Re: [Phys-L] textbook recommendation

[Jeffrey Schnick <JSchnick@Anselm.Edu>]

My colleague uses Tom Moore's Six Ideas units R, Q, and T.  R is heavy into space-time diagrams, in T there is an emphasis on statistical mechanics at the expense of some kinetic theory, and in Q the emphasis is on states and transitions between states.  My colleague says it is a good book for an interactive teaching style (Mazur's peer instruction method is built in) and it is readable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Larry Smith
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:12 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