Classical Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum

[this is a review of the version published by Penguin Books, London 2014] This is a good book, which gives the reader a very fast 'refresher' in classical physics and introduces the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches to classical physics. It is, of course, necessary to make some shortcuts in such a small book, but I think it is done well (e.g the Levi-Civita symbol is just described for three indices and with a simple clockwork analogy, instead of entering into even/odd permutations). I think there a two groups of readers, who will enjoy this small and inexpensive book: The 'official' target audience ( people, who where too busy doing other things than physics in their life) and newcomers to university level physics courses. For this group I believe it will help to give an overview of the territory. There are a few small flaws, though. Punctuation: I really could do without the ',' or '.' after each 'freestanding' formula. They are redundant and add noise to the visual impression. When they are combined with a 'dot' operator (d/dt), which hovers very far from its variable, it doesn't look good (I have seen quite a few books using the 'dot' operator notation, but they all place the dot much closer, more like an i-dot ). P.56 I think the integrals (5 places) would be improved with the missing 'dx' (for the variable integrated over), so they would 'pattern-match' the example on page 57 better. P.103 Exercise 2 contains the sentence "The Particle has mass m, equal in both directions". This is beyond my comprehension. P.112 Uses the letter A in two, slightly different meaning, I think. Formula (3) is a sum expressing an approximation to the total action, while A in the next formula seems to indicate the action passing through X8 alone. the last formula contains two delta-T factors, which in the formula on the top of page 113 has disappeared. The derivation of the first formula on p.113 could have been explained a bit better. p.112-114 appears the most difficult to understand for me. on p.120-121 "The components of the Coriolis force depend not only on the position of the particle, but also on its velocity". I think this is incorrect, the formulas listed, specifying the forces, depends on velocities, but not positions. A few more exercises, with short solutions in an appendix, would have been nice. Or maybe a companion exercises-only book ?

This is an excellent book which provides a very accessible introduction to classical mechanics. I was looking for exactly something like this book book, which provides mathematically rigorous introduction for people who are familiar with calculus and want to learn more about physics. You need to know some math to understand the book, but everything is explained really well. On problem though is that Appendix has many typos. Other than that, I really enjoyed reading this book.

Now I like what this book is about. And there were a lot of instances where the derivations make me think, "damn, that's neat". And I like that it's a popular science book that isn't afraid to teach the same things that someone would cover at university, rather than being laden with dodgy analogies that don't really help you understand much. And it has actually made me interested in what I'd have previously thought is the dullest area of physics. My issues with it are: - incomplete answers in the website - the exercises range from pretty simple (requiring just A-level maths ability) to unreasonably difficult. For instance, exercises 2 and 3 in Lecture 6 - even checking the answers, they cannot be solved with what was in the book up to that point, requiring the use of the del symbol (explained later in the book) and knowledge of solving 2nd-order ODEs (not mentioned anywhere) and they seem to require several pages of working each. - glossing over explanations. There's a noticeable step up somewhere just past the principle of least action where the language becomes hard to follow.

I absolutely love the online video recordings of the lectures, he really knows what he is talking about. I am using them to get back into physics research, and the books plus the online lectures are helping me immensely. I did applied physics and an experimental physics PhD, so some of the material I am unfamiliar with, but I am finding it very easy to learn. I just wish the lectures were put on something like Coursera so you receive a certificate for completing the course, plus you would be able to ask questions and get support. Nevertheless, I am already brimming with ideas because of what I have learned from the books a lectures. I can not recommend them enough.

OK

While I am yet to understand the chapters I have read in mathematical ways, the explanations behind them are clear and concise. The layout of the text is also clear and the addition of exercises within the chapters is useful tool to aid learning.

This book is very good and it taught me some things

This book is nothing short of amazing; Susskind manages to explain a complicated topic in an accessible way, and I enjoyed every page. It's helped a lot with my Physics degree! I love how this book doesn't shy away from equations (whereas usually popular science books do).

BEWARE, this is the same book as the US title "The Theoretical Minimum: What you need to know to start doing physics". I know, as I made the mistake of ordering it, hoping it was a different book by the same authors. That said, it is a great book, so chose one and go for it!

A well written for students passionate in physics. However, do not be fooled by the title which states "Theoretical Mininimum". The book requires a basic to intermediate level of college mathematics to get a sense of what the author is saying. That being said, I feel a greater appreciation of the math I learned in school, and have often found myself stunned by author's ability to make a logical concurrence between abstract mathematics and empirical physics.

As a current student of classical (variational) mechanics, I was interested in this book as light reading, to get a bird's eye view of the subject from a master. It did not disappoint! It should go without saying: this book will provide you a depth of understanding shallow as a puddle-- nay, shallow as a layer of condensation. It is not possible to convey the dense material covered by a textbook like Goldstein or Lanczos with a shred of justice, in a book like this. You should know that going in. Such books are rewarding to read, but they are extremely dense, difficult even for graduate students. What this book has to offer is perhaps best summarised as a light introduction to 'what is it theoretical physicists think about exactly?' There were a few errors in the equations, which I find to be disappointing given the purported target audience of the book (readers who had an interest and educational background in physics or a related discipline). They could have corrected these in a new edition but they didn't. You can't have errors when you breeze through physics this quickly... in a textbook you see similar equations 10s if not 100s of times, and you understand all of the components. You can spot errors. Likewise I could spot errors because I was familiar with most of the content of this book already. But much of the audience is going to be tripped up! The typesetting on this book is awful. I can typeset better books myself. I guess the older physicists have never used LaTeX... anyway the equations look terrible and are hard to read. The 'dot' above a symbol indicating the time derivative is egregiously bad, floating far above the symbols and sometimes outside of parentheses enclosing the symbol. I did not bother with most of the exercises, as most were things I knew already. Where this book shines is the clarity of writing. They've done a fantastic job of conveying things lucidly. It was an enjoyable read, and was pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

The book is absolute amazing for classical mechanics but I recieved it damaged badly in the front cover the half of the cover was torn and damaged. The pages are safe except the cover so it's all good for me but I am disappointed because of the cover.

Not 5 because should follow the theoretical minimum series appearance just with the penguin logo