College physics textbook from 1988ish still OK?

[ElizabethB]

I had planned to have my son take chemistry at the local high school, but they're likely to go virtual, so we'll homeschool science instead (you can do a mix here, he was going to do some high school classes and some homeschool.)

Anyway, the high school has a nice chemistry lab.  I did a few labs with my daughter, but nothing great, when we did high school chemistry.

So, I'm thinking of doing physics with him this year instead.  He did conceptual physics in 7th or 8th grade and is capable of college level physics. I have my physics book from when I was in college, I took it circe 1988, book may be a bit older, any reason not to use it? I like it better than the high school physics book samples I've seen.

@regentude or anyone?

 

[JenneinCA]

My middle child took physics in 2018 and used a later edition of the same book I used in 1989.  We compared the pages.  They were the same.  Newtonian physics hasn’t changed since...  Newton.  
You should be fine with the old textbook.  
(When I used it the authors were Halliday and Resnick.  Since then Walker has been added.  Walker redid the entire solution manual and got himself author credit.) 

[regentrude]

I am a physics professor who teaches introductory physics. All the physics covered in a typical college physics course is over 100 years old. Newton has been dead since 1727. Maxwell died in 1879.

New textbooks are only a rip-off by the publishers. The old texts are often better written and have fewer distracting colorful boxes, sidebars, irrelevant photographs. That's why they are often thinner. Just the meat, less sauce.

Just a heads-up: college physics requires trigonometry.

Edited July 25, 2020 by regentrude

[ElizabethB]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

I am a physics professor who teaches introductory physics. All the physics covered in a typical college physics course is over 100 years old. Newton has been dead since 1727. Maxwell died in 1879.

New textbooks are only a rip-off by the publishers. The old texts are often better written and have fewer distracting colorful boxes, sidebars, irrelevant photographs. That's why they are often thinner. Just the meat, less sauce.

Just a heads-up: college physics requires trigonometry.

Thanks, that's what I thought but just wanted to make sure there was nothing new with the advent of quantum physics.

He has done some trig and we'll teach a bit more if needed, he doesn't mind working ahead in math, he's very strong in math, science, and engineering.

[ElizabethB]

13 hours ago, JenneinCA said:

My middle child took physics in 2018 and used a later edition of the same book I used in 1989.  We compared the pages.  They were the same.  Newtonian physics hasn’t changed since...  Newton.  
You should be fine with the old textbook.  
(When I used it the authors were Halliday and Resnick.  Since then Walker has been added.  Walker redid the entire solution manual and got himself author credit.) 

 

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

I am a physics professor who teaches introductory physics. All the physics covered in a typical college physics course is over 100 years old. Newton has been dead since 1727. Maxwell died in 1879.

New textbooks are only a rip-off by the publishers. The old texts are often better written and have fewer distracting colorful boxes, sidebars, irrelevant photographs. That's why they are often thinner. Just the meat, less sauce.

Just a heads-up: college physics requires trigonometry.

I had that conversation with my husband about calculus, he got a masters in Operations Research and needed to review Calc and Differential Equations.  I had my Differential Equations book, but we had sold back our Calculus books.  I found a 30 year old Calc book for $1, he was worried about it. I told him I didn't think Calculus had changed for over 100 years and he would be fine! 

I like old math books as well for the same reason. I did Dolciani Pre-Algebra and Algebra with my son but switched to the Geometry the local schools use so he would be prepared for Algebra 2 in the local school (although Dolciani actually covers a lot of what is currently Algebra 2!) He was not a fan of all the distracting pictures, and asked why they put them in. He didn't think they helped any. All they do is distract people and make the books heavier. 

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, ElizabethB said:

Thanks, that's what I thought but just wanted to make sure there was nothing new with the advent of quantum physics.

quantum physics was developed one hundred years ago, in the early 1900s.

[ElizabethB]

3 hours ago, regentrude said:

quantum physics was developed one hundred years ago, in the early 1900s.

That's really interesting, I didn't realize that!  

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

That's really interesting, I didn't realize that!  

here's a good quick history overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

[ElizabethB]

3 minutes ago, regentrude said:

here's a good quick history overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

That was really interesting, thanks!