Talk:Physics with Calculus

Archives of this talk page:
 * Archive 1

Why orthodox order?
What's so great about the orthodox order?
 * Probably because it makes the textbook potentially most useful. Orthodox, by definition is the order that most instructors follow when they teach the subject&mdash;the textbook is likely to be useful to the most number of people possible, if it follows the orthodox order. There is something to be said for unorthodox-order textbooks (I, for one, am fond of Feynman's lecture series), but there has to be at least one textbook that goes in the orthodox order, so that the instructors who are considering the textbook are not forced to jump around the book. novakyu (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
I just re-organized the book. Currently, it's organized roughly as: For this particular outline, I am mainly motivated by the Physics 7A-C in my undergraduate institution, UC Berkeley. The bit about general relativity was because I was so frustrated myself 5 years ago, when the texts would hint at the importance of general relativity, without ever telling us why.
 * Divide it into three parts to follow three-semester introductory physics courses taught in U.S. schools
 * The first part should cover: preliminary materials, Newtonian mechanics and waves (but not E&M).
 * The second part should cover: thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism (up to electromagnetic waves, but not its implications on relativity)
 * the third part should cover: more on electromagnetic waves (perhaps as an intro to relativity), relativity (*some* materials on general relativity for advanced students), optics, and quantum mechanics.

Obviously, this is not the only way to divide out the material into clear three-semester chunks and I would appreciate any improvements on it, but in lack of a response from a past contributor (but most seem to have abandoned this book for a while), I will go ahead and start making changes. novakyu (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent notation?
I've looked over a few pages, and there are some serious inconsistencies with notations. I don't mind if this textbook's notations are not consistent with another textbook (like one that's more oriented towards abstract math), but it should at least be internally consistent. I'd suggest creating a "notations" page (it would also be convenient for students, like for looking up commonly used symbols) so that different editors could agree to a convention at one place and follow that convention elsewhere. Some inconsistency I've seen are: For vectors, A vs. $$\vec{A}$$ vs. $$\vec{\mathbf{A}}$$ vs. $$\overline{A}$$ (I myself am in favor of $$\vec{A}$$, but I think most textbooks do use A more to denote vectors ... even though students will invariably have to use $$\vec{A}$$). ... And that's it. Maybe $$\hat{i}$$ vs. $$\hat{x}$$, but I think students need to see both (I myself is in favor of the latter). novakyu (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

faster-than-light shadows?
On the Special Relativity page: "For example, if I had a projector very far away from a screen, and I wave my hand in front of it very quickly, the shadow will travel faster than light."

Is this true? At the instant I block the projector, there are still photons between my hand and the screen, and they'll travel at the speed of light toward the screen; there will be a slight delay before the shadow appears. Am I misreading this? Maybe it should be reworded.

DavePercy (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it is poorly worded, but it is correct. Look at the wall, and let a bug walk across the projector. If the projector is very far from the wall, you will see the shadow of the bug moving faster than the speed of light. You just cannot transmit information faster than light with the shadow.

Too many menus
There seem to bee far too many divisions between chapters. This is all very well and good for sections like Newton's laws, but when you scroll further, you get one chapter per subhead. If nobody has an objection within a few months or so, I'll start rearranging these sections and consolidate a number of them. --Freiberg (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple efforts to create a book like this
There are too many parallel efforts on this book. I jumped into a parallel effort on Wikiversity before I found this book. I think others on Wikiversity have made similar efforts, and I am not sure what should be done. Also, a good way to achieve uniformity in notation and style is to copy equations from Wikipedia itself. The articles on Wikipedia have improved greatly in the past few years. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple efforts to create a book like this
There are too many parallel efforts on this book. I jumped into a parallel effort on Wikiversity before I found this book. I think others on Wikiversity have made similar efforts, and I am not sure what should be done. Also, a good way to achieve uniformity in notation and style is to copy equations from Wikipedia itself. The articles on Wikipedia have improved greatly in the past few years. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)