
Modern Physics From Scratch - imb
http://theoreticalminimum.com/
======
weichi
For programmers interested in classical mechanics, "The Structure and
Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" is a highly unique - and outstanding -
introduction to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Available free online:

[http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/s...](http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm/book.html)

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.

~~~
lolcraft
Cool book. That's from where I learnt the Euler-Lagrange equations first.

Sussman also wrote a book, in his characteristic style, on Differential
Geometry, that doubles as a possible introduction to special relativity, and
bridge to the general theory.

[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6946/calculus-
inde...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6946/calculus-indexed.pdf)

~~~
DennisP
And one on quantum mechanics, though by a different author:
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Interpretation-
Quantum-M...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Interpretation-Quantum-
Mechanics/dp/0674843924)

~~~
lolcraft
I've read some of it, and it's not even in the same sport, much less league.
SIQM has _no code_ and uses all the handwavy notation you could read in better
books (Landau, probably; or Feynmann, for an intro). It struck me as the Ford
Fiesta to Sussman's 911. In fact, after that read, I was pissed at the author
from riding the coat-tails of the Structure and Interpretation series.

------
vyrotek
_"A number of years ago I became aware of the large number of physics
enthusiasts out there who have no venue to learn modern physics and cosmology.
Fat advanced textbooks are not suitable to people who have no teacher to ask
questions of, and the popular literature does not go deeply enough to satisfy
these curious people."_

It's as if he made the courses just for me! :) Thanks for sharing this.

------
mrcactu5
In 2004, Roger Penrose published "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the
Laws of the Universe" which is 1100 pages long.
<http://staff.washington.edu/freitz/penrose.pdf>

"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’."

~~~
gwern
Penrose, huh. I was reading the intro to Scott Aaronson's new book on quantum
computing, and in it he says,

> More pointedly, one wonders who the audience for this book is supposed to
> be. On the one hand, it has way too much depth for a popular book. Like
> Roger Penrose’s _The Road to Reality_ – whose preface promises an accessible
> adventure even for readers who struggled with fractions in elementary
> school, but whose first few chapters then delve into holomorphic functions
> and fiber bundles – _Quantum Computing since Democritus_ is not for math-
> phobes.

------
ivan_ah
There is a book that comes with the course:
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046502811X>

The intro chapter is quite good ... very condensed material, but could be very
interesting read.

~~~
siddboots
I worked through the entire core sequence over about 18 months, along with
texts recommended by friends and on forums. In particular, Shankar's Quantum
Mechanics, and Taylor's Classical Mechanics were great supplements to the
first two courses. I recommend that approach because, while it is great to
have the "theoretical minimum" delivered in lecture format, its also nice to
have a more thorough text on hand for the topics that really get you
interested.

With that said, I hadn't even heard of the official text book AFAICR Susskind
never mentioned it in any of the lectures.

~~~
johnchristopher
What about the math background ? Is someone who barely touched calculus able
to follow through the classical mechanics course ?

~~~
siddboots
Approximately speaking, first year undergraduate maths level is assumed, but
no more. Most topics are elaborated on as required to teach the content.

You'll need to _understand_ calculus, i.e. understand the principles behind
derivatives and integrals. You certainly won't need to be proficient in
manipulating them. A brief book, like Martin Gardner's updated edition of
Calculus Made Easy, is the type of background that you need. A bit more
specifically, having an intuition for vector calculus and partial differential
equations is important.

For QM, you will need to understand what linear algebra is for, and how it
uses abstraction to simplify certain types of operations. Here's a good
introduction: <http://betterexplained.com/articles/linear-algebra-guide/>

Honestly, I can't think of anything else that you would necessarily need to
know before starting, but to get the most out of it you WILL need to follow
along with his working in pen-and-paper, and get used to rewatching, or
looking up topics that you struggle with.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _Martin Gardner's updated edition of Calculus Made Easy_

I've seen several (quite a few actually) books with this title on Amazon. Some
of them written by Martin Gardner and Silvanus P. Thompson, others written by
Thompson alone. Do you recommend a particular edition? (and what's the deal
with the plethora of different editions?)

> _For QM, you will need to understand what linear algebra is for, and how it
> uses abstraction to simplify certain types of operations. Here's a good
> introduction:<http://betterexplained.com/articles/linear-algebra-guide/> _

Could you recommend a wood-pulp version of this kind of material?

~~~
siddboots
> Calculus Made Easy

Thompson wrote the original edition a century ago. It is now Public Domain.

<http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33283>

Gardner's revised edition adds introductory material, a problem set, and
updates the language to keep it roughly in line with what is taught now. I
can't speak to the differences between modern editions, but I have this one:

[http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-Easy-Silvanus-
Thompson/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Made-Easy-Silvanus-
Thompson/dp/0312185480)

> linear algebra

To be honest, all abstract algebra is tough on new-comers. Compared to
undergraduate calculus, the "aha" moments have more pay-off, but usually take
a lot more time. The significance and power of vector spaces is just not
something that is easily learnt, other than by working through problems with
pen-and-paper math, and while doing so, constantly asking yourself "why do
mathematicians do things this way, rather than some other way?"

I bought a copy of Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra And It's Applications when
I was an undergrad, and still refer to it now. It's brilliant, but it's a
traditional text book, and definitely not a "primer".

It's not the type of maths you would call "hard" (integral calculus can be
infuriatingly "hard") but it's the type that takes time and work to
understand. Once you understand vector spaces, QM is surprisingly straight-
forward.

~~~
ivan_ah
I haven't seen the updated version, but the one on gutenberg is gold. The old
language is comical on its own: he cracks jokes and it is funny because of the
jokes //and// because of the old language.

This book is so good, that gutenbeg volunteers took the time to typeset all
the math in latex so the PDFs are very good for reading or printing out.

excerpt:

    
    
       PROLOGUE.
       
       Considering how many fools can calculate, 
       it is surprising that it should be thought 
       either a difficult or a tedious task for any 
       other fool to learn how to master the same tricks.
       
       Some calculus-tricks are quite easy. Some are 
       enormously difficult. The fools who write the 
       textbooks of advanced mathematics—and they are 
       mostly clever fools—seldom take the trouble to 
       show you how easy the easy calculations are. 
       On the contrary, they seem to desire to impress 
       you with their tremendous cleverness by going about 
       it in the most difficult way.
    
       Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had 
       to unteach myself the difficulties, and now beg to 
       present to my fellow fools the parts that are not hard. 
       Master these thoroughly, and the rest will follow. 
       What one fool can do, another can.

------
imb
I'm the OP and originally posted the link and a brief review here:
[http://www.latestlesson.org/the-theoretical-minimum-
modern-p...](http://www.latestlesson.org/the-theoretical-minimum-modern-
physics/). If anyone has other suggested physics materials for those who are
not professional physicists, I would be interested in reviewing them for our
site. We're trying to create a comprehensive list of resources for STEM
learners.

~~~
siddboots
SICM belongs in that category!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of_Classical_Mechanics)

~~~
imb
Absolutely agree and it will be added to the list. Initially, we're interested
in K-12 resources and something that might be a little bit easier for students
still in school (although SICP can be used by advanced high school students).
There do not seem to be that many good cs books for younger students, so any
ideas on that front would be especially useful.

------
JonnieCache
I've watched a few of these just for fun. They are very watchable even if,
like me, you don't have the first clue about the actual mathematics he uses.
He explains enough of the physics in words that you can just let the forumlae
wash over you and not worry about it.

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.

------
altrego99
I have been following his lectures for quite some time. Hat's off to Leonard
Suskind.

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?)

------
igmor
For those interested in QM I highly recommend this intro Quantum Mechanics for
Engineers <http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/>

------
tMcGrath
I've been reading this and it's fantastic - approaching the subject from the
tools needed to understand the way the material works mathematically
(Lagrangians etc) rather than as a series of separate physical problems is an
excellent idea.

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)

------
quux
This is interesting, I've watched Professor Susskind's lectures on Quantum
Mechanics and they were very good. Was able to understand how QM actually
works for the first time.

------
codezero
I'm going to check this out, but the cadence of the lectures (just by looking
at Classical Mechanics) seems pretty high for a 1.5 hour lecture, getting to
Lagrangians in the third lecture seems pretty advanced for a survey of the
subject especially targeted at enthusiasts.

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.

~~~
siddboots
From another point of view, the lectures are purely focused on giving an
intuition behind concepts in modern theoretical physics, which is only a very
small part of what is taught in an undergraduate program.

Lagrangians are a difficult, and abstract concept, but they doesn't mean that
they can't be communicated in 3-4 hours by a skilled educator.

~~~
mmcnickle
Agreed that these are geared towards intuition. Though for reference: in my
undergraduate degree, Lagrangian Dynamics and Hamiltonian Dynamics were each
given semester long treatments.

~~~
cdwhite
That's interesting. In _my_ undergraduate degree (which I believe to be fairly
standard for the US), Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics were both part of a
one-semester classical mechanics course, along with much else. I'm quite
envious, though---both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics are beautiful, and
I need a better background.

If you don't mind my asking, where did you do undergrad?

~~~
mmcnickle
The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. They were two of my favourite courses,
I was amazed at how simple some classes of problems became with the
techniques. You should be able to find the course notes somewhere, but I'm not
sure if they'd be much value without the lectures.

------
hanula
Oh my, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'm going to dive in into this
but does anyone maybe know about similar online resources you could learn some
more advanced physics topics? Btw, Susskind is such a great man, love his way
of work and persistence.

------
mooze
See also: <http://motionmountain.com/>

~~~
zokier
The author seems to have some non-mainstream views on physics/cosmology:

<http://motionmountain.com/research.html>

I'm not really sure what to make of it.

~~~
mooze
Hmm I never got that far to be honest. But it does seem a bit out there.

------
abdullahkhalids
You can probably do better by going through Feynman's lectures. And maybe also
his QED.

~~~
jamessb
Or perhaps by folowing the reading suggested by Gerard 't Hooft:
<http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html>

------
raverbashing
This is very interesting

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.

