2 comments about Mathematics for Physics and Physicists.

1. For physics students, Appel's book should be a pleasure to read. It instructs you in the essential maths tools. At a level of rigour suitable to physicists, without going unnecessarily into the full epsilon-delta approach of pure maths.
   
   Some sections are advanced. Like differential geometry. However, for those of you going into General Relativity or dynamical systems, a knowledge of this can be vital. While the section on Legesgue integration can be used when applying the use of fractals. As in calculating the approximate fractal dimension of some iterated system. Indeed, some 30 years ago, before fractals were discovered by Mandelbrot, Lebesgue integration would have been unlikely to be included in a book of this nature.



2. Though not introductory, a great book for learning the essential mathematics. It forms an excellent supplement to any mathematical physics course at the sophomore level (Physics/Engineering). The discussions in the book are very deep and sufficiently elaborate to help strengthen the student's understanding of the subject. The best part about the book is that with very few exceptions, one can just pick up the book and start reading it from the topic that he/she is most interested in without worrying about the other sections in the book/pre-requisites.

5 comments about Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics).

1. I'm experiencing some hesitation as this is hands down the most advanced book that I have ever 'reviewed' and, in fact, ever read. I have only completed Part 1 -"Relativistic Foundations" as I have to go deeper into Differential Geometry before proceeding into Part II - "Loop Quantum Gravity." Part 1 is a pretty amazing, often philosophical introduction both describing the problem that QG is trying to approach (the contradictions between QFT and GR)and laying the foundation for LQG. It becomes clear (slowly) that our notions of space and time need serious overhauling before we can understand what LQG is all about. String theory doesn't have this problem as it more or less uses our 20th century notions of space and time as its framework. Sure, it adds a few dimensions and curls some up but it's pretty much still the same old space and time. LQG does not use this framework and rather seems to work towards a physics without time. Rovelli does a masterful job in Part 1 of slowly, clearly and precisely helping the reader to make this transition. Most memorable to me is his discusson of the ten meanings of time where he demonstrates that we have already stripped time of many of its seemingly inherent properties ('flowing', 'measured' to name 2). He just proposes stripping off a few others! I'm looking forward to Part II.



2. It could be that LQG isn't as popular in the physics community as it deserves to bebecause a lot of people don't appreciate an important aspect of classical GR (covered in part I of Rovelli's book). Below I give a quick and easy argument whichuses only the very basics of GR making it accessible to anyone and also rather difficult to dismiss. The hope is that by giving this argument the browser will see that there may actually be something to LQG and have a look at this book.
   
   Ok. In 1912, while developing GR, Einstein realised something he found rather alarming. Here's one version of the argument: it starts with an utterly straightforward mathematical observation. Here is written the SHO differential equation twice Eq(1) d^2 f(x) / dx^2 + f(x) = 0 and Eq(2) d^2 g(y) / dy^2 + g(y) = 0 except in Eq(1) the independent variable is x and in Eq(2) the independent variable is y. Once we find out that a solution to Eq(1) is f(x) = cos x, we immediately know that g(y) = cos y solves Eq(2). This observation combined with general covariance has profound implications for GR. Assume pure gravity first. Say we have two coordinate systems, x-coordinates and y-coordinates. General covariance demands the equations of motion have the same form in both coordinate systems, that is, we have exactly the same differential equation to solve in both coordinate systems except in one the independent variable is x and in the other the independent variable is y. Once we find a metric function g_{ab}(x) that solves the EQM in the x-coordinates we immediately know (by exactly the same reasoning as above) that the same function written as a function of y solves the EOM in the y-coordinates. As both metric functions have the same functional form but belong to different coordinate systems, they impose different spacetime geometries. Thus we have generated a second DISTINCT solution! Now comes the problem. Say the two coordinate systems coincide at first, but at some point after t=0 we allow them to differ. We then have two solutions, they both have the same initial conditions yet they impose different spacetime geometries. The conclusion is that GR does NOT determine the proper-time between spacetime points! Bummer! The argument I have given (or rather a refinement of it) is what's known as Einstein's hole argument. It is straightforward to include matter - we have a larger set of differential equations but they still have the same form in all coordinates systems, the same argument applies and again we obtain two solutions with the same initial conditions which impose different spacetime geometries. It is very important to note that we could not have generated these extra distinct solutions if spacetime were fixed and non-dynamical, and so the resolution (background independence) only comes about when we allow spacetime to be dynamical. We can interpret these extra distinct solutions as follows. For simplicity we first assume there is no matter. Define a metric function g'_{ab} whose value at P is given by the value of g_{ab} at P_0, i.e. g'_{ab}(P) = g_{ab}(P_0). Now consider the coordinate system which assigns to P the same coordinate values that P_0 has in the x-coordinates. We then have g'_{ab} (y_0=u_0,y_1=u_1, y_2=u_2, y_3=u_3) = g_{ab} (x_0=u_0,x_1=u_1, x_2=u_2 , x_3=u_3), where u_0,u_1,u_2,u_3 range over the permissible coordinate values. But this is precisely the condition that the two metric functions have the same functional form! We see that the new solution is generated by dragging the original metric function over the spacetime manifold while keeping the coordinate lines `attached' (it is important to realise that we are not performing a coordinate transformation here). This is what's known as an active diffeomorphsm (coordinate transformations are called passive diffeomorphisms). It should be easy to see that when we have matter present, simultaneously performing an active diffeomorphism on the gravitational and matter fields generates the new distinct solution.
   
   It was only in 1915 when Einstein finally resolved the hole argument that GR was born. The resolution (mainly taken from Rovelli's book) is: as GR does not determine the distance between spacetime points, how the gravitational and matter fields are located over spacetime, and so the values they take at spacetime points, can have no physical meaning. What GR does determine are the mutual relations that exist between the gravitational field and the matter fields (i.e. the value the gravitational field takes where the matter field takes such and such value). From these mutual relations we can form a notion of matter being located with respect to the gravitational field and vice-versa, (see Rovelli's book for exposition). What Einstein discovered was that physical entities are located with respect to one another only and not with respect to the spacetime manifold. This is what background independence is! And what Einstein was referring to when he made his remark "beyond my wildest expectations". We learnt from SR that position and motion only have meaning relative to an inertial frame; GR teaches us that there are no background geometric reference systems at all, position and motion have become completely relative! LQG people regard background independence as a central tenet in their approach to quantizing gravity - a classical symmetry that ought to be preserved by the quantum theory if we are to be truly quantizing geometry(=gravity). One immediate consequence is that LQG is UV-finite because small and large distances are gauge equivalent. A less immediate consequence is that the theory can be formulated at a level of rigour of mathematical physics, which is nothing to sneeze at in the absence of experimental guidance.
   
   Perturbative string theory (as well as a number of non-perturbative developments) is not background independent, the scattering matrix they calculate is not invariant under active diffeomorphisms. Of the end of 2005 Rovelli et al have put together the formulism to calculate background independent scattering amplitudes (this is no easy task!). Rovelli has obtained Newton's law from the fully non-perturbative quantum theory. However it is still early days and this result is not yet convincing established.
   
   To finish off, we should see this book on more shelves and in more book stores!! Also, look out for another LQG book by Thomas Thiemann and Peter Woit's book in April.



3. I have to start by saying that I think the title is very deceptive. This is hardly a book on quantum gravity, more accurately it's a book on one approach to quantum gravity, namely loop quantum gravity. No other approaches to quantum gravity are seriously considered. Even the current leading candidate for providing a quantum theory of gravity, i.e. string theory, is only presented as a straw man to show how poorly it fares (in the author's mind) compared to loop quantum gravity.
   
   The book begins with a brief discussion on general issues in quantum gravity and by presenting some background in general relativity.
   
   He contends that it is wrong to approach quantum gravity by treating general relativity as just another field theory. Two central themes of his approach to quantum gravity seem to be that one should not ignore the fact that general relativity is a theory of spacetime and the correct way to approach finding the quantum theory of gravity (although I don't believe he uses these exact words) is to quantize spacetime. This will lead to spacetime having a discrete structure and will provide a cutoff that will remove the ultraviolet divergences of quantum field theory (this is somewhat different from the way they are removed in string theory). While I agree both of these ideas have a lot of intuitive appeal, it's clear that the jury is still out.
   
   The treatment of general relativity focuses mainly on things that will be useful for developing loop quantum gravity. This includes formulating it in terms of connections (instead of the metric) and presenting it in the Hamiltonian form. I found it a bit odd that he included discussions of "Newton's bucket" and Mach's principle(s), while they have some historical importance, it seems unlikely (to me anyway) that these will provide any important insights going forward.
   
   After providing some background in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory he goes on to develop loop quantum gravity. The presentation is clear, the most up-to-date I've come across.
   
   One of the results that is of most interest is his outline of the calculation of black hole entropy by counting states. The degrees of freedom are given by quantum fluctuations of the horizon. The result, up to an undetermined multiplicative constant, is the Bekenstein entropy. This is presented as an impressive accomplishment of loop quantum gravity. The string theory calculation is dismissed (in a footnote) as having only been done for the unphysical case of an extremal black hole. Rather than just taking the author's word for it, I'd suggest reading the string theory derivation, for example in Polchinski's book "String Theory" Volume II chapter 14. Then decide which, if either, is more impressive, but there are a couple of things to note. One the string theory calculation that the author refers to gets the multiplicative factor right. Another, which the author ignores or is unaware of, is that Polchinski gives a qualitative argument that string theory gets the entropy of the Schwarzschild black hole correct to within an undetermined multiplicative factor.
   
   I thought the appendix that covered the history of quantum gravity great.
   
   One could argue that anybody that has a realistic chance of understanding the material in the book would need a fairly strong background in general relativity and quantum field theory. Such readers would easily recognize that this book hardly provides a balanced perspective. Even so, I wish the book had a more appropriate title. As a book on loop quantum gravity I think it's pretty good and rates about four stars. As a book on quantum gravity I don't see how it could rate more than one or two stars.



4. This is a excellent book. Dr. Rovelli is attempting a rare exercise in that he is trying to substantially change a physicists view of the world. This book is equal parts philosphy and mathematics and tries to instill in the reader an intuition that most books never achieve. The book is not for someone who likes to be given an equation or model and then is shown how to "turn the crank" to obtain an answer or those who think the theory is finished as long as you constrain yourself to stay away from the pathologies. (Think Standard Model and a single photon that has the energy density of a black hole. ) Most present day theories have these pathologies, patches and inconsistencies precisely because they were built from previous approximate theories and then were modified when problems showed up. This book starts with a clean sheet of paper and asks, "What should a relativistic quantum theory of gravity look like?' "What are the mathematical structures that are needed and how do they fit together to give us a consistent view of the world?" Indeed the book goes back through classical mechanics and quantum just to show what the mathematical structures do in each of these early theories. The philosophical basis, the "why is this important", for the combination of quantum ideas and the philosophy of relativism is very well laid out in this book. That is what I was seeking, "the why". Theories that throw another constraint on the space of solutions, or add more symmetry just to fix problems that pop up means that they have serious flaws in their basic foundations that need to be addressed differently. Dr. Rovelli shows that loop quantum gravity has the same clean sparseness as it's foundations and is very appealing. The discrete quantization of volume and area is a major sucess. If you like having your world view changed, a new paradigm, I highly recommend this book.



5. I'm a new comer to quantum gravity. Although I only have some background in classical mechanics and relativity , I thought the books is quite approachable as most of the terms are explained cearly following the logical reasioning. A side note: Besides string and loop quantum gravity, the book also mentioned differernt version of theoretical framework such as tiwster theory and Euclidean quantum gravity. Its quite disappointing that the book didn't go into detail of each theory and possibly give a comparison between different theory.

5 comments about String Theory, Vol. 1 (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics).

1. The two volumes introduce many important recent developments in string theory not covered in Green, Schwarz & Witten's Superstring text such as D-branes, dualities, etc. However, I found GSW's treatment of basic materials easier to follow because the authors try to explain things intuitively. Although many physical insight in Polchinski's book is sacrificed, it makes up for them through completeness and mathematical rigor. However, I highly recommend that you read Di Francesco et al's conformal field theory book (read chapters 3-7, 10 and 12-13) to get a better feel for stuff like operator state mapping, OPE's, Virasoro algebra, vertex operators, etc. Of course a good course in QFT, GR and some basic familiarity with SUSY, Rep. theory, & some algebraic topology are probably a prereq although Polchinski claims the book is pretty much self-contained. Lastly, the book suffers a little from numerous typos (atleast the 1st edition) but corrections are updated frequently on a ucsb website address.



2. This is an exceptionally well written book of the highest quality. In many ways, it definitely accomplishes what it sets out to do-give graduate level students and professional physicists an advanced string theory book that can prepare them for research. This book is not one that is going to hold your hand. Nonetheless, it is very well written and has a clear and well organized exposition.
   
   Right now, I am writing a string theory book of my own so have been reading and reviewing a lot of books. You will see that most of my reviews are positive. The reason I mention this is that maybe you can take my reviews a little more seriously since I am simultaneously trying to wade through a number of these books.
   
   The notorious "path integral" is of course, a vital component when learning string theory at this level. What I find basically annoying is that nobody, even Polchinski, seems to have found a CLEAR and SIMPLE way to teach people what a path integral is and how to calculate them. I give Polchinski a B+ for his effort in the appendix, but come on people-can't we do better? I have yet to read a description of what a path integral is without 1) Getting a major headache and 2) being able to sit down and calculate them. I think Polchinski or someone else with an inclination to writing textbooks ought to just focus on that-write a small book on path integrals that finally makes this technique accessible to the majority of the human race.
   
   OK so where are you in your string theory program. Just staring out? This is not the book for you. I like Becker, Becker & Schwarz for "beginnners" (I am assuming you have a significant background in math & physics, but maybe you're not a star grad student at Princeton). I also liked the books by Kaku. Once you've gone through Becker et. al. you can tackle this one.
   
   I think just a basic understanding of quantum field theory is all you need, but the stumbling block is going to be the path integral. If you get path integrals, then this book will be a breeze. If you don't, then you're not going to know what the hell he is talking about.



3. This book succeeds in what seems to be the impossible. It actually presents a clear, up to date, and entertaining version of a field that is still very much in a state of active research and is still, after all these years, on quite uncertain ground. By studying this, the reader who thinks intelligently about the material presented will be able to form his/her own opinions on this still somewhat controversial topic and will be able to converse intelligently with others who have opinions on the topic. I know that for me personally, this text opened up beautiful ideas which, to a large extent, are still unexplored. Before I read this book, my gut feelings about the topic were that it was rather dubious at best, but now that I understand (I think) the basic ideas of the field, I feel quite comfortable in it, indeed almost as if it is completely natural. What I think is one of the best things about this book is that it does not assume the pretense that string theory is on firm ground, that everything is quite certain and that string theory HAS to be the final theory of nature in all its glory. I find this attitude EXTREMELY pretensious and annoying. Instead, it simply covers what we know about string theory, and explains in detail just why it is consistent, and why it offers an explanation for what we see in nature. In short, it leaves just enough room for the imagination of an intelligent reader to philosophize as to the meaning of the theory and as to its ultimate place in nature
   As for practical details, it seems to me that the reader should at the very least have a firm understanding of Quantum Field Theory (at least at the level of Weinberg's first volume, see my review on that modern masterpiece), and to a lesser extent of General Relativity, before even attempting to tackle this. I know that I myself, despite the fact that I have read several texts on QFT, had to reread several sizeable chunks of the book to fully digest it.



4. In short, I think volumes I and II of "String Theory" are the best books on string theory available. Presumably any serious student of string theory will study them both. The writing style is clear, physical considerations are at the forefront, the selection of topics is excellent and the treatment is as up-to-date as any I'm aware of.
   
   Volume I covers the bosonic string. Of course this doesn't provide a realistic model for our universe, but understanding it forms the foundation of the study of more realistic string theories.
   
   The first chapter provides the physical motivation for string theory. A brief description of some current unsolved problems in physics, and how string theory may resolve them, is given. Most notably this includes not only providing a quantum theory of gravity, but also providing a grand unified theory. A brief outline of techniques used throughout the book is given. These are covered in more detail as the book develops and include: the Polyakov action (how to get it from the Nambu-Goto form and why it's more useful), the Polyakov action symmetries, string theory as a two-dimensional quantum field theory, string boundary conditions, the string spectra, supersymmetry (worldsheet and spacetime) and the critical dimension. This is an excellent introduction and nicely sets the stage for the rest of the book.
   
   The next chapter presents conformal field theory. It's also an excellent introduction. In particular covering conformal field theory with anticommuting fields. The Virasoro algebra is also derived. He could have covered these conformal field theory concepts as they came up, but I liked having them in one central location early in the book.
   
   Strings take center stage again in the following chapter as the Polyakov path integral is examined in great detail. Among the results are a calculation of the critical dimension and the recovery of general relativity in the low energy limit of string theory. These are just a couple of the interesting results, there is much more in this chapter.
   
   The following chapters quantize the string, calculate the string spectrum, derive the S-matrix, calculate tree level scattering amplitudes and calculate one-loop amplitudes (higher order amplitudes are covered in the final chapter). One of many things that stand out is his discussion of divergences. He describes the difference between infrared and ultraviolet divergences. After showing ultraviolet divergences are absent in string theory he comments on how the mechanisms that remove them is different for open and closed strings. This is just one example of how physical concepts are kept at the forefront.
   
   The chapter on compactification covers more than just the basics such as (D - 4) dimensions must be compactified and this gives rise to some extra gauge fields. Orbifolds are introduced in this chapter. It also covers T-duality, one of the important (and unexpected) symmetries of string theories. D-branes are also introduced (D-branes are covered in more detail in volume II), obviously this is an important concept in string theory. I was happy to see such important concepts introduced so quickly.
   
   In short, this is a great book. Even with only light coverage of supersymmetry (this is covered in detail in volume II) many interesting and up-to-date topics are presented. Clearly the author put a lot of time into thinking about how to make a difficult subject as approachable as possible. Throughout the book he anticipates questions the reader may have, or maybe should have, and addresses them.



5. Dr. Polchinski may know a lot on string theory but he doesn't know that much on how to write a book. I have been struggling with this book trying to learn string theory and it has been a total failure. You may think it's me but is not. I have studied chapters 1 to 4. I will announce some of its bad features: 1-The notation is awful specially on chapter 2 when he defines the infinitesimal variation of a physical quantity in a very complicated way, all formulas are presented in terms of awful excesively complicated expresions that make you feel sick (and I'm not joking), also on chapter two he defines a way for applying Wicks theorem (eq.(2.2.7)) using exponential operators but I finally gave up and did it my way for calculating expression (2.2.13). 2-Many of the results are not derived and trying to understand what happen from line to line is, besides being a mystery, in my opinion hard to say the less.
   3- On chapter 3 I liked the way he calculates de Faddeev Popov determinant in terms of ghosts and you begin to hope that the book is finally going to start getting better but is not, on page 102 and 'till the end of the chapter (page 118) he starts just throwing a lot of equations that you just can't understand where they came from, specially page 105 where he uses the geodesic distance to higher orders but never explains nor show what this expressions are nor what approximations he is doing, nor where they came from. Then again on page 107 he gives a relation between operators regularized by dimensional regularization and by 'polchinski' regularization, at least the second one is defined but the other is not (on curved space)and he just shows some awful equations that no one knows where they come from. This book has been written for someone who already knows a lot on string theory but it is not for someone who is trying to learn string theory for the first time. All in all try instead the classic book by Green Schwarz and Witten or the one by Theisen and this one use it only as a reference.

5 comments about Handbook of Mathematics.

1. Bronstein's "Taschenbuch der Mathematik" is a longtime favorite among german science and engineering students. English language readers should be aware however, that there are numerous different editions of this book. Not only were the german editions constantly enlarged and reworked, but there were also two publishers of the same book, one in East Germany (Teubner Verlag), one in West Germany (Harri Deutsch Verlag). Today both of these publishers sell a "Taschenbuch der Mathematik" based on the original Bronstein, yet they are completely different books. The english edition by Springer Verlag advertised above is based on the current Harri Deutsch edition. An english translation of the Teubner edition is now available as the "Oxford Users' Guide to Mathematics" from Oxford University Press. It is mostly considered to be the better 'Bronstein' (even though Teubner and OUP have dropped his name because the new edition was completely rewritten by E. Zeidler).



2. This book is exactly what the title says it is; a handbook of mathematical techniques and formulas for scientists and engineers. It is more a handbook than a book on mathematics and assumes a prior knowledge on the subjects covered. Readers of this english version of the Bronshtein should take note that it is a "raw" translation of the german version and so some discussion may not do justice to the theory. This in no way takes away from the fact it is an exceptional book and you'd be hard pressed to find any other book with more mathematical content.



3. This handbook contains more material than I find in any other single source that I happen to have. But I don't use it as frequently as I use the analogous CRC handbook, or MathWorld and Wikipedia on the Web, or the ancient NBS handbook. Why not? Because one uses a handbook, not as a textbook, but as a source for things one should know, but don't (or perhaps once knew but have forgotten). So one wants to find the thing one is looking for, refresh or extend one's memory, and then put the handbook aside and go back to the problem one is trying to solve. I have trouble locating what I'm looking for in Bronshtein and Semendayev, and when I find it, I often find that I have to look up things elsewhere in the volume to get all of whatever it is I was looking for. So I try my other sources first, and if they don't answer my question, I pick up this book, resignedly, and expect to spend hours rather than minutes getting whatever it is I want to know. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed, this book often supplies me with answers to questions I can't find answered elsewhere.
   
   In case the reader of this review attributes my difficulties with this book to a lack of mathematical background, I'll remark that my academic training, very many years ago, was in math, so I find that I can follow the discussion in this book of any particular thing I look up; it's just a slow process for me. I'm not surprised that it's a favorite in Germany (and in Europe more generally); Europeans in their mathematical training are expected to deal with tough subjects by dogged persistence, and probably feel more comfortable with this style than I do, given my US background. So, overall, it's a book I couldn't do without, but hate having to spend time in.



4. I highly recommend the Handbook of Mathematics. It is an excellent resource for every engineering student and professional engineer.



5. Product was "as expected". I am very satisfied with the quick response to my order.

2 comments about The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solutions and Applications (Springer Series in Synergetics).

1. I got the impression that there are very few good textbooks on the subject of random processes in continuous time and the Fokker-Planck equation, which are accessible for physicists. In this book the subject presented in a manner that I thought to be a good compromise between mathematical rigor and physical intuition. For example to the spirit of the book, white noise is introduced both from the point of view of a physicist (it has a very short correlation time etc) and from the point of view of a mathematician (as the "derivative" of a Wiener process). While I found the book not very friendly or easy to read, it was one of my main sources for self-learning this subject during my Ph. D. work. I found the book three years ago, own it for two years and keep learning from it until today. I recommend the book very much.



2. This book is a classical reference in the subject of stochastic dynamics. It is a graduate level book written in clear and concise language. It covers all the basics about Langevin and Fokker-Planck equations (Chapters 3 and 4). In these chapters, Moyal expansion, Ito and Stratonovich interpretation of stochastic processes is presented carefully. Then they move on to study various methods of solving FP equation in the next 7 chapters. In the final chapter, FP equation and its application to Laser is discussed.
   
   I recommend reading this book along with Gardiner's book (Handbook of Stochastic Methods) to anyone who wants to learn about stochastic dynamics seriously.

2 comments about The Illustrated Wavelet Transform Handbook.

1. This book provides a comprehensive overview of wavelet transform methodologies and applications. The emphasis is on practical applications which are illustrated with many detailed figures and examples from Science and Engineering. A particular interesting chapter on medical applications is provided. In the introductory chapters, Addison gives a clear account of the theory for both continuous and discrete wavelet transform and associated post-processing techniques. Unlike many of the other books in this area, Addison communicates the concepts with a level of detail, sufficient for the applied engineer and scientist, but without becoming bogged down in a fog of mathematical gymnastics (a feature of many of the books in this area). A welcome addition to the growing number of books on this important signal analysis technique.



2. Very good introduction to wavelet analysis. Not for someone looking for casual reading but for someone who wants to be able to dig in and start doing actual analysis it will get you going.

No comments about A Survey of Computational Physics: Introductory Computational Science.

No comments about Active Physics: An Inquiry approach to Physics.

5 comments about Statistical Mechanics.

1. The reviewer below who said that this book pursues primarily a kinetic theory - Boltzmann Transport Equation approach, got it right. It really is a fearsome, and by and large, pointless read. Our professor used this book in our stat. mech. class back in 1992. He also used Mahan's Many Particle Physics book in our solid state course and de Genne's Superconductivity text in our superconductor course, so that gives you an idea of what kind of person likes Huang. Most students I've talked to feel that this text is the worst sort of student pain. The pain you feel when after exerting colossal effort trying to understand, you realize at the end of the semester that you didn't learn anything, and that you could have, if only the instructor had chosen one of any number of better books. I am completely mystified as to why and how this book has reached a 3rd edition. Perhaps there are too many physics professors out there who don't care about pedagogy.



2. Huang approaches the subject as a series of proofs: he does not make physical arguments, and his writing is wooden. Instructors--avoid this book!

   Some have said that this book approaches stat mech from the refreshing view of kinetic theory. But it leaves out the Fokker-Planck and Langevin approaches, by which the Boltzmann equation is usually solved. Anyone interested in this approach would be *far* more rewarded by Landau's Physical Kinetics.

   Anyone interested in Gibbs theory should consult Landau or Sommerfeld.

   Anyone who wants good problems (and real applications) would be better served by the canonical McQuarrie.

   Anyone who wants a feel for what the subject *actually now is* should see Kadanoff or Chandler. Actually I think allowing students to leave stat mech without seeing the monte carlo algorithm or solving a stochastic equation is a crime.




3. As repeated by reviewers below, this is NOT STANDARD textbook on statistical mechanics because it stresses the kinetic theory. If reader would like to learn the equilibrium theory, this book might be embarassing. However, this book is recommended to anyone who is interested in "unusual" viewpoint. I prefer Huang to other numerous too standard textbooks. But I am a little disappointed that some interesting topics are removed in the new edition, such as the Chapman-Enskog method.

   Now, it is NOT SO BAD.




4. I learned statistical mechanics from `Statistical Mechanics' by K. Huang and `Statistical Mechanics' by S.K. Ma. In my opinion, most books on the elementray principles, including the book by K. Huang, are too complicated for beginners. The best treatments as far as I know are given by `Statistical Physics, part I' by Landau and Lifshize and the one by S.K. Ma. Another weak points in Huang's book are the discussions about ideal quantum gases. It presents formal mathematical methods to study this problem. I think that this approach is also too complicated for beginners and sometimes bury the relevant physical ideas. In this part, the best treatment for the ideal Bose gas is given by `Statistical mechanics' by T.D. Lee (in Chinese), and for the ideal Fermi gas given by S.K. Ma.
   
   For these parts, I should give 3 stars. However, the strong parts of Huang's book is the chapters on the advanced topics. The writting is compact and clear. They can be served as a good introduction to the modern theory of critical phenomena and superfluidity. Further, they are useful references for research. In addition, the formal manipulation for quantum ideal gases is necessary for research though it seems a little bit complicated for students. For all these, I gave 4 stars to this book.
   
   Finally, I should say that the approach of Huang's book is not based on the kinetic theory though it spends a few chapters on this aspect. The reason why the kinetic theory is put before the chapters on SM, in my opinion, is to emphasize the important role played by collisions between particles to establish thermal equilibrium and the validity of the basic assumption of SM, as indicated by S.K. Ma in his book. I think previous reviews about this are misleading.



5. This is the worst book I have ever had the displeasure to encounter in any field.
   
   Ever.
   
   Is there any way I can possibly be any more clear?
   
   I'm not going to parse the book for you. But, I will tell you a few things which might come in handy:
   
   The book is utterly confusing and baffling. While most other physics textbooks explain things poorly, you can usually still pick up at least a few things from them. As you can see by my review of Jackson's "Electrodynamics", I have no love for that book.
   
   This book makes Jackson look like Shakespeare.
   
   I used the book in a one-semester graduate level class while I was working on my PhD at one of the top ten physics programs in the US.
   
   I don't know how to explain this, but let me try:
   
   Physics is hard, OK? Typically, you might read something in a grad level textbook and not get a darn thing the first time. Then you start slowly and go line by line, and slowly understanding comes upon you. The reason it happens this way is because you, the reader, don't understand the physics at first, but the author of the book does. As you focus and think on the text, you gradually understand.
   
   With this book, it doesn't matter how long or how diligently you focus on the text--- you won't understand. The reason for that in this case is because the text is utterly illogical, pedagogically terrible, filled with baffling nonsequiturs, and so disconnected from physical reality that it seems like a math textbook.
   
   See, the thing is, though, it's NOT a math textbook-- because math textbooks use logic and deductive reasoning. This book is just a bunch of really badly-done math-like gibberish, both disconnected from physics as well as logic.
   
   It is utter garbage.
   
   Please, professors, the only reason you should be assigning this book to your students is if you all need some kindling for the end of semester bonfire. That way you can at least use it to demonstrate an experimental example of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics.
   
   That is the only useful purpose it can possibly be put.

3 comments about A First Course in Computational Physics and Object-Oriented Programming with C++.

1. This book can serve several audiences. It teaches both computational physics and the use of C++ in writing object oriented code. Clearly, if you are already know one of these topics, but not the other, then the book is a natural fit. You can concentrate on what is essentially half the book.
   
   The more challenging task is if you are unfamiliar with both. Well, it is reasonable to assume that you know some physics, say at the first year undergraduate level. And perhaps you have done some programming, in a procedural language like Fortran or Basic.
   
   The amount of abstractions, or rather the level of difficulty in this, is less than in a typical physics text that is explaining Maxwell's Equations or Einstein's Special Relativity. The physics in the book revolves around trying to compute certain numbers in an efficient manner.
   
   While from a programming standpoint, computational physics examples are given as an important use case, to help the student grasp the OO concepts.



2. This book was developed during many years of teaching scientific programming to engineers and scientists in both electrical engineering and physics courses. About 1/3 of the text is accessible to beginning programmers even at a high-school level, while the last part of the book can serve as a second-term undergraduate scientific programming course or as a reference text. While the title indicates that a major focus of the text is computational physics, the book contains problems and examples from numerous scientific and engineering disciplines and can be employed across a wide variety of course offerings.
   
   Because of the practical difficulties faced by beginning students, a first course in scientific programming generally requires very significant personal intervention by the instructor or laboratory assistant. This book effectively removes this issue by providing a common base of free Windows software on CD-ROM that is meticulously documented in the text (the software is also available for Linux). The reader is introduced to programming through numerous assignments containing real-world technical problems. The assignments at first contain nearly the entire program to be developed; as the book develops, however, fewer code sections are provided. This method allows the user to absorb proper program structure while avoiding frustrating and confusing stylistic traps. A solution manual is made available to instructors through Cambridge University Press (see their website for errata) while the CD-ROM also contains copies of all programs presented in the text.
   
   This book presents a compact but completely unified picture of modern programming practice as it applies to scientific programming. The fundamental, underlying principles of the C++ language and scientific programming are stressed in order to simplify retention of complex C++ syntax and of the mathematical and physical content. More involved topics in numerical analysis, scientific programming methods and C++ are presented in an intuitive and easily-understood manner. Examples of the subjects covered are: software engineering principles (UML), numerical analysis, scientific graphics programming, the Standard Template Library (STL), Monte-Carlo methods including the Metropolis and multicanonical techniques, partial differential equation solvers, calling Fortran from C++, C++ program optimization.



3. This is a very good book, the codes are clear and
   written from a computational point of view. It is easy
   to set up the software. I agree with the authors self
   remraks except that he should wirte up some harder examples
   in the end. But still, the best.