Customer Reviews

Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Extended Version

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

Contrary to what some of the reviewers have said, this book is great for self-study. I know this from experience. It is mostly clear and logical, although there are certain parts that are frustrating because of lack of clarity. There are some examples that are confusing, and, as explained by a previous reviewer, sometimes variables are not explained in new equations.

The best thing about this book is that it has many great, easy to understand examples at varying difficulties. The graphics are excellent and this really helps sometimes. The problem sets at the end of the chapters are good. If you can do the examples and problem sets at the end of the chapters (and I know you can because the author does a wonderful job at explaining the subjects) you will find books on classical mechanics and electromagnetism to be extremely easy.

This book comes with online supplements, but you probably will not use them. They are worthless. Do not waste your time trying to use the online supplements.

UPDATE: I scored 5's (the highest possible score) on my advanced placement physics C exams(both mechanics and electricity and magnetism). I never took a course or had a teacher for this level of physics so my score must have been due to this book!

The title of this book should be: "PHYSICS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS". This is a good idea gone bad. As others have said, the Chapter Reviews, illustrations, etc are helpful and I guess this is a terrific reference book for those people who already know most of the material. BUT, for a beginning Physics student, it is maddeningly incomplete. There are plenty of examples but very little explanatory text and the examples have a REALLY BAD HABIT of SKIPPING MANY IMPORTANT STEPS. The result is that if your particular problem is not specifically one of the examples, why then, you are most likely OUT OF LUCK! After using this book it would seem that the subject of Physics has gotten so huge with information that an overview course can no longer be covered in the traditional 2 college semesters. At least that is the impression. Why else would there be so little discussion of the IDEAS BEHIND THE PROBLEMS. But, at the very least, in the examples that are covered, could not ALL THE STEPS that are required to do the problem be included? When a beginning student has to attempt to "fill in" an author's blanks, learning becomes tedious and frustrating. I'm speaking not only for myself but for many of my classmates as well. Most of them are bright, energetic science majors who are thoroughly fed-up with using this poorly written texbook.

This book seems to achieve its goal very nicely, namely, to be a general physics textbook. It competes with the usual suspects: Halliday/Resnick, Serway, etc. This seems to be a market where, if the books are too sophisticated, they sure aren't going to be adopted.

The educational system in most countries seem to emulate this recipe of physics with as little mathematics as possible and a "general course" where students are merely introduced to physics at a level only slightly higher than high-school level. This is one of those books. Whether we like it or not, this is how it is even, apparently, in top institutions in the U.S.

That said, I will disclose that I can't stand Halliday/Resnick, and thought that Serway was too much of a marketing stunt. Tipler, on the other hand, seemed quite reasonable. I think this book stands out for: 1) lack of cruft; 2) clear explanations, that rely on math, rather than verbosity; 3) a sensible choice of *relevant* examples; 4) a nice pedagogical resource, whereby the author gives you an example and subsequently does another one ("You try it"), with step-by-step handholding.

Overall, of the books I used, this was more to my taste. I happened to notice that some Physics teachers (for undergraduates) also seemed to like this book more (and, in fact, I had a teacher describe Halliday/Resnick as a "chronic disease", one that our institution could not get rid of, because the book had been around for so long, and we had so many copies at the library - our libraries in Brazil don't typically throw out old editions). Other books I enjoyed were Alonso & Finn, and McKelvey & Grotch (these two out-of-print, unfortunately).

There are many more books out there for the undergraduate that wishes to have a more sophisticated and mathematically sophisticated understanding of Physics. However, it seems these more "mundane" courses are a pervasive practice. And there's nothing you can do about it. And you are not to blame. So, at least choose a nicely crafted learning tool.

The previous reviewer apparently feels that anyone who doesn't agree with him is "retarded" or "stupid". To criticize or classify someone for their spelling errors is pointless and juvenile. It contributes nothing to the book's evaluation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of their spelling ability. After all, I could point out that he spelled "retarded" as "retarted" immediately before his spelling comment. Does that make him retarded or stupid? I doubt it. However, in regard to his book review, he is only half correct. The subject is a difficult one, especially for those who are first encountering it. Where he is wrong is in saying that "the way the book is written has nothing to do with this." The presentation of a subject can make it easier or harder; therefore, the book, along with the instructor, has everything to do with it. I've used many textbooks during my courses of study and my 35+ year career. This one is neither the best nor the worst. Textbooks are seldom presented to students for evaluation before publishing. At best, they are shown to people who are already familiar with the topic. This is usually done to locate errors. Very few reviewers approach a new textbook from the vantage point of a student who is looking at the subject for the first time. This textbook covers the topic sufficiently but it does show a weakness in clarity. When this book is used in a Physics class, it will require an instructor capable of guiding the student over its many rough spots.

Generally a good book, if you just want to learn the formulas. The reasoning behind deriving the formulas and explaining physical concepts lacks depth and thorough explanation, so much of it is like "this is the way it is, so this leads to that". Tipler seems to be caught up with juggling the mathematical equations. This means that you will not grasp the ideas behind it all, and leaves you without the proper understanding to tackle the level III problems, as stated by so many of the other reviewers. Even though there exists a lot of examples, they still don't make up for the lack of profound explanations. One way to deal with it is to first read the corresponding chapter in Feynman Lectures On Physics and look at Tiplers examples, perhaps then you will be better off. So unfortuenately this is not the book that inspires you about the subject just dealth with, more it gives you the feeling of "phew! I got past this part", this I consider is the most critical point of all books, they should be more than a reference manual, they should inspire and exite you about the subject.

This is not coming from a student bitter about receiving bad grades in his class; I got a 4.0 in both semesters of engineering physics. I did this, however, despite this book and not because of it. The wording is needlessly abstruse, the sample problems are worked out poorly and, quite often, the answers in the back of the book are incorrect.

I used Douglas C. Giancoli's physics text as a supplement for review before my exams and, without exception, the material was presented in a more concise and understandable fashion than in the Tipler/Mosca travesty.

There must have been happier moments in my life than when I sold this text back to my co-op, but none currently come to mind.

When learning physics, it really helps to have the concepts explained in a clear, concise way. Paul Tipler does NOT do this. Also, he tries to quickly "throw in" explanations of topics that need more attention than just two or three lines. See if you understand this: "A vector that points in the direction of the greatest change in a scalar function and has a magnitude equal to the derivative of that function with respect to the distance in that direction is called the gradient of the function." Most of Tipler's explanations are just like this.

I am amazed at some of the reviews here (I'd like to ask the reviewers what they are smoking). Anyhow, I will refrain from sharing my feelings on that matter... I will instead share my views on this book. The book is CLEARLY not an introduction to physics, period. It assumes the student is exceptionally familiar with the author's frame of reference (i.e. a mind reader). Often, examples skip important connections, that, while not beyond the students intelligence, make for difficult and stressful reading. I cannot emphasize the above enough; the author knows his material, BUT does not convey it well. I have found my programing books easier and more enjoyable to read. One critical fault of the book is lack of relevancy. It seems as though the goal is to abstract the concepts beyond the care of readers. The book is lifeless. Another major problem with the book has to do with the problems. Examples in the chapter provide for the more simple and basic of ideas. The problems at the end of the chapter are leaps ahead of what has been presented. There isn't a logical next step approach to these problems; it is basically how-in-the-world can you apply what you've learn to these problems that compare like apples and oranges. In other words, "may require synthesis of concepts" is an understatement. A good professor is a MUST with this book; often, not available (and certaintly not included). I'd like to provide for a more critical review; however, I have mid-terms to study for... Hope I have successfully steared someone from wasting their time and money. P.S. Yes, the pictures are nice, but do not make up for the faults.

We have used the 3rd edition for several years and recently changed our course to reflect the 4th edition. The 3rd edition was a decent standard version for undergraduate physics with the standard problems contained in most texts (say 4 stars). The 4th edition has fallen into the recent widespread trend within physics education of dumbing down the curriculum to enhance results. Much of the content has been either relegated to an 'optional' section or removed altogether. In addition many of the more challenging questions in the 3rd edition are removed altogether. (Symmetry of large resistor networks for example). Instead of watering down the content more effort should be spent on improving pedagogy. The pictures are prettier.

If you compare Tipler to the "Mechanical Universe", and "Beyond the Mechanical Universe" what you will notice is that Tipler has color and nice graphics (but not always clear to understand), however the Mechanical Universe books get the physics concepts across and after all that is the key - isn't it. Tipler is also confusing since it appears to be somewhere between Algebra based physics and Calculus based physics, where as the Mechanical Universe is Calculus based - which all physics text books at the college level should be. Tipler turns off good students to physics.