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

Depending on what you want to cover, you should consider Krane. Broad range of topics covered with interesting experimental examples. He does say "We choose not to use relativistic mass, because it can be a misleading concept." Written before PER was a big thing. It would be interesting to see what Oregon State uses since Ken taught there and was involved in their re-vamp of undergraduate physics courses. You should take a look at how they handle their undergrad program. It looks interesting.


-----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