Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] textbook recommendation



I don't recommend "Quantum Physics" by Townshend for your situation; it is allegedly for the "follow-on Modern Physics Course", but believe it is too sophisticated for a situation like yours (more demanding then Thorton&Rex text). I used Townshend last fall and regret the decision; I don't not intend to use it next year.

Currently I'm considering using the three volumes of Moore's "Six Ideas that Shaped Physics" that include modern physics topics and then supplementing with some more advanced material to flesh out the semester. Out first year physics course does not include modern physics topics; obviously if you are using Moore's text in the first year course this suggestion won't work.

Joel R.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Larry Smith
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: [Phys-L] textbook recommendation

Requests for textbook recommendations come along every once in a while on this list, but the answers often change over time, so I'd like to re-ask about a textbook for an introductory modern physics course.

My students are sophomores (or super-sophomores--we are a 2-yr college) and have either completed the year-long, calc-based "physics for scientists and engineers" series or are in its final semester. Most of them also have had differential equations and linear algebra or are in them concurrently.

The course is just one semester (3 credit hours) without a lab. I've been teaching it as a survey (broad but not incredibly deep).

We've been using Thorton & Rex "Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers," but it is too much to do in one semester and isn't always the clearest exposition. I would love to see a book that is pitched at the right level, covers the right set of topics, has correct physics (as John Denker would insist), and is based on PER principles (as John Clement would insist). Readable and engaging would be welcome bonuses.

Of the others I have already on my shelf, I think I like Randy Harris' the best; but I would love other recommendations, with reasons.

I hope it would cover special relativity too (apparently some leave that out or relegate it to an appendix), but it shouldn't mention relativistic mass (:-).

Thanks,
Larry

P.S. Isn't it interesting that we still call stuff that is over 100 years old "modern"?
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l