Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

- Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems
- ›
- Customer Reviews

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

ByA customeron June 30, 2000

Why is everyone complaining about the mathematical formalism in this text? While perhaps such formalism requires a certain level of mathematical maturity on the part of the reader, it does *not* detract from pedagogy. In my opinion, it is better to become used to such formalism in the context of classical dynamics, where intuition can be of great help, than later on, and please, calculus and linear algebra is all that's required! It's not *that* formal!

I'd also like to say that the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian sections present one of the more lucid explanations that I have seen.

Finally, no, the author does not give you an example problem and then ask you to do the same problem with different numbers at the end of the chapter--he assumes you could do that. If you can't read a book that doesn't have such trivial problems for you to work, perhaps you should go elsewhere. The problems in this book are often challenging, and require you to extrapolate from the previous chapters. I find such problems more interesting than ones that require you to only look back in the chapter, grab two equations, eliminate one variable, and then plug in numbers. I'm not sure why everyone has jumped on the "the problems aren't worded well" bandwagon either, as I have encountered very little ambiguity throughout this book. If you want to master classical dynamics, this isn't the only book you'll want to work through, but it certainly should be on your list.

I'd also like to say that the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian sections present one of the more lucid explanations that I have seen.

Finally, no, the author does not give you an example problem and then ask you to do the same problem with different numbers at the end of the chapter--he assumes you could do that. If you can't read a book that doesn't have such trivial problems for you to work, perhaps you should go elsewhere. The problems in this book are often challenging, and require you to extrapolate from the previous chapters. I find such problems more interesting than ones that require you to only look back in the chapter, grab two equations, eliminate one variable, and then plug in numbers. I'm not sure why everyone has jumped on the "the problems aren't worded well" bandwagon either, as I have encountered very little ambiguity throughout this book. If you want to master classical dynamics, this isn't the only book you'll want to work through, but it certainly should be on your list.

ByA customeron July 31, 2003

(Disclaimer: All my criticisms are directed against Stephen Thornton, who prepared this edition when Marion died. I haven't seriously examined the earlier editions.)

Let it not be said that this book is utterly without virtue. It does have a good store of challenging, interesting problems. Also, the introductory chapter includes a unique (for this level) discussion of the Levi-Civita notation, which is great for managing complicated expressions in vector and tensor analysis (if you're currently taking junior or senior E&M, use this if your teacher asks you to verify all those crazy vector identities on the inside cover of your book!). But beyond this, I can see no redeeming virtues. In a genre which is littered with astoundingly bad books, this book is a standout, and is among the "hated classics" like Reif's statistical mechanics book or J.D. Jackson's E&M book. But even those books, which are admittedly overly-difficult and often obtuse, do contain a lot of quality thought and valuable knowledge. A good book, when re-read, will reveal greater and greater depths of insight and knowledge.

But rereading this book only revealed greater levels of sloppy thought. Only the more elementary derivations are comprehensible; the rest are befuddling, and I found that I had to write my own derivations and look up alternatives because the examples were either unconvincing, incomprehensible, or seemed to be based on incorrect physical reasoning. Ironically, I found that this book improved my confidence in mechanics because I had to spend so much time trying to compensate for the enormous failings logic, calculation, and pedagogy. But I'd still give it zero stars if I could.

This book is just plain bad (a judgement I very rarely make), and I am very curious as to whether the reviewers who defend the book really thought about its contents or tried to follow all of its logic step by step, as one should do during any serious examination of a science text. Now some reviewers had good teachers, in which case they probably paid more attention to their lecture notes than the book. An individual skilled with mathematical manipulation can do surprisingly difficult problems without thinking very much about the underlying physical concepts or looking at any part of a derivation other than the part in the box. Finally, a very bright person may simply think through matters for themselves during and after a class, not taking time to examine the book. So I am not insulting the readers who gave it good reviews; I'm sure they did well in class, since students who get good grades don't write vitriol-filled reviews about the required text on Amazon.com. But I know they didn't really read it carefully.

Instructors often choose this book because they were taught from previous editions (which may be superior), and may be too lazy or recalcitrant to change their ways. Although I often got cross looks from my professors for complaining about it, they generally agreed with my criticisms when I pushed the issue. But I didn't need to convince them. I overheard one professor bashing Chapter 4 as "just hacked together at the last minute because the material is sexy and fashionable." And right he was, for that chapter contains the worst explanations of nonlinear dynamics concepts I have ever seen (even if you discount the wrongly-printed Poincare sections towards the end). This same teacher admitted that he had spend over twenty minutes trying to understand the explanation of a very simple formula (and he is a theoretician who knows far more math than the average physicist).

Another fellow I knew, a Ph.D who was teaching an advanced mechanics class at my school for the first time, and was asked to use Marion, rewrote just about every example and explanation in the book for his students because he found them incomprehensible or too obtuse for beginners.

So don't feel bad if this book befuddled you. You're not alone, either among the great (Ph.D theoreticians and experimentalists) or the small (bile-spouting nobodies with undergraduate degree only).

Finally, a bit of advice for students: If you were made to buy this book, I recommend that you go to your library and find books about classical mechanics. Pick up a book or two that doesn't have the name "Thornton" on the cover. Now, it may be too easy (French's "Newtonian Mechanics" is less mathematical, but I still recommend it) or too hard (Goldstein is for highly motivated and prepared undergrads only), but I can tell you in all confidence that the random mechanics book you pick out will be better than the one you have now.

Let it not be said that this book is utterly without virtue. It does have a good store of challenging, interesting problems. Also, the introductory chapter includes a unique (for this level) discussion of the Levi-Civita notation, which is great for managing complicated expressions in vector and tensor analysis (if you're currently taking junior or senior E&M, use this if your teacher asks you to verify all those crazy vector identities on the inside cover of your book!). But beyond this, I can see no redeeming virtues. In a genre which is littered with astoundingly bad books, this book is a standout, and is among the "hated classics" like Reif's statistical mechanics book or J.D. Jackson's E&M book. But even those books, which are admittedly overly-difficult and often obtuse, do contain a lot of quality thought and valuable knowledge. A good book, when re-read, will reveal greater and greater depths of insight and knowledge.

But rereading this book only revealed greater levels of sloppy thought. Only the more elementary derivations are comprehensible; the rest are befuddling, and I found that I had to write my own derivations and look up alternatives because the examples were either unconvincing, incomprehensible, or seemed to be based on incorrect physical reasoning. Ironically, I found that this book improved my confidence in mechanics because I had to spend so much time trying to compensate for the enormous failings logic, calculation, and pedagogy. But I'd still give it zero stars if I could.

This book is just plain bad (a judgement I very rarely make), and I am very curious as to whether the reviewers who defend the book really thought about its contents or tried to follow all of its logic step by step, as one should do during any serious examination of a science text. Now some reviewers had good teachers, in which case they probably paid more attention to their lecture notes than the book. An individual skilled with mathematical manipulation can do surprisingly difficult problems without thinking very much about the underlying physical concepts or looking at any part of a derivation other than the part in the box. Finally, a very bright person may simply think through matters for themselves during and after a class, not taking time to examine the book. So I am not insulting the readers who gave it good reviews; I'm sure they did well in class, since students who get good grades don't write vitriol-filled reviews about the required text on Amazon.com. But I know they didn't really read it carefully.

Instructors often choose this book because they were taught from previous editions (which may be superior), and may be too lazy or recalcitrant to change their ways. Although I often got cross looks from my professors for complaining about it, they generally agreed with my criticisms when I pushed the issue. But I didn't need to convince them. I overheard one professor bashing Chapter 4 as "just hacked together at the last minute because the material is sexy and fashionable." And right he was, for that chapter contains the worst explanations of nonlinear dynamics concepts I have ever seen (even if you discount the wrongly-printed Poincare sections towards the end). This same teacher admitted that he had spend over twenty minutes trying to understand the explanation of a very simple formula (and he is a theoretician who knows far more math than the average physicist).

Another fellow I knew, a Ph.D who was teaching an advanced mechanics class at my school for the first time, and was asked to use Marion, rewrote just about every example and explanation in the book for his students because he found them incomprehensible or too obtuse for beginners.

So don't feel bad if this book befuddled you. You're not alone, either among the great (Ph.D theoreticians and experimentalists) or the small (bile-spouting nobodies with undergraduate degree only).

Finally, a bit of advice for students: If you were made to buy this book, I recommend that you go to your library and find books about classical mechanics. Pick up a book or two that doesn't have the name "Thornton" on the cover. Now, it may be too easy (French's "Newtonian Mechanics" is less mathematical, but I still recommend it) or too hard (Goldstein is for highly motivated and prepared undergrads only), but I can tell you in all confidence that the random mechanics book you pick out will be better than the one you have now.

Bysmgon November 22, 2000

I agree with the reviewer from Connecticut in his/her assessment of this text. Unless one is mathematically immature, in other words a high school student, the 'formalities' of Marion/thornton are of no consequence. The problems are soluble, and are given only after in-chapter exercises that will acquaint the reader with appropriate problem-solving techniques. Many of these techniques are not the most elegant, see for instance the chapter on gravitation and Gauss' law for this interaction, and at times the author(s) dwell in the realm of the mathematically turgid as one my professors once phrased it, but this is more than compensated by a very interesting presentation of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics. One really appreciates the power of these alternatives to Newtonian mechanics after working out the problems. Although goldstein is much deeper in this regard, it is recommended that you see it once at this level before moving on to that venerable text.

0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...Report abuse

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

By"quantumsean"on November 21, 2001

I am unsure on why the ratings of this textbook are so low, it is a very solid textbook on undergraduate mechanics. Its treatment of the caclulus of varations and Lagrangian & Hamiltonian dynamics is very elegant and clear. It is the best treatment out there at the undergraduate level.

In other topics it is strong as well, but not as strong as the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian treatment. The physical ideas conveyed are very good. The math is not really that formal, it just requires what is needed to do Analytical mechanics: the normal calculus sequence, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. The problems are not easy, but you can not expect them to be at this level of physics.

The only stumbling block of the textbook is at times the mathematical notation (outside of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics) is cumbersome and just plain bad. It is just notation however, and it just needs getting used to.

In other topics it is strong as well, but not as strong as the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian treatment. The physical ideas conveyed are very good. The math is not really that formal, it just requires what is needed to do Analytical mechanics: the normal calculus sequence, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. The problems are not easy, but you can not expect them to be at this level of physics.

The only stumbling block of the textbook is at times the mathematical notation (outside of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics) is cumbersome and just plain bad. It is just notation however, and it just needs getting used to.

0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...Report abuse#### There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Show more comments

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

By"quantumsean"on November 21, 2001

I am unsure on why the ratings of this textbook are so low, it is a very solid textbook on undergraduate mechanics. Its treatment of the caclulus of varations and Lagrangian & Hamiltonian dynamics is very elegant and clear. It is the best treatment out there at the undergraduate level.

In other topics it is strong as well, but not as strong as the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian treatment. The physical ideas conveyed are very good. The math is not really that formal, it just requires what is needed to do Analytical mechanics: the normal calculus sequence, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. The problems are not easy, but you can not expect them to be at this level of physics.

The only stumbling block of the textbook is at times the mathematical notation (outside of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics) is cumbersome and just plain bad. It is just notation however, and it just needs getting used to.

In other topics it is strong as well, but not as strong as the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian treatment. The physical ideas conveyed are very good. The math is not really that formal, it just requires what is needed to do Analytical mechanics: the normal calculus sequence, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra. The problems are not easy, but you can not expect them to be at this level of physics.

The only stumbling block of the textbook is at times the mathematical notation (outside of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Dynamics) is cumbersome and just plain bad. It is just notation however, and it just needs getting used to.

0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...Report abuse#### There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Show more comments

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

ByA customeron June 12, 1999

I was fortunate to have an excellent instructor for my mechanics courses, and we used this book in both semesters. Although it *is* true that the problems are rather vaguely stated, if one has an instructor who's good, and is willing to help figure out what the problems ask for, it's a good text. Quite a few grad schools assume its depth for preparation, too. And the sections on the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches are quite good, although an intuitive "feeling" for them is not communicated or developed. I wish Feynman had spent more time on them in his Lectures!

0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...Report abuse#### There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Show more comments

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

ByA customeron January 24, 2000

I don't understand why the reviews are so negative on the book. It's certainly not at the top level of undergrad physics books, like Griffiths E&M for example. however, it present the basics in a fairly easy to read and easy to follow way. The price is ridiculous, but most physics textbooks aren't far off from the amount. If you want to see a truly bad undergrad physics textbook that should have been buried long ago, go look at Reif's Stat. Phys. book.

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

ByAmit Mehtaon May 22, 1998

I have recently completed a course on advanced mechanics using this book, at Cornell University as a Sophmore physics major. I thought this text did a decent job on most topics, although did not go into adequate depth in some places. However, the most important topic of the book, Lagranian and Hamilonian mechanics was well written. For those who are interested in going into more detail, I would recommend Goldstien.

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

ByA customeron July 19, 1999

Although it is not as detailed and thorough as Goldstein, this text is a very good intro to classical concepts. With a good instructor, much can be learned from it. The text is a good reference source as well.

Thank you for your feedback.

Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Please write at least one word

You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment

A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.

Unlimited FREE Two-Day Shipping, no minimum threshold and more.

Prime members enjoy FREE Two-Day Shipping on millions of eligible items with no minimum threshold.

Get to Know Us | Make Money with Us | Amazon Payment Products | Let Us Help You |