Talk:Classical Mechanics

It appears that the original author of this book has not worked on it for a while, so I would like to work on it in his stead. I hope my edits do not cause anyone offense.--Snowsand 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding any merge suggestions
Please note that this textbook is aimed at a very advanced undergraduate level of mechanics. The materials covered in this book (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, among many) are at least at the level of 4th year physics major in U.S. institutions and possibly graduate level (I haven't looked through thoroughly, but the Goldstein textbook is the classic graduate level textbook on this topic).

Please do not suggest merge to another book aimed at either high school students or first year college students (i.e. handling only Newtonian mechanics). While there are some overlaps, these two are as different as differential calculus is from a course on partial differential equations. novakyu (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone above: I looked over Mechanics module, to which merge was suggested, and it does not seem as low-level as it appeared at first. But I still think the merge was inappropriate. As noted on the Modern Physics project page, the textbook is meant for first three semesters of college. I notice that the Mechanics module mentions Lagrangian mechanics, but it cannot possibly cover it in any depth (Poisson brackets? Connections to quantum mechanics?) and still maintain its goal of being an introductory text. Note, this textbook is *not* an introduction to classical mechanics. This is *in depth* classical mechanics---students were supposed to have at least seen Newtonian mechanics for nearly half a semester and maybe even a semester of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (if this is meant to be a graduate level textbook). novakyu (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside about V.I. Arnold. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics.
I was a bit surprised now to read here `V.I. Arnold. Mathematical methods of classical mechanics. -- Has almost nothing standard in it but is excellent for a more mathematically minded student.` This is a very old comment (apparently over 14 years) and nobody has said anything yet. This is a little off topic but... what does this mean? I've looked at this book and it appears to cover all the topics I see in other books on mechanics... what is "the standard stuff that is missing"? Rschwieb (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)