科学与数学susanjfowler.com编辑精选
如果你想学物理
So You Want to Learn Physics
2016 — 2020，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Susan J. Fowler 写给想自学物理的人的一份指南，按阶段推荐教材和学习顺序，从基础数学、经典力学一路延伸到现代物理。它本质上是选书与路线建议，而不是完整课程；评论区补充了物理史、线性代数、更严谨的教材以及实验环节的重要性。
为什么经久不衰：物理自学者最缺的是可靠路线和选书，这份清单多年来一直是可用的起点，而评论又不断补上它的盲点。
HN 评论精选
先读物理史能建立对科研的整体感觉，减少后续学习“硬科学”时的困惑。
这可能看起来有点非正统，但我会强烈建议：不要先读物理或数学书，而是先读一些物理（和数学）史的书。这会给你一种难以言传的基础知识，或者说一种对科学研究究竟是怎么回事的感觉，这样你在学习“硬科学”时，许多本来可能令你困惑的东西就不会了。我可以推荐的一本是 Rhodes 的《原子弹的制造》。
Koshkin查看英文原文
This may seem somewhat unorthodox, but what I would strongly recommend is to start not by reading books on physics or math but read some books on history of physics (and math) first. This will give you some intangible basic knowledge, or a sense, of what scientific research is all about, so that many things that otherwise may end up being puzzling to you when you come to learn the "hard science", won't. One recommendation I can make is Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
线性代数应作为物理自学的核心基础，矩阵量子力学本质上就是线性代数。
这是一份很棒的清单。唯一缺少的是一门线性代数课。楼主只是顺带提到它，但好好理解线代大有帮助。我本科读工程，转物理时一切都让我摸不着头脑，但我对线代的知识仍让我勉强撑住。另外，矩阵量子力学基本上就是线性代数（向量、酉变换、投影等）。现在切换到无耻安利模式，我提一下我的数学+力学+微积分书，它会很适合第1节“力学导论”。
ivan_ah查看英文原文
That's a great list. The only thing that's missing would be a linear algebra course. The OP mentions it in passing, but a good understanding of LA goes a long way. I did UGRAD in engineering, and when I switched to physics everything was over my head, but my knowledge of LA still managed to keep me afloat. Also, matrix quantum mechanics is essentially straight up linear algebra (vectors, unitaries, projections, etc.) Now switching to a shameless plug mode, I'll mention my math+mech+calc book, which would be a good addition to the section 1. Introduction to Mechanics. Chapter2 of the book (on topic) is part of the preview: https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSguide_v5_preview.pdf
该清单偏“物理人”风格且常跳过数学细节，推荐更严谨的教材和几何语言训练。
我喜欢这份清单！它非常面向“物理人”。不幸的是，我尝试用同样的资源学习时经历了大量挫败，因为它们“跳过”数学细节，往往导致后面更多困惑。我个人喜欢用更严谨的书来学物理：Arnold 的《经典力学》先抽象定义“空间”，再构建拉格朗日/哈密顿形式；Wald 和 Misner-Thorne-Wheeler 的广义相对论书，其中 MTW 是“圣经”，Wald 则用微分几何语言，让人学会“像几何学家一样思考”。Susskind 的“理论最小值”视频讲座也很值得看。
bollu查看英文原文
I like the list! It's very "physics person" oriented. Unfortunately, I have faced an insane amount of frustration trying to learn from the same sources because they "skip" on mathematical detail, often leading to more confusion down the line. I personally enjoyed the books I write down below to learn "rigorous physics": - Classical mehhanics by VI Arnold: We first abstract define what "space" is, analyze its properties, then move on to build Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms. Is a great book to understand formally (i) what we mean by "observer" in classical mechanics, (ii) variational problems, (iii) the precise relationships between the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian - Wald + Misner Thorne Wheeler for general relativity. MTW is the "bible", with great pictorial explanations for everything. Wald prefers to write everything in terms of differential geometric language which makes for an entertaining read. For example, he does not write "the particle is at rest". Rather, he writes "the particle is invariant under time-translational symmetry". It was eye-opening to learn how to "think like a geometer" about these sorts of ideas. There is also Leonard Susskind's video lectures called as "the theoretical minimum" where he explains, rigorously, classical/quantum/GR/QM/stat-mech: https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses. I've personally watched the GR lectures and found them very informative. Finally, there is Landau and and Lipschitz: These are dense, terse, often difficult, but honestly, written with extreme clarity. This was the only undergrad stat-mech book I could find which actually formally defines the phase space, the averaging procedure we use, etc.
物理是实验科学，只列理论书单而缺少动手实验，会损害这门学科的可及性和对现实的理解。
我在 Penn 和 Columbia 获得物理学博士，帮助建造了一颗仍在采集数据的卫星（XMM-Newton）。我爱物理，也爱学物理。物理不是数学，它是一个实验领域。Ctrl-f “experiment” 在那页没有结果，Ctrl-f “lab” 只显示在评论里。我喜欢那页存在，但它缺少物理的实体/实验部分。只学理论可能服务很多人，但不服务于这个领域。我上过的大多数实验课都带我们走过已知结果，好让我们测错时也能写出“应该找到”的数据——这是科学的反面。如果你想当理论家，很好，但让物理远离任何人能做的事似乎让它更不可及。
spodek查看英文原文
I earned my PhD in physics at Penn and Columbia, helping build a satellite still taking data (XMM-Newton). I love physics. I loved learning physics. Physics is not math. It is an experimental field. Ctrl-f experiment yields no results on that page. Ctrl-f lab shows only results in the comments. I love that that page exists, but it's missing the physical component of physics. Learning only theory may serve many people, but it doesn't serve the field. Now that I teach project-based learning, albeit in leadership not physics, I see huge gaps in my physics education about experiment, curiosity, doing things with our hands, realizing we can test things ourselves. Most lab classes I took walked us through known results so we could write the data we were supposed to find if we measured wrong -- the opposite of science. If you want to be a theorist, great, but distancing physics from what anyone can do seems to make it less accessible. For example, I work on sustainability. People routinely seem shocked that their turning on a light switch or air conditioner necessarily today means somewhere some power plant had to convert that energy from something else, polluting in the process.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com