Best physics of mechanics books according to redditors
We found 140 Reddit comments discussing the best physics of mechanics books. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 140 Reddit comments discussing the best physics of mechanics books. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Physics for mathematicians - Spivak (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Mathematicians-Mechanics-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098322)
The two "classic" intro physics texts are Kleppner and Kolenkow for mechanics and Purcell for E/M. These are pretty standard for honors intro physics classes across the US.
Both are good books which are considerably more theoretical and rigorous than the typical "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" that I'm guessing you're using (and will not leave results like the ones you give unjustified, for example).
Nevertheless, I don't think you're going to find many physics textbooks written with the strict, precise logic of a proper math book (at the undergraduate level, at least). Physicists are simply interested in different things than mathematicians.
Also, remember that physics is a science, and it is informed by both logical deductions AND experiments.
Leo Susskind's The Theoretical Minimum: What you need to know to start doing physics was suggested in a previous post to addresss this question.
There's also a set of videos that originally inspired the book. Highly recommended.
My favourite is Kleppner-Kolenkow.
Hey!
I understand your predicament very well. I have come from much of the same background as yours, and I wanted to teach myself physics. Knowing a lot of mathematics, I wanted to go straight to the mathematical treatments and skip dealing with inclined planes and pulleys. Only to find out that... I couldn't. The math of intro physics is going to be absolutely trivial to you, but the physics will still be difficult. And the physics of physics is not something you can just learn from a clean mathematical treatment, you need to have seen it before. You'll need to be very good already in knowing what energy and momentum is, before you can tackle the fun stuff like Lagrangians. I'm sorry to say this, but you will HAVE to go through an intro physics book.
So far for the bad news. The good news is that not all intro physics books are alike. On the one hand you have absolute trash like Halliday and other 1000 page books with really boring problems. Those texts typically cost $200, which is about $400 too much. But there are really good intro physics texts too. Myself, I went through Kleppner and Kolenkow. This is one really really challenging book, even if you know the math inside out. It doesn't read like those flashy 1000 page books either, it reads like a math book essentially. So I would recommend this as your first book. I would couple this with this problem boook from Morin: https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Solutions-Introductory-Mechanics-David-ebook/dp/B06XHBHR78/ Safe to say that it is from Kleppner I learned the theory, but it is from Morin I learned to solve problems. The book is probably my second favorite physics book so far.
Once you finished those (although you might want to skip some parts in Kleppner that weren't really well written, such as his special relativity or gyroscopes), you can go to somewhat more advanced physics books. For mechanics, I recommend Gregory's Classical Mechanics, but also Taylor's Classical Mechanics. Both cover roughly the same material, but both are really fun to go through. Taylor is probably my favorite physics text so far. It was an absolute joy. But Gregory has slightly better and more challenging problems.
You might also be interested in relativity. A good first book there is Morin's special relativity for the enthousiastic beginner. The book doesn't contain much difficult math, but again, it is the physics that makes it very challenging. A more mature book would be Gourgoulhon, which is probably the best and most comprehensive special relativity book out there.
As for math, I recommend you to go through Duistermaat and Kolk's multidimensional real analysis texts. They have plenty of really good problems, and the treatment is really mature. That should teach you enough vector calculus and differential geometry to survive a lot of physics texts. Eventually you'll have to learn manifolds though, and then you can't go better than Lee's trilogy.
> There's a book that I cannot find now (hopefully someone else can come along and provide the reference) which is also "physics for mathematician".
Spivak! I have a copy and it's really good.
I mean the classical mechanics of orbits described in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
The body that is orbiting slows down and speeds up during elliptical orbit, so the total energy of the system or think of the point of maximum kinetic energy is in essence what keeps it from colliding with the main body. There are also cases where this does happen and cases where other things happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_equation
Classical Mechanics by John Taylor
Barton Zwiebach's First Course in String Theory provides a good overview of quite a complex topic. Unfortunately, even though it is meant as an introductory textbook, it is likely to be entirely incomprehensible to the average reader.
 
To make it through this book, knowledge of quite a few preliminary topics is needed:
You're definitely asking the right question. It doesn't explain. To be fair, it's difficult to explain without some math (it's in Kleppner and Kolenkow, if you have a copy available to you).
But I think it is a deficiency in the blog write-up. Presumably the author wants this kind of feedback.
Friend asked for a similar list a while ago and I put this together. Would love to see people thoughts/feedback.
Very High Level Introductions:
Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):
Blending the line between pop-sci and mathematical (these books are not meant to be read and put away but instead read, re-read and pondered):
You may want to try reading from a different book. I loved Taylor's Classical Mechanics. It looks like it covers most of the same topic. It does Special Relativity, but I don't think it does General Relativity.
For Calculus:
Calculus Early Transcendentals by James Stewart
^ Link to Amazon
Khan Academy Calculus Youtube Playlist
For Physics:
Introductory Physics by Giancoli
^ Link to Amazon
Crash Course Physics Youtube Playlist
Here are additional reading materials when you're a bit farther along:
Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas
Modern Physics by Randy Harris
Classical Mechanics by John Taylor
Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths
Introduction to Particle Physics by Griffiths
The Feynman Lectures
With most of these you will be able to find PDFs of the book and the solutions. Otherwise if you prefer hardcopies you can get them on Amazon. I used to be adigital guy but have switched to physical copies because they are easier to reference in my opinion. Let me know if this helps and if you need more.
The analogous book for me was Townsend's Quantum Physics: A Fundamental Approach to Modern Physics. It spends a good deal of time on introducing you to quantum mechanics, as it should, but there are also discussions of solid state, nuclear, and particle physics, in addition to relativity.
Honestly, if you are looking for an in-depth treatment of special relativity it might be worth finding a book on that specifically, because it's generally not treated in a lot of depth in classes, since such depth isn't needed (it's relatively simple, if potentially unintuitive at first). Chapter 15 of Taylor, for example, has a good treatment of special relativity, and it's regarded as one of the canonical texts for classical mechanics (edit: at the introductory/intermediate level, that is).
John Taylor's Classical Mechanics and David Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics might be more your speed. They've been the texts for my Classical Mechanics and E&M courses.
Really interested, actually! But I'm curious about a few things:
When exactly will it start in January? And when will it end? Will it be in the evenings? Which days of the week?
Will we need a text book? I have a Dover book on basic analysis already which I haven't cracked open.
Where will the class be held?
I had an incredibly hard time with calculus as a university student. I took it 5 times because I kept dropping it or withdrawing or not getting a passing grade. I almost got kicked out of my program because I pushed the limits of how many times I could repeat the course. There was a general disinterest on my part, but now, almost 10 years later, I am much more fascinated and genuinely interested in math, number theory, and also in many ways, analysis.
I started reading a book recently that finally explained what calculus actually was in simple terms. I feel like it's the first time that was ever done for me and I can say that helped my interest.
Anyway, I'd really hope to attend your class! The reason I'm curious about exact start date is that I'll be away from the HRM until mid-January. And it's a bummer to miss the first few classes of anything!
You could try Spivak’s book, Physics for Mathematicians, https://amzn.com/0914098322
Not a paper but a short-ish book: For my graduate philosophy of quantum mechanics course we used David Z. Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience' book. It was great.
(Amazon link: http://amzn.com/0674741137 )
This was the one that we used for Cosmology. It starts pretty gentle but moves into the metric tensor fairly quickly. If you don't have the maths I don't know that it'll help you to understand them but it'll definitely have all the terms and equations. As with Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, the funny haired man himself actually had a pretty approachable work from what I remember when I tried reading it.
​
This one has been sitting on my shelf waiting to be read. Given the authors reputation for popularizing astrophysics and the title I think it might be a good place to start before you hit the other ones.
Yes, this book is a good introduction to general mechanics with applied integrale/differential calculus : http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Mathematicians-Mechanics-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098322
I just want to point out one thing that everyone seems to be glossing over: when people say that you'll need to review classical mechanics, they aren't talking only about Newtonian Mechanics. The standard treatment of Quantum Mechanics draws heavily from an alternative formulation of classical mechanics known as Hamiltonian Mechanics that I'm willing to bet you didn't cover in your physics education. This field is a bit of a beast in its own right (one of those that can pretty much get as complicated/mathematically taxing as you let it) and it certainly isn't necessary to become an expert in order to understand quantum mechanics. I'm at a bit of a loss to recommend a good textbook for an introduction to this subject, though. I used Taylor in my first course on the subject, but I don't really like that book. Goldstein is a wonderful book and widely considered to be the bible of classical mechanics, but can be a bit of a struggle.
Also, your math education may stand you in better stead than you think. Quantum mechanics done (IMHO) right is a very algebraic beast with all the nasty integrals saved for the end. You're certainly better off than someone with a background only in calculus. If you know calculus in 3 dimensions along with linear algebra, I'd say find a place to get a feel for Hamiltonian mechanics and dive right in to Griffiths or Shankar. (I've never read Shankar, so I can't speak to its quality directly, but I've heard only good things. Griffiths is quite understandable, though, and not at all terse.) If you find that you want a bit more detail on some of the topics in math that are glossed over in those treatments (like properties of Hilbert Space) I'd recommend asking r/math for a recommendation for a functional analysis textbook. (Warning:functional analysis is a bit of a mindfuck. I'd recommend taking these results on faith unless you're really curious.) You might also look into Eisberg and Resnick if you want a more historical/experimentally motivated treatment.
All in all, I think its doable. It is my firm belief that anyone can understand quantum mechanics (at least to the extent that anyone understands quantum mechanics) provided they put in the effort. It will be a fair amount of effort though. Above all, DO THE PROBLEMS! You can't actually learn physics without applying it. Also, you should be warned that no matter how deep you delve into the subject, there's always farther to go. That's the wonderful thing about physics: you can never know it all. There just comes a point where the questions you ask are current research questions.
Good Luck!
It was my favorite book in undergrad and from what I remember it's really well written. I recall that if I was confused about a topic in lecture I could go to the relevant chapter and end up with a clear understanding.
Admittedly it's been a while since I last read it but hopefully there may be some more helpful reviews here https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
Cheers!
I generally think physics textbooks have too many problems for self-study, often having over 100 problems per chapter, half of which have answers in the back of the book or as part of the problem statement. That makes it difficult to focus on what you should focus on, and can lead to burnout. But your tutor can help you select the problems that will be most beneficial to you.
If you're just looking for problems, you should probably first consider Schaum's outlines, such as their College Physics or Physics for Scientists and Engineers. I've always found the problems in them to be slightly archaic, so I'd go down to a used book store or Barnes & Noble and check them out to make sure you think they're what you want. There are tons at used book shops, so they'll be easy to find.
Most of the textbooks have similar selections of problems. For searching for problems, my favorites are Serway,* which has a large number of different types of problems that are clearly marked (as, for example, integrating earlier material or having a structured solution) including, I think, two per chapter that ask you to "explain why the following situation in impossible." I love those. I also like Halliday and Resnick, which has a large number of data-centric inverse problems, i.e., here's a plot or a table, now draw out some constants from it. Both are often reworked. I've linked to about two editions back because it's the same material and a tenth of the price, even used, almost no one will be using it in courses.
If you actually need something to read and you're going in more-or-less the standard order, I'd suggest French's Newtonian Mechanics. It's an old book, but it's still in print in its original form for a reason. My copy is at the office, so I can't check the problems, but its got the best prose and explanations for a standard textbook of any that I know. I'm sure it doesn't have the volume of problems you seem to desire. If you have more leeway in how you proceed, I'd check out Moore's Six Ideas That Shaped Physics. It goes it a different order than most, but it feels like it is designed to emphasize concepts while teaching you to work problems, starting with conservation laws rather than kinematics (which is mostly a distraction).
​
* I linked one that includes the first half of the book (chapters 1-22), but I'd look for the paperback including chapters 1-14, part of a five volume set, each of 200-400 pages. They're more portable, easier to peruse, and less daunting than a giant hardbound tome of 1500-2500 pages. The same thing goes for Halliday and Resnick.
To be completely honest, neither Brian Greene books nor high school math are going to give you a genuine feel of what it's like to study physics at the advanced undergraduate or graduate level. That said, if you're interested, then I absolutely recommend diving in and seeing how far you get. Even if you eventually decide that you don't want to be a physicist, the quantitative and critical thinking skills you'll pick up are desirable in many other lucrative careers (e.g. finance, computing, etc).
As for intro physics texts, I highly recommend An Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow. This is about as close as an intro physics book gets to real physics (in terms of style, not content). It's not an easy read, even for students who already have a background in physics...but if you want to study physics, you'll have to get used to that. I'm not sure how much math you've seen, but you'll need to be comfortable with single variable calculus before reading a book like K&K.
If you haven't seen calculus yet, then I recommend focusing on math for now...physics without calculus is rarely more than memorizing equations and crunching numbers. This will definitely give you the wrong idea about what physics is like.
Er, sorry, I'm conflating a few things.
WRT (1), Spivak is fastidiously rigorous. It's not as dry as the standard higher-level textbooks like Baby Rudin, Munkres, and so on, but it's every bit as rigorous. A high-school student who has read through Spivak on his own is a pretty unusual character.
For example, although Spivak doesn't use the jargon, there are several examples and exercises that ask students to prove various facts about vector spaces (finite and infinite-dimensional), linear transformations, and so on. The last chapter of Spivak is identical to the first chapter of Baby Rudin, after all — the construction of the real numbers from the rational numbers using Dedekind cuts and proving that the real numbers are the unique Archimedian complete totally ordered field up to isomorphism.
That's the situation the OP is coming from, so "linear algebra" might be fun, but as a recommendation I think the OP will enjoy a more foundational approach to what they study next. It's good that he can see all the choices in front of him, of course.
And I have no opinion about your specific recommendation, either, since I've never heard of that book.
WRT (2), well, I love linear algebra. I'm generally frustrated with how it's taught. I feel the same way about probability and statistics, too.
I admit I'm a bit of an odd duck when it comes to a typical math undergrad. I found physics, especially Newtonian mechanics and classic E&M, incredibly frustrating. That is, until we got to relativity and QM — smooth sailing from there! Later, I bought and read Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics by (wait for it!) Michael Spivak and was finally able to understand WTF was going on with mechanics.
Most of (undergrad) physics, linear algebra, ODEs, and so on always felt like a grab bag of manipulations and techniques that were justified "because they worked." This is exactly what I hated about math in HS and it wasn't until I had Spivak's Calculus in my first-year calculus course that I realized that high-school math wasn't really "math."
Like I said, this is unusual, although I suspect the OP is more like me than the folks shouting "linear algebra! ODEs! multi-variable calculus!" I believe that there's a way to teach these subjects without such a strong divide between what folks call "practice" and "theory." I love Axler's Linear Algebra Without Determinants, for example, and this PDF about the relationship between differential equations and linear algebra.
So, I'm not sure we're disagreeing about anything, really, although it seems like you think we are? I'm not advocating for anything in particular so much as expressing my thoughts and experiences from my math undergrad and how they relate to the OP's current situation.
I assume he's referring to The Theoretical Minimium.
Yes. I remember reading one of michael spivak's books where he says something like what you said, he then said he was attempting to make books titled "* for mathematicians" (mathematician here). This is the only one i know he actually made: physics for mathematicians
I did hope he did the series, but have lost it since. It would be amazing if there was a similar thing for ML
The first thing that popped in my mind while reading your post was: 'woah dude, slow down a bit!'. No, honestly, take things slowly, that's the best advice someone could have given me a few years ago. Physics is a field of study where you need a lot of time to really understand the subjects. Often times, when revisiting my graduate and even my undergraduate quantum mechanics courses, I catch myself realizing that I just began understanding yet another part of the subject. Physics is a field, where you have many things that simply need time to wrap your head around. I am kind of troubled that a lot of students simply learn their stuff for the exam at the end of the semester and then think they can put that subject aside completely. That's not how understanding in physics works - you need to revisit your stuff from time to time in order to really wrap your head around the fundamental concepts. Being able to solve some problems in a textbook is good, but not sufficient IMHO.
That being said, I will try to answer your question. Quantum mechanics is extremely fascinating. It is also extremely weird at first, but you'll get used to it. Don't confuse getting used to it with really understanding and grasping the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Those are two very different animals. Also, quantum mechanics needs a lot of math, simply have a look at the references of the quantum mechanics wikipedia page and open one of those references to convince yourself that this is the case.
Now, I don't know what your knowledge is in mathematics, hence all I can give you is some general advice. In most physics programs, you will have introductory courses in linear algebra, analysis and calculus. My first three semesters looked like this in terms of the math courses:
These were, very roughly, the subjects we covered. I think that should give you some basic idea where to start. Usually quantum mechanics isn't discussed until the second year of undergrad, such that the students have the necessary mathematic tools to grasp it.
A book I haven't worked with but know that some students really like is Mathematics for Physics by Paul Goldbart. This essentially gives you a full introduction to most of the subjects you'll need. Maybe that's a good point to start?
Concerning introductory texts for quantum mechanics, I can recommend the Feynman lectures and the book by David Griffiths. I know a ton of students who have used the book by Griffiths for their introductory course. It isn't nearly as rigorous as the traditional works (e.g. Dirac), but it's great for an introduction to the concepts and mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Feynman lectures are just classic - it's absolutely worth reading all three volumes, even more than once!
EDIT: added some literature, words.
Those notes eventually became this beautiful book.
I have spent many hours with it since it came out a couple of years ago. I can highly recommend it to anyone who, like myself, picked a lot of modern physics here and there, but never bothered to go back to thinking about classical mechanics.
Landau and lifshitz mechanics is short enough.
http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Edition-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960
EZ
I am using Conquering the Physics GRE as an overview, but I really enjoy anything from David Morin and David J. Griffiths for the level of questions and explanations (and in-book/online solutions manuals that go a long way towards showing you how to think like a physicist). But my "library" for preparing for the physics GRE is:
CM: Morin, Problems and Solutions in Introductory Mechanics and Introduction to Classical Mechanics
Gregory, Classical Mechanics for extra explanations and problems
EM: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics 3e
QM: Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 3e
Thermo/Stat.Mech: Schroeder, An Introduction to Thermal Physics
Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics
Waves: Morin, on his website are ten chapters to what appears to be a Waves book in the making
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/
Atomic, Lab Methods: Conquering the Physics GRE and any online resources I can find.
​
If you email Case Western, they send a link to some amazing flash cards!
"Shake and Bake" are NOT simple issues.
Surface-Mount parts have different issues compared to Through-Hole parts.
Read some books, similar to https://www.amazon.com/dp/3639233751
Read this https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/18525/what-kind-of-glue-should-i-use-for-pcb-mounted-components-to-avoid-vibrations
Maybe Taylor? https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
This is what my university uses for first year:
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,4096,0805386858,00.html
And this is second year:
http://www.amazon.ca/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
Both are great. Very conversational style.
In response to your request for "a book that might help" you decide on physics...
I actually hated my first exposure to physics in high school, but my freshman mechanics course really got me excited about the subject matter. The textbook we used was excellent and is called "An Introduction to Mechanics" by Kleppner and Kolenkow (link).
If you have made up your mind on classical physics, check out an introductory text on Special Relativity. There is a highly readable and mathematically completely unintimidating text by a man named Helliwell (link) that I like! I'll warn that it completely skips a tensor-based approach (which would actually be useful later on) in favor of a trivial-algebra-based approach that does miss out on some of the beauty of the subject but does manage to blow your mind if you've never seen the material before.
There are other books out there that are potentially superior, but these are the ones I like, although I will say that in my opinion nothing beats Kleppner and Kolenkow in clarity or material at its level. I hope this helps, and if it doesn't, shoot me a PM and I'll get back to you!
Good luck!
Edited: formatting, grammar.
I think this is a fine place for the post, but you might also try /r/AskPhysics.
A good question is, how much time do you want to spend doing this? While anybody can learn math/physics deeply, it does take time. If you see this as being a Sunday hobby, you may want to stick with books that are aimed at a popular audience. Examples:
Books by Michiu Kaku and Brian Greene purportedly explain a lot of current bleeding-edge theory in simple terms. Popular interpretations of abstract mathematics are a little harder to come by. If you're interested in mathematics as a subject all to itself, you might start with Gowers' book Mathematics: a Very Short Introduction.
If you want to invest somewhat more time, I recommend you check out Lenny Susskind's "Theoretical Minimum" lecture series here. He's written an associated book on classical mechanics, and another on quantum mechanics. These lectures and books are directed towards self-leaners who have a mildly quantitative background, but have never studied physics deeply. However, I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with calculus first.
The stuff in the "Theoretical Minimum" series might seem boring compared with the material aimed at popular audiences, but it's necessary background if you want to dig into those topics at a higher level. If you learn it, you'll be able to understand a much wider selection of sources on other fields of physics.
Best of luck finding something you like! You can always post back here if you're having trouble.
For Variational Calculus, the best references are Landau and Lifchitz and Gelfand and Fomin. The former is really a mechanics book that incorporates variational calculus in a very rigorous manner that one would expect from a theoretical physicist. The latter is a straight-up variational calculus book. Both are relatively cheap (you can find landau for cheaper than the amazon price).
For non-commutative geometry, there is this classic paper. /u/hopffiber gave the classic references for the rest of the topics, although you should think about learning quantum field theory since all the applications of Lie algebras come from QFT and String Theory. There are some excellent notes by David Tong that you can find with google-fu.
I've heard good things about Knight, that /u/RobusEtCeleritas recommended. I've used Serway and Jewett for my intro classes and it was pretty good.
If you're looking for more of an advanced treatment while still remaining accessible, you can check out the Berkeley Physics Course series of texts. I can only only comment directly on the second text by Purcell which is very good; and from what I've heard the others are also good reads. They are difficult to get a hold of (though that may have changed) so you may want to check your schools' library first.
No; I haven't read it or anything else by Linus Pauling. Have a read and see if it's right for you - that edition is probably going to be more or less the same as (if not identical to) the Dover print.
It looks like a good general introduction to quantum mechanics, and would likely be a good extracurricular read if not for a course. If you're a student in need of a more comprehensive text, I'd probably recommend something slightly more recent and thorough - Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles by Eisberg and Resnick is a great book for that. You could get both, read Pauling's text and then turn to Eisberg and Resnick when you feel Pauling hasn't gone into enough detail or explained something very well.
Ah - I've just seen your earlier post. In which case, the Pauling book would be fine. Again, though, have a scan through the pdf above (in particular, the contents) and make sure it's what you expect/want to read. It might be a little dry. A good in-between might be The Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Paul Dirac, a very recommended text that is comprehensive without being laboriously dull (as far as I've heard). Again, a pdf to peruse can be found here - judge for yourself!
His videos don't plug the related book(s), but I found them to be worthwhile as well. Everyone learns a little differently, your mileage may vary.
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681
>If 99% of all possible observers are in worlds without property X, then being in a world with property X is fairly strong evidence that modal realism is false.
Yes, assuming omniscience, but this presumption cannot ever be justified. Setting aside the objection that 1% is not altogether unlikely on the scale of cosmological fine tunings, the modal realist can always say:
"Though you may think that property X should only appear in the universe to 10^-10^10 % of conscious observers, much more likely is that you are simply mistaken as to what demands must be met in order for physical laws to be compatible with conscious observers in any particular universe."
>So either there's something special about consciousness that only allows it to arise in universes which have lots of structure everywhere, we need some less naive way to quantify over possible worlds that massively increases the density of worlds with sensible physical laws, or modal realism is almost certainly false.
It seems like you've slipped in a commitment to non-haeccitism about personal identity. If you are capable of experiencing multiple worlds at once, the existence of Boltzmann brains should pose no problem for you. While the majority of "worlds" containing mathematical substructures isomorphic to particular brain states corresponding to the course of your own life will not be stable, what you experience must be (says the modal realist) an emergent quasi-classical universe, for whatever reason to do with how the large scale structure of the mathematical universe tracks personal identity over isomorphic substructures.
This is a greatly underserved area of philosophy, but there is some work broaching the edge. Here are some good resources.
Taylor's Classical Mechanics book has a (visual pun)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_pun] on it.
Halliday & Resnick would be my recommendation. We used their Physics, Parts 1&2 when I was a student, not their Fundamentals of Physics, which seems to be a different book (and the two books were published simultaneously for a while; I was never sure what the difference was).
If you want individual books, try Kleppner & Kolenkow for mechanics, and Purcell for E&M. Those are often used in honors sections of freshman physics, since the problems tend to be a bit harder. There's also Newtonian Mechanics by A.P. French, which was used for freshman mechanics at MIT for a while (not sure if it still is). French's introductory books on Special Relativity and Quantum Physics are also good. But for relativity my favorite intro-level book is Spacetime Physics by Taylor & Wheeler.
Here are some examples:
The Metaphysics Within Physics by Tim Maudlin
Combining Science and Metaphysics by Matteo Morganti
Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert
Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality by Patricia S. Churchland
God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism edited by Thomas Jay Oord, William Hasker, and Dean Zimmerman
Im currently in a mechanics physics course and this is the main text book we use
https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X
I'd say it's pretty good and an easy read as well
We have also been using a math text book to complement some of the material
https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269
Hope this helps
The Theoretical Minimum is an outstanding series of books. It goes beyond most popular physics books, demanding that the reader learn a bit more math, but isn't overwhelming.
Maybe The Theoretical Minimum by Susskind?
I've never used Zetilli so maybe it's the best option and I don't know, but Dirac's book is reasonably inexpensive new and quite cheap used on Amazon. I've got a 3rd edition I found in a thrift shop ages ago and it's actually a very pleasant read too, imo.
As with most things you gotta know the basics. Start with classical mechanics. The best book is Landau's Mechanics, but it's quite advanced. The undergraduate text I used at university was Thornton and Marion. If that's still too much I've heard Taylor's book is even gentler.
Also, make sure you know your calculus.
Try looking on the course webpages such as for CS 31 and CS 32. Attempt to do the problems before learning the material for CS 33. This will test your understanding and solidify what you already know. Some of their homework problems are extremely challenging, but in most cases, the homework problems will not change from year to year that much. This means that if you start now, you will be done with the homework by the time you get here. This is awesome because your grade for these classes are all from your homework. The textbooks used for these courses are RHK, K&K, and Feynman.
While you're at it, you might want to start learning linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, vector calculus, and partial differential equations.
Source: I graded homework for CCS Physics.
That's a terrible video. There's a huge amount of misinformation about quantum physics on the internet.
You could try starting with this SEP article
Or check out David Albert or Tim Maudlin. This book is good.
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-fpas-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0465075681
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681
I agree, however for a first year physics student a bit more depth is required too. Something like Classical Mechanics by Taylor would work well as a supplement, especially to introduce and to familiarize the student with the mathematical side.
If you're feeling ambitious I'd go with https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X and https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-David-J-Griffiths/dp/1108420419/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520528734&sr=1-1&keywords=griffiths+electrodynamics
For math you're going to need to know calculus, differential equations (partial and ordinary), and linear algebra.
For calculus, you're going to start with learning about differentiating and limits and whatnot. Then you're going to learn about integrating and series. Series is going to seem a little useless at first, but make sure you don't just skim it, because it becomes very important for physics. Once you learn integration, and integration techniques, you're going to want to go learn multi-variable calculus and vector calculus. Personally, this was the hardest thing for me to learn and I still have problems with it.
While you're learning calculus you can do some lower level physics. I personally liked Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, but I've also heard Giancoli is good. These will give you the basic, idealized world physics understandings, and not too much calculus is involved. You will go through mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and "modern physics". You're going to go through these subjects again, but don't skip this part of the process, as you will need the grounding for later.
So, now you have the first two years of a physics degree done, it's time for the big boy stuff (that is the thing that separates the physicists from the engineers). You could get a differential equations and linear algebra books, and I highly suggest you do, but you could skip that and learn it from a physics reference book. Boaz will teach you the linear and the diffe q's you will need to know, along with almost every other post-calculus class math concept you will need for physics. I've also heard that Arfken, Weber, and Harris is a good reference book, but I have personally never used it, and I dont' know if it teaches linear and diffe q's. These are pretty much must-haves though, as they go through things like fourier series and calculus of variations (and a lot of other techniques), which are extremely important to know for what is about to come to you in the next paragraph.
Now that you have a solid mathematical basis, you can get deeper into what you learned in Halliday, Resnik, and Walker, or Giancoli, or whatever you used to get you basis down. You're going to do mechanics, E&M, Thermodynamis/Statistical Analysis, and quantum mechanics again! (yippee). These books will go way deeper into theses subjects, and need a lot more rigorous math. They take that you already know the lower-division stuff for granted, so they don't really teach those all that much. They're tough, very tough. Obvioulsy there are other texts you can go to, but these are the one I am most familiar with.
A few notes. These are just the core classes, anybody going through a physics program will also do labs, research, programming, astro, chemistry, biology, engineering, advanced math, and/or a variety of different things to supplement their degree. There a very few physicists that I know who took the exact same route/class.
These books all have practice problems. Do them. You don't learn physics by reading, you learn by doing. You don't have to do every problem, but you should do a fair amount. This means the theory questions and the math heavy questions. Your theory means nothing without the math to back it up.
Lastly, physics is very demanding. In my experience, most physics students have to pretty much dedicate almost all their time to the craft. This is with instructors, ta's, and tutors helping us along the way. When I say all their time, I mean up until at least midnight (often later) studying/doing work. I commend you on wanting to self-teach yourself, but if you want to learn physics, get into a classroom at your local junior college and start there (I think you'll need a half year of calculus though before you can start doing physics). Some of the concepts are hard (very hard) to understand properly, and the internet stops being very useful very quickly. Having an expert to guide you helps a lot.
Good luck on your journey!
Brush up on mathematical methods for physics. Learn Linear Algebra, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Multivariable Calculus, Complex Analysis, and Tensor Analysis. A good book would be this: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Classical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625026&sr=1-7
E&M: http://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-Roald-K-Wangsness/dp/0471811866/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
or http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625100&sr=1-1
Statistical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Statistical-Thermal-Physics-Frederick/dp/1577666127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291625184&sr=1-1
Quantum Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-R-Shankar/dp/0306447908/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625261&sr=1-4
Any mechanics text targeted for the standard junior level mechanics course for majors will cover it. I used Fowles and Cassiday when I took it. I'm not really sure what else is standard. The standard text in grad courses is Goldstein, which should be approachable by an undergrad at least. If you're crazy and a classical mechanics junkie like I was as an undergrad, Landau and Lifshitz vol1 is a beautiful treatment (that you unfortunately probably already need to have seen the material once to appreciate. Oh well. Like I said: if you're crazy). The issue here is that sometimes undergrad courses will skip these (as I learned, amazed, when I was encountering other grad students that hadn't done Lagrangian mechanics before) so make sure you read those chapters and do the problems: quantum mechanics is done in a hamiltonian formulation, and quantum field theory in a Lagrangian formulation (the latter is because the Lagriangian treatment is automatically relativistici)
I never had a course specifically on waves. It's something you'll likely hit pretty well in whatever non-freshman E&M course you take. Beware though that some courses targeted at engineers will do AC circuits at the expense of waves. But the text is still useable to look into it yourself.
Introduction to Classical Mechanics: With Problems and Solutions is one of the best books when it comes to problems in classical mechanics.
Problems in General Physics is pretty famous as well for general physics. This one is russian, perhaps the one you're looking for.
Though, I have to warn you... these books have some very difficult problems, and these take a lot of time and effort to solve.
Don't feel as if you're inadequate because you can't solve them immediately, or that you needed help to do so. The patience you gain from trying to solve these problems is also part of the learning experience. Some problems you might take one day, some you might take one week... There are books (not these) with problems that takes years to solve.
(of course, I'm not assuming you're going to completely devote yourself to a single problem. You'll also learn to skip the problem if you can't immediately solve it)
Sounds more like thermal/statistical physics than semiconductor physics honestly.
A good book for Statistical/Thermal Physics with problems worked out is: Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics by F. Reif
A good Book for more semiconductor problems is:
Introduction to Nanoelectronics: Science, Nanotechnology, Engineering, and Applications by V. Mitin
Also, let's not forget about Michael Spivak's^1 Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics 1.
^1 you may have heard about his books on Calculus and Differential Geometry
That's perfect then, don't let me stop you :). When you're ready for the real stuff, the standard books on quantum mechanics are (in roughly increasing order of sophistication)
By the time you get to Shankar, you'll also need some classical mechanics. The best text, especially for self-learning, is [Taylor's Classical Mechanics.] (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372650839&sr=1-1&keywords=classical+mechanics)
Those books will technically have all the math you need to solve the end-of-chapter problems, but a proper source will make your life easier and your understanding better. It's enough to use any one of
When you have a good handle on that, and you really want to learn the language used by researchers like Dr. Greene, check out
Aside from the above, the most relevant free online sources at this level are
So when you say "up the ante" do you want to
(1) Read about more exotic topics in general (ie. like popular books, videos, etc.)
(2) Read a rigorous textbook about physics.
If you enjoying teaching yourself, here are some undergraduate classical mechanics textbooks:
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-1-David-Halliday/dp/0471320579
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mechanics-Daniel-Kleppner/dp/0521198216
You'll need to know calculus and vectors, which might be difficult to learn simultaneously with the physics.
I'm not trying to bash option (1) either; learning about topics in general is exciting and will motivate you to learn more.
You shouldn't jump face first into astrophysics. You should get a good background in the fundamentals of physics first, otherwise you're just going to get confused and frustrated. I recommend The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind, professor of physics at Stanford University. It's written in a way that's accessible and easy to understand.
If you want to start with mechanics, Spivak of all people [wrote a mechanics text.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0914098322) I've personally never read it, but I've
suffered more than enough at his handsread enough of his other works to expect good things.In more advanced physics, there's general relativity, which is built on manifold theory, and gauge theory, which has lots of interesting math happening behind the scenes (and sometimes very prevalently, as with the gauge groups, usually taken to be SU(n)). Most physics texts will treat the mathier topics as of secondary interest and importance, and focus on the actual physics, so you might have some trouble finding an appropriately rigorous text, but there certainly exist such entities.
Thanks. The HJE is usually included in a course on advanced classical mechanics. Landau and Lifshitz do a great job with it, but I actually prefer a more direct derivation.
Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics by Reif https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Statistical-Thermal-Physics-Frederick/dp/1577666127
My introduction to both General and Special Relativity was from John Taylor's Classical Mechanics, in free pdf form or in a dead trees format. The General Relativity section is lumped toward the end of the 'Special Relativity' chapter. It would be a great place to start.
Quite honestly, I would recommend teaming up with somebody who KNOWS physics. I cannot point you to any tutorials, because I don't know of any. I suggest you check out what books the universities assign. For my part, I used Knight's Physics for Scientists and Engineers which, while not flawless, was okay.
Just look for something on Basic Classical Mechanics. (I would recommend Taylor's book on Mechanics, but that's too advanced...)
I haven't looked through this:
http://www.amazon.com/Newtonian-Mechanics-M-I-T-Introductory-Physics/dp/0393099709
but, I used French's Vibrations and Waves and that was a GREAT book. So maybe that'll help, too.
Also, get a book on linear algebra for all that vector stuff; either that, or get a book on mathematical methods for physics in particular.
A solid intro book to QM is Zetilli, but as others have mentioned you might want to learn some Classical Mechanics first and for that I recommend Landau or Goldstein. Landau is usually more of a grad book and Goldstein is an undergrad one.
My recommendations:
See also:
Haven't looked at it so can't speak to it's quality but:
If the question is "Is there a flow field that does x?", the answer is usually yes.
It is definitely possible to calculate the equations of motion for a vortex. In principle, the Navier-Stokes equation does the job (it's ma=ΣF, written in differential form for fluids). You might like to have a look at Fetter & Walecka, which has a whole section on the approximate equations of motion of vortex lines and such in fluids. (Warning -- that is a graduate level textbook, so proceed with caution...)
There's a book entitled "Introduction to Classical Mechanics". It's aimed at the beginner and has some fun little problems.
Or, there's "Problem and Solutions on Mechanics" which is a little more dry, but a nice refresher on mechanics for students.
It might also be that I simply don't understand enough of either. I have only read Einstein's relativity stuff a couple of times and the quantum mechanics books I've read are pretty low level.
I also tried to make it pretty ELI5, so it's probably pretty wrong to start. I dunno. I can armchair physics OK, but everything I know is probably wrong somehow.
My undergrad was in pure math. My current focus is on applications of deep learning to computational genomics, but I can feel my lack of practical skills, so here I am...
As far as the study group, I was thinking of modifying the MIT program a slightly. For example, 8.01 is the standard freshman physics course there. It doesn't assume knowledge of vector calculus, linear algebra and differential equations, so it (generally) avoids lifting systems into three dimensions, or deriving equations (of motion) analytically from the diff. eqs. We can swap this course for
8.012, which does not shy away from the math. The course uses "Introduction to Mechanics". Since, I presume, most people who are up for this study group will have some kind of degree in science or engineering, swapping 8.01 for 8.012 (and so forth) may be the way to go. Thoughts?
I just saw the domino tower thread for the first time. While I agree with Mick and others re the actual argument at hand re acceleration (and I'm not really interested in rehashing it), I disagree with you being banned over that argument. That said, I am not here as emissary for Mick or anyone else. I post at metabunk because I find the moderation is typically very good and I know posts there typically draw informed discussion, are cataloged well by google, and can be highly viewed. If you want to negotiate the terms of your return to metabunk, you have to do so with the moderators there. Right now, however, Mick's main thread on the tower challenge is public and so I just figured it would make sense for you to directly participate in it rather than trying to snipe into it from a forum that no one else reads.
Re the tower challenge--do I really need to point out that this challenge is of your own creation? Yes, the current model being discussed is Mick's, but I don't see how that fact in any way stops you from trying to win the challenge yourself, if for no reason other than it is a subject in which you obvious have great interest and the process (regardless of the result) would be edifying for you.
Bazant explains that collapse can be arrested given certain conditions. So does NIST. They both explain very clearly that those conditions were not present in the WTC towers on September 11 and it is very simple: the conditions for arrest were a block of 6 or fewer floors comprising the top block section. How is that not clear? Not addressing such issues head on is why your thread was properly relegated to the rambles section.
Re the titanic--you are missing the point about defining inevitability with respect to certain conditions present. There were certainly conditions under which the titanic could have hit an ice berg and not sunk. Those were the conditions present on the day it sunk, though.
In any case, I appreciate the generally amiable exchange, but I think I'm going to bow out of this thread here and hope to see you back on metabunk at some point. One last note I'll leave you with is that you should consider spending some time learning physics from the ground up through a course of study and rather than as a purely ad hoc hobby. I'd recommend Khan Academy for starters and then exploring MIT's opencourseware. You might also want to consider buying a standard text, such as Kleppner's, which is used in the MIT courses. I don't know how to get you to grasp the fundamental issues with the way you present your claims, but maybe you gaining the perspective of a more rigorous and holistic background on these subjects will help. If nothing else, it may help you communicate your ideas more clearly.
EDIT:
For example, here is are some excerpts form the Kleppner text that may help illustrate Mick's point re properly describing the acceleration of a body at rest:
"We describe the operation of acting on the test mass with a stretched rubber band as “applying” a force. (Note that we have sidestepped the question of what a force is and have limited ourselves to describing how to produce it―namely, by stretching a rubber band by a given amount.) When we apply the force, the test mass accelerates at some rate, a. If we apply two standard stretched rubber bands, side by side, we find that the mass accelerates at the rate 2a, and if we apply them in opposite directions, the acceleration is zero. The effects of the rubber bands add algebraically for the case of motion in a straight line."
(Emphasis added.)
Start reading it for free: http://a.co/3fsTSp2
AND
"...Combining all these observations, we conclude that the total force F on a body of mass m is F = Fi, where Fi is the ith applied force. If a is the net acceleration, and ai the acceleration due to Fi alone, then we have or F = ma. This is Newton’s second law of motion."
(Emphasis added.)
Start reading it for free: http://a.co/ds1uc9c
Of course, the text unpacks that quite a bit so keep reading. I think your fundamental misunderstandings would mostly be addressed if you studied these topics rigorously from first principles as Mick and others have done.
If I recall correctly, Feynman expanded on an idea that Dirac wrote in the appendices of his quantum mechanics text book. I imagine it was this text: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-Dirac/dp/0198520115
And I cannot comment on the propagator definition.
Any one any thoughts on "the theoretical minimum" by Leonard Susskind? Decent place to start?
https://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Minimum-Start-Doing-Physics/dp/0465075681/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538567639&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+theoretical+minimum&dpPl=1&dpID=41mYr5xwzeL&ref=plSrch
Maybe this will help
I would STRONGLY recommend The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky. While not strictly focused on QM, it’s an excellent introduction to physics and some of the basic mathematics required.
For a good popular overview that has a strong historical focus, this is great: Quantum
Personally, and I think most philosophers of quantum physics, think Krauss is a bit of a hack when it comes to exploring the conceptual and foundational elements of quantum physics. See this: Krauss review
Albert actually has a really good introduction book to quantum mechanics that focuses on the more conceptual side of things, aimed at those with little background in physics: Quantum Mechanics and Experience
Great with the calculus! For classical mechanics you only really need to know how to derivate and integrate simple functions, so the math there is more or less on high-school level. Oddly enough though, all the calculus is skipped during high-school physics and substituted with neat equations so you don't have to think for yourself.
I cannot personally recommend any books unfortunately. I had the privilege to have all the material needed for my classes either written or on videos. However, I assume you wouldn't be able to read the letters, much less understand any of it. That being said, I know that Berkeley's introductory physics textbooks (mechanics) are widely used and highly recommended. I personally feel they are a little too extensive and would tire out most people digging into them.
In my opinion the best way is to simply find a university that publishes their courses online. That way you have a schedule made for you, read this, then do homework etc. The lectures by Walter Lewin are very good, with lots of live examples, and his chalk skills are a sight to behold. I imagine you can find the relevant assignments they had as well. Practice is crucial, while you can binge watch all the lectures within a couple of days and understand them, if you don't do exercises yourself, you won't have learned much.
If you're wanting a physicists perspective, I would look at Fetter and Walecka's Mechanics book. Everything is done from a bottom up perspective, i.e. they build to get to these concepts, not just drop them on you like I imagine engineering books tend to do. It's not an easy book, aimed at a first year physics grad student, but not overly mathematical or rigorous. Plus, it's really cheap (Dover for the win), so that's nice.
I have no experience with Young's books, but if you want to look into alternatives a very popular text book for physics is Physics for Scientists & Engineers by Giancoli, perfect for introductionary courses into classical mechanics. For a more advanced text book about classical mechanics you might want to look into Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor.
My reason is because I've been teaching myself linear algebra during the summer and thought it might be a good idea to practice my new skills in physics.
Edit: I hadn't thought about re examining classical mechanics from a more advanced perspective. To confirm the textbooks you're talking about is this Morin and this Taylor?
Wow, thanks for the Reddit gold, that's awesome! It's been my pleasure to have the discussion with you. As for a good textbook, I have a few suggestions. For a pretty good broad look at optics from both classical and quantum points of view, give Saleh and Teich a look. For purely quantum stuff, my undergrad textbook was by Griffiths, which I enjoyed quite a bit, though I recall the math being a bit daunting when I took the course. Another book I've read that I liked quite a bit was by Shankar. I felt it was a bit more accessible. Finally, if you want quantum mechanics from the source, Dirac is a bit of a standard. It's elegant, but can be a bit tough.
I have the ebook unfortunately, but it looks like almost the entire first chapter is viewable on Amazon's store page for the book through the preview (Look Inside) feature. I scanned briefly, but the only omission I noticed was page 31. http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interactions-4th-Ruth-Chabay-ebook/dp/B00UGE1KC2/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
This is probably the best book for your situation. It was written to help philosophy grads turn into philosophers of physics. It does the mathematical basics you need to understand QM, but its different from a QM textbook in that instead of going on to look at applications like the simple harmonic oscillator or the hydrogen atom it goes on to look at conceptual issues. It won't give you the grounding you need to actually do physics, but it will let you think about it properly.
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741137
No this one
https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Solutions-Introductory-Mechanics-David/dp/1482086921
This e-text for 'fun.' xD For studying for my comps without horking massive books around!
If you want a book about quantum mechanics, I'd recommend Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-D-Albert/dp/0674741137/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267649766&sr=8-2), as it is intended to be "accessible to anyone with high school mathematics". Just as with the previous book, this doesn't touch on the topics you mention, but is a better bet if you are looking for more information on quantum mechanics itself.
Yeah, I have that one. 14th edition. I'm trying to find similar to this book. Btw, had a chat with my former professor about the book Electricity and Magnetism by the same author. I'd like to find more though
I would assume that if you're a music major and "been good at math", you might be referring to the math of high school. In any case, it would help if you spend some time doing/reviewing calculus in parallel while you go through some introductory physics book. So here's what you could do:
Other than that, feel free to google your question. You'll find good info on websites like physicsforums.com, physics.stackexchange.com, as well as past threads on this subreddit where others have asked similar questions.
Once you're past the intro (i.e., solid grasp of calculus, and solid grasp of mechanics, which could take up to a year), you are ready to venture further into math and physics territory. In that regard, I recommend you look at posts by Gerard 't Hooft and John Baez.
Albert works as a philosopher (at Columbia U, very prestigious). But he's a post-grad in theoretical physics. If by physicist you mean someone who works up calculations, he is not. He is someone who understands physics and philosophy very well however. He works among physicists and is a leading person on the philosophy of QM. Quantum Mechanics and Experience is a staple intro in undergrad.
You're right, I'm not a physicist, but I'm well educated in physics. On the other hand, it seems that you didn't read my post, and that you are not well acquainted with either the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor with the rich literature in philosophy of science with respect to the MWI and it's implications. I suggest you take a look at David Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience, David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation and the anthology Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality.
Physics for Mathematicians provides an axiomatic introduction to classical mechanics: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Mathematicians-Mechanics-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098322
Axiomatizing physics is one of Hilbert's problems.