Classical Physics Books
Showing 1-50 of 55

by (shelved 3 times as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.16 — 3,122 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.50 — 2 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.50 — 2 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 5.00 — 1 rating — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 5.00 — 2 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.36 — 14 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.93 — 14 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.64 — 11 ratings — published 1955

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.99 — 75,557 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.00 — 1 rating — published 1962

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.06 — 271 ratings — published 1978

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.18 — 2,349 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.92 — 99 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.15 — 809 ratings — published 2003

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 3.80 — 407 ratings — published 1987

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.25 — 1,808 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.20 — 22,840 ratings — published 1916

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.40 — 176 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.50 — 171 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.30 — 7,743 ratings — published 1964

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.21 — 30,400 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 5.00 — 1 rating — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.41 — 61 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.30 — 97 ratings — published 1959

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 5.00 — 1 rating — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.57 — 246 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.44 — 130 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.28 — 4,406 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 0.0 — 0 ratings — published

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.63 — 1,021 ratings — published 1964

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.61 — 1,767 ratings — published 1963

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.44 — 218 ratings — published 1978

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.61 — 8,030 ratings — published 1964

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.03 — 39 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.21 — 913 ratings — published 1960

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.10 — 1,330 ratings — published 1950

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.40 — 759 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.38 — 1,518 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.60 — 5 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.17 — 199,360 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.07 — 3,446 ratings — published 1987

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.26 — 23 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.13 — 134,665 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.40 — 156,821 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 1 time as classical-physics)
avg rating 4.00 — 17,978 ratings — published 2011
“The development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s motivated physicists to tackle all the unsolved problems of physics with the new methods and see if they worked (they mostly did). But what was the evidence for any of this new way of thinking?
The evidence that was persuasive at the time was a number of rather abstract physics experiments concerning the nature of atomic spectra or the interaction between light and metal surfaces. Each was important in its own way, but what ought to have played an important role in retrospect was something far, far simpler: the observation that magnets work. The crucial step was made by an unknown Dutch scientist called Hendreka van Leeuwen, and what she showed was that magnets couldn’t exist if you just use classical (i.e. pre-quantum) physics. Hendreka van Leeuwen’s doctoral work in Leiden was done under the supervision of Lenz and the work was published in the Journal de Physique et le Radium in 1921. Unfortunately, it subsequently transpired that her main result had been anticipated by Niels Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics, but as it had only appeared in his 1911 diploma thesis, written in Danish, it was unsurprising she hadn’t known about it. Their contribution, though conceived independently, is now known as the Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem, which states that if you assume nothing more than classical physics, and then go on to model a material as a system of electrical charges, then you can show that the system can have no net magnetization; in other words, it will not be magnetic. Simply put, there are no lodestones in a purely classical Universe.”
― Magnetism: A Very Short Introduction
The evidence that was persuasive at the time was a number of rather abstract physics experiments concerning the nature of atomic spectra or the interaction between light and metal surfaces. Each was important in its own way, but what ought to have played an important role in retrospect was something far, far simpler: the observation that magnets work. The crucial step was made by an unknown Dutch scientist called Hendreka van Leeuwen, and what she showed was that magnets couldn’t exist if you just use classical (i.e. pre-quantum) physics. Hendreka van Leeuwen’s doctoral work in Leiden was done under the supervision of Lenz and the work was published in the Journal de Physique et le Radium in 1921. Unfortunately, it subsequently transpired that her main result had been anticipated by Niels Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics, but as it had only appeared in his 1911 diploma thesis, written in Danish, it was unsurprising she hadn’t known about it. Their contribution, though conceived independently, is now known as the Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem, which states that if you assume nothing more than classical physics, and then go on to model a material as a system of electrical charges, then you can show that the system can have no net magnetization; in other words, it will not be magnetic. Simply put, there are no lodestones in a purely classical Universe.”
― Magnetism: A Very Short Introduction

“[C]lassical physics is just a special case of quantum physics.”
― Beyond Weird
― Beyond Weird