Classical Mechanics (3rd Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Formalism, dated
Review: As an advanced undergrad, this text was the most fun, easiest to read and work through, of any I'd read. It was a real pleasure to learn from it. Later in life I found that I did not need it at all as background for research. The reason for this is that the book is strong on formalism but weak on analysis of hard problems. The problem with the text is that it was written in the age when classical mechanics was thought to be useful mainly as preparation for studying quantum mechanics, and the later emphasis on canonical perturbation theory as background for studying accelerator physics still did not distinguish integrable from nonintegrable systems.

The text is useful for learning Lagrangian formalism, Poisson brackets and the formulation of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalism for fields. However, it provides only integrable examples-the newest version throws a too-often chewed bone in the direction of 'chaos', but otherwise the examples and problems are of the globally integrable type. Worse, global integrability is implicitly assumed but is then confused with local integrability via the trivially correct claim that initial conditions are adequate for solving Hamilton's equations via backward in time integration. Liouville's integrability theorem, the condition for the existence of a global canonical transformation to action angle variables (or for solving the H-J pde globally) is not even mentioned. For a treatment of Classical Mechanics (including damped, driven Newtonian systems) from the standpoint of the methods of modern nonlinear dynamics, see my book Classical Mechanics (Cambridge, 1997).

Rating:
Summary: A Good book
Review: °ò¥»¤W³o¥»®Ñ¨Ã¤£¦nŪ ¦³³\¦hºë½oªº¼Æ¾Ç±Ô­z ÁöµM¤£Ãø ¦ý­n°Ñ³z¥þ¸q
¤]­nªá¨Ç®É¶¡ ¦Ó³Ì¬°¸á¯fªº¤j·§¬O¬Û¹ï½×¨º³¹ªº¼Æ¾Ç ¹ï¨­¬°¤j¾Ç¥Íªº§ÚÁÙºâÁ}²` ¥H¥j¨å¤O¾Ç³o¼Ëªº¬ì¥Ø¨Ó»¡ ³o¥»ºâ¬O³Ì¦nªº®Ñ¤F ¦Ó²Ä¤Tª©¤£¤Ö¦P¾Ç(©M§Ú)ı±o¤ñ²Ä¤GªO®t ²Ä¤Gª©ªº¿ù»~¸û¤Ö ®¦ ¤£ºÞ¦p¦ó³o¯uªº¬O¤@¥»Ãø±oªº¦n®Ñ
¨Ó¦Û¥xÆW(Taiwan)

Rating:
Summary: Still the standard for mechanics
Review: Even more then 30 years later, this book is still the standard in mechanics for graduate courses. Working through it will give an excellent understanding of mechanics. However, due to its age it falls a little short on some areas such as relativity. It woudl need an overhaul here. Yet, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, so it should not be misunderstood here. What is needed here is an update on more recent developments in relativity and this is the primary reason why I couldn't give it a five star. Also, if one studies Goldstein first, then working on Jackson's Electrodynamics poses relatively little problems since the mathematical level is effectively the same as required in both books. Nevertheless, starting with Goldstein will be easier then with Jackson.

Rating:
Summary: A good text, once the best.
Review: Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" appeared at the right time. The development of quantum mechanics demanded familiarity with methods of advanced mechanics that no student of physics had been introduced to. Dirac told in a semminar that he didn't know what a Poisson bracket was, when he was constructing his version ot quantum mechanics (where Poisson brackets play a fundamental role). Heisenberg didn't know matrices, in similar circumstances. Max Born did know these things, and actually wrote a superb book on mechanics using them, but it was in German, at an advanced level and called Mechanics of the Atom. The book then available in English was the formidable Whittaker "Analytical Dynamics", whose exercises took sometimes a whole page just to be stated! In this panorama, in the fifties, Addison-Wesley published the beautifully produced Goldstein. It was an instant sensation. In the introduction the author candidly confessed that, in his opinion, a cou! rse in mechanics justified itself only as a preparation for quantum mechanics, and that was clearly the slant of the book. It was extremely well written, except for a disastrous chapter on the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The exercises were not at the level of the text: you found much better ones in Slater, Frank's "Mechanics", for instance. The references were excellent, commented, and gave the reader a sense of perspective (and of awe, in the company of men like Riemann, Born, Weber...). I loved the book and hated the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Later on the slim book by Landau, Lifshitz, "Mechanics", entered the scene and showed that Goldstein's program could be made better, briefer, and that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, clearly and sensibly derived, was the jewel of the crown. Not only, in the subsequent volumes of their Theoretical Physics course, they showed how invaluable this Hamilton-Jacobi was, by applying it with great skill in all kinds of problems.! Then, finally, it became clear that mechanics was not dead! : the whole affair of stability, chaos, etc, exploded, and it became impossible to consider mechanics just as a ladder to quantum mechanics. So, even the philosophy of the venerable Goldstein had to be forgotten. Still, Goldstein's Classical Mechanics is alive, possibly now more Classical than Mechanics.

Rating:
Summary: A good text, once the best.
Review: Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" appeared at the right time. The development of quantum mechanics demanded familiarity with methods of advanced mechanics that no student of physics had been introduced to. Dirac told in a semminar that he didn't know what a Poisson bracket was, when he was constructing his version ot quantum mechanics (where Poisson brackets play a fundamental role). Heisenberg didn't know matrices, in similar circumstances. Max Born did know these things, and actually wrote a superb book on mechanics using them, but it was in German, at an advanced level and called Mechanics of the Atom. The book then available in English was the formidable Whittaker "Analytical Dynamics", whose exercises took sometimes a whole page just to be stated! In this panorama, in the fifties, Addison-Wesley published the beautifully produced Goldstein. It was an instant sensation. In the introduction the author candidly confessed that, in his opinion, a cou! rse in mechanics justified itself only as a preparation for quantum mechanics, and that was clearly the slant of the book. It was extremely well written, except for a disastrous chapter on the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The exercises were not at the level of the text: you found much better ones in Slater, Frank's "Mechanics", for instance. The references were excellent, commented, and gave the reader a sense of perspective (and of awe, in the company of men like Riemann, Born, Weber...). I loved the book and hated the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Later on the slim book by Landau, Lifshitz, "Mechanics", entered the scene and showed that Goldstein's program could be made better, briefer, and that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, clearly and sensibly derived, was the jewel of the crown. Not only, in the subsequent volumes of their Theoretical Physics course, they showed how invaluable this Hamilton-Jacobi was, by applying it with great skill in all kinds of problems.! Then, finally, it became clear that mechanics was not dead! : the whole affair of stability, chaos, etc, exploded, and it became impossible to consider mechanics just as a ladder to quantum mechanics. So, even the philosophy of the venerable Goldstein had to be forgotten. Still, Goldstein's Classical Mechanics is alive, possibly now more Classical than Mechanics.

Rating:
Summary: Sad News- Dr. Goldstein has passed on
Review: Herbert Goldstein, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Science and Engineering at Columbia, died on Jan. 12. He was 82.

Goldstein, long recognized for his scholarship in classical mechanics and reactor shielding, was the author of the graduate textbook, Classical Mechanics. The book has been a standard text since it first appeared 50 years ago and has been translated into nine languages. Goldstein's contributions to nuclear energy were honored by the U.S. Department of Energy, which awarded him the E.O. Lawrence Memorial Award in 1962. In 1977, he was the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the shielding division of the American Nuclear Society.

Goldstein was a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science since 1961. He received the Great Teacher Award, given by the Society of Columbia Graduates, in 1976. In 1984, Goldstein was the first to hold the Thomas Alva Edison Professorship at the University.

In addition to research, Goldstein devoted time to promoting scientific literacy by teaching undergraduate courses. In 1977, he taught a course he designed to increase scientific understanding of energy issues -- "Nuclear Energy: A Semi-technical View for the Non-scientist." He was also one of the faculty members instrumental in developing an innovative science course for non-scientists, "The Theory and Practice of Science," at the College.

Goldstein was a consultant for Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory. He was a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Nuclear Society, the New York Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Goldstein also was a member of the American Association of Physics Teachers and was a founding member and president of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. He received a B.S. from City College of New York in 1940 and a Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1943.

He is survived by his wife, Channa; his children, Penina, Aaron Meir and Shoshanna; and 10 grandchildren.


Rating:
Summary: Not a good text
Review: I feel this is a poor textbook. There are few examples of the treatments. The exercises are not concise, they don't get at specific points, he makes the details more elaborate than he needs to. Overall I think people say they like it because it is a strong theoretical presentation.. It is not to be used for you to apply what is in the text.. If if what about applications there would be more examples (some chapters simply don't have any) and the problems (no answers supplied by the way) would be more suited to applications than just interesting digressions.. I have had to buy this book for a course, I plan to sell it immediately once I'm done with it. I think this is one of the poorest choices of a text you can use.

Rating:
Summary: Check also Jose & Saletan
Review: I read the first printing of the third edition.

Cons first.

Some material has been deleted: the discussions of stability, some historical notes along the discussions, correspondence between HJ and Schrodinger Eqn, etc. The nice further references and notes to various other books in the end of each chapter has been omitted, the same thing happen to the extensive bibliography. A lot of typos appear in this new edition. And still no attempts to include advanced mathematical methods from differential geometry, except when discussing SR. Also, no attempt to include some worked examples. The discussions on classical fields has been shortened, a regret if we remember the need to leard classical fields before step into quantum fields.

Pros.

The book became more accessible, in fact some undergrads might be able to cope with this, either after Marion-Thornton or somewhere in the junior-senior year. The discussions on SR use the standard -2 metric instead of the awkward ict. Several discussions on one-forms and GR appeared. More problems. Also there is a new chapter in nonlinear oscillations

Suggestions.

If you want a modern book on classical mechanics check also J.V. Jose and E.J. Saletan, Classical Dynamics: A Contemporary Approach ... it offers roughly the same material PLUS advanced treatment with geometrical methods and differential geometry, and there are extensive discussions on nonlinear dynamics and classical fields. I recommend some instructors to adapt Jose & Saletan for their class, since it is cheaper, more modern, than Goldstein.

Rating:
Summary: Lack focus
Review: In my experience this book is alright when I took the course. In working environment, I found that it is not very useful. The reason is that it lacks organization and it presents not a single topic thouroughly and clearly, and thus I need to read other books that are more specialized.

A friend of mine, who is very good in mathematics, agrees with me on this. To him, Mechanics by Symon is a much better book.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: The book was in good condition, delivered fast..everything was way better than I expected. thank you.