the fuck away.

Yet on /sci/, people say it isn't even hard. Is this the power of 4chan?

Anonymous No. 16179633

Consider this:
>L&L has 10 volumes and they are many decades old.
>You're supposed to have caught up to modern research once you have finished your degree.
If you're as slow as those failures on reddit then you will never be able to do research yourself.

Anonymous No. 16179672

The only way it would take someone a whole year to work their way through that book is if it was their very first introduction to classical mechanics and had no prior knowledge of the math prerequisites.

If you've studied through Goldstein you should definitely be able to get through L&L in a month easy.

Anonymous No. 16179724

This >>16179672 L&L is a primer for graduate physics and it was written assuming that you have the prerequisite undergraduate knowledge in each of the topics.

Anonymous No. 16180182

This makes sense, and their collective failures probably explains why they are trying to gate-keep the subject online; they failed, so should you! I have noticed that tone and approach even on some of the more palatable subs.

Anonymous No. 16180236

I remember that thread, you've just reminded me how much I hate redditors.
>brainlet wants to join a research group too advanced for him
>somehow even more retarded prof tells him "sure, here's a book, impress me if you're good enough" instead of just telling him to fuck off
>brainlet proceeds to complain how he has to learn and it's hard
>muh toxic academia, muh sociopathic professor
>the brainlet (who doesn't know what's lagrangian/hamiltonian formalism) is unanimously absolved of his stupidity by midwits
Anything related to physics on reddit gets immediately infested by spineless faggots.

Anonymous No. 16180272

>I remember that thread
I actively try to avoid reddit, yet somehow, I have a recollection of a vast number of their threads, it's quite disturbing. Almost every time I go, one of them says something so strange that it sticks with me forever, now I can add this hamiltonianlet to the list.

Anonymous No. 16181112

>redditors are the fags that complain about reddit the most

Anonymous No. 16181160

Viewing reddit does not make one a redditor.

Anonymous No. 16181237

Since the thread is still going, what's the closest "modern" series to this? In terms of comparable depth of coverage, but with the latest pedagogy, type setting etc.

I know the Fenyman lectures received a modern face-lift, but they're not really in the same class.

Anonymous No. 16181442

>In terms of comparable depth of coverage
Sommerfield or the Pauli lectures
>but with the latest pedagogy, type setting
But I don't know how recent the latest editions are

Anonymous No. 16181569

For what it's worth a friend loved Greiner and Scheck.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16181597

Not that guy, but if you wanna learn more about the physical stuff behind signal processing, learn about both analog and digital electronics (transistors, op-amps, RLC passive and active filters), and look into Laplace, Z, and Fourier transforms if you can. Understanding how signal processing works doesn't really require an extremely in-depth knowledge of quantum physics. In fact, you could get by with just knowing the so-called "water analogies" for basic electronic components for the purposes of understanding how signal amplifiers and filters work. I assume you'll be fine on linear algebra, if you've got a CS background, so you might just need to add a bit of complex analysis to that.

Anonymous No. 16181598

>taking dicks up my ass does not make me a homosexual

Anonymous No. 16181610

Walter Greiner has a series of books as well, which go into depth. I wouldn't necessarily call them pedagogical though, very dense and all problems are just additional derivations that he didn't fit into the chapter.

Anonymous No. 16181767

Oh I get in now, they're engineers!

Anonymous No. 16181869

If you watched a video of that sordid act, you may have homo tendencies, or you may just be curious, or you somehow viewed it by "accident" (It was in my search results!!!)

Creating an account and actually posting something on reddit is the equivalent to taking it in the ass. Both make you a fag, one makes you a redditor.

Anonymous No. 16182616

Thanks, will check out Greiner, the list of topics looks interesting.

Anonymous No. 16183505

I like that the field theory book uses 4-vectors from the start rather than introduce them at the end like Jackson does. I also like the inclusion of character theory of continuous groups in the quantum mechanics book. I haven't found any other book that covers that.

Anonymous No. 16183704

What is the Amann/Escher of the physics world? For those unfamiliar, it's a very rigorous self-contained set of books on Analysis. It would be nice to have a physics equivalent, but that's probably wishing for too much. Maybe in 30 years I'll just write it myself.

Anonymous No. 16183747

Is Amann/Escher actually any good? Germans seem to love that series, but it seems a little odd that they call it analysis when that series really seems to be almost entirely just "advanced calculus."

They just barely tickle you with a bit of proper analysis in the third book with their "elements of measure theory" section, but the rest just seems to be "calculus but with proofs" rather than a proper analysis series.

Anonymous No. 16183840

>Is Amann/Escher actually any good?
The issue is that in Europe they do not distinguish calculus/analysis like the US. Amann Escher over 3 volumes encompasses Calc 1-3, plus 1 or 2 analysis courses at a standard American school. Obviously it's to the final story to Analysis, and a student who works through that is well positioned to study any more advanced material.

My favourite part about that series is that they took great pains to make it self-contained.

Anonymous No. 16183897

There was an anon one or two years ago who made a bunch of threads showing how Landau wasn't nearly as rigorous as some people like to claim

Anonymous No. 16183907

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Physics is never really mathematically rigorous. That said, we have a lot of anons, with a myriad of odd opinions about things.

Anonymous No. 16184094

You say that as if mathematicians won't base their work on conjectures that haven't even been proven

Anonymous No. 16184191

Well, yes, but theoretical Physics is neither mathematically rigorous nor strictly based in empiricism. They do this odd dance where they axiomatically construct the discipline based on what appears to be true from empirical verification (which of course can never actually be fully verified without experimental errors).

As a result mathematical/theoretical physics ends up being both too axiomatic/platonic to actually be reflective of material reality (except in some average sense), but not axiomatic enough to actually be sound pure mathematics.