Log In Sign Up

Physics

Questions
Tags
Users
Badges
Unanswered

Ask Question

_
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers,
academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:

Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and
rise to the top

Trouble with classical mechanics self-learning (How to avoid going down the Physics
rabbit hole?) [duplicate]
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
11

This question already has an answer here:

Recommendations for good Newtonian mechanics and kinematics books 12 answers

I'm a retired police officer trying to learn classical mechanics on my own. I have
gone through many links on the Internet including the classical mechanics quick
reference textbooks from Physics Stack Exchange. But, I always have the same
problem just as anyone trying to learn classical mechanics on his/her own has had
the experience of "going down the Classical Mechanics Rabbit Hole".

It turns out that only classical mechanics is the most difficult part of
physics to learn on ones own. I had a friend who confirmed this by comparing how
difficult it is to learn classical mechanics (including Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
formulation) on his own with electrodynamics and general relativity. (Who are much
much more difficult that all the field of CM)

For example, suppose you come across the novel term vector space, and want to learn
more about it. You look up various definitions, and they all refer to something
called a field. So now you're off to learn what a field is, but it's the same story
all over again: all the definitions you find refer to something called a group. Off
to learn about what a group is. Ad infinitum. That's what I'm calling here "to go
down the Math Rabbit Hole."

For example, I had lot of difficulties with the book "An Introduction to Mechanics"
by Daniel Kleppner, Robert J. Kolenkow, which seemed according to many views to be
an easy approach toward Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. The authors in
general only and quickly pushes equations in my front without giving any reason for
why a certain procedure is correct, and give no explanation on most of the things.
I had then one choice: search on the net. But when I do, to search for a term X, I
get to wikipedia page X, who give a definition that contains another term Y, where
I click to understand the full meaning of term X, but who then contain another term
Z, who redirects to... which leaves me with no understanding.

Another thing is that when I go here on Physics Stack Exchange, and when I see
answers like:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/14752/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/67705/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/71093/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/64976/
and many many others... (like an answer by David Z for a question that kinda
looks like: 'Would a heavier object fall faster because they attract earth
stronger', I have no idea where he found the equations he wrote down. Also in many
applied physics questions and answers by Lubos Motl. And in some questions: like:
'Why Newton's third law apply to all inertial frame?' I have no idea about that
even if I already learn a lot from Daniel's book.)

I don't know where those guys got all that stuff. I feel like: Mechanics is not
well organized. For example, in relativity we first learn about Galilean
relativity, then special relativity then general relativity. Everything is in order
and it makes of the understanding a lot smoother. (according to my friend) But in
classical mechanics I don't know where to start or what to pick.

In Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics book, it is even worse.

Result? I fail to correctly answer some basic questions like: what happens when a
cup of water starts to melt? or even more easy physics questions.

So I'm searching for a clear textbook that explains Newtonian mechanics well, then
goes to special relativity, then to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.

My dream for the next years of my life is to understand mechanics: Newtonian, SR,
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. And to start writing a web page about explanations of
different phenomena like John Baez this week on mathematical physics. And maybe to
do research on problems in classical physics which would make of me the most happy
man in the world.

Regards. Thanks for your understanding and time. My situation is similar to this
guy

My background: I'm very old, so I forgot almost all the math/physics I've got in
school, however, I've taken courses on Algebra, trigonometry and single variable
calculus using KhanAcademy and some MIT videos. I've taken an MIT test on CalcI
(just downloading the test online and verifying the solutions) and I scored 90%.
newtonian-mechanics classical-mechanics resource-recommendations education
shareciteimprove this question

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:39

Community♦
1

asked Jan 2 '14 at 18:45

Tomáš Sommer
84116
marked as duplicate by Brandon Enright, David Z♦ Jan 3 '14 at 8:35
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do
not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Related: Classical mechanics without coordinates book, How do you start self-
learning physics, Physics books for mechanics – user29727 Jan 2 '14 at 18:50

Dear @Adobe, $\\$ I already have gone through those links and they don't solve my
problem. $\\$ Regards. – Tomáš Sommer Jan 2 '14 at 18:51
3

I doubt there is such a book. There are sequences of books. But even then there is
a lot to know before you are ready to begin a systematic exploration. That is why
an undergraduate education consists of a freshman/sophomore sequence (usually out
of a huge tome of a book) followed by a second pass in the upper division where
students see mechanics, E&M, QM, and thermal physics separately and in detail. You
simply have to know the landscape in general before you can learn it in detail. –
dmckee♦ Jan 2 '14 at 19:21
2

One thing to keep in mind is that this is an expert-level site. It's targeted at
people who already know enough physics to understand the answers to their
questions, or who are willing and able to look up what they need to know to
understand them. The fact that you've complained about not knowing where some
equations come from, or not understanding some answers, suggests that this may not
be the site for you. I'm certainly not telling you you're not welcome here, but
realize that we cater to a certain audience and if you're not part of that
audience, you may have a difficult time here. – David Z♦ Jan 3 '14 at 4:50
1

It goes something like this Abstruse Goose. – Emilio Pisanty Jan 3 '14 at 6:20
show 13 more comments
5 Answers
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote

You just need an introductory book. Kleppner and Kolenkow is for ambitious college
students who've already had a year-long high school physics course. And of course
you don't understand when people are talking about mechanics on this site. I don't
understand random passages of Chinese. If I want to learn Chinese, I'll have to
start from the basics.

Physics majors generally don't learn Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics until
their third year of college, meaning they've taken quite a lot of physics classes
before they get to it.

Most of the recommendations people are giving here are not at the right level. It's
easy to forget how hard it was to learn early on. Taylor's book, for example, is
good, but too advanced for you. Things like Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds are
ludicrous to suggest to someone who's only just gone through some basic Khan-
academy style calculus. You don't need to know about affine geometry or symplectic
endomorfisms (whatever they are) in order to learn basic mechanics.

The class of books to start with have titles like "Conceptual Physics". I haven't
read those books, so I don't know which one to recommend. I'd suggest looking at
Amazon reviews of books called "Conceptual Physics" and picking one of those. These
books are chatty and can be read fairly quickly. Once you read that, try the first
half of Lewis Epstein's Thinking Physics to see how much you understood. You will
find that there was a lot that seemed like it made sense before, but suddenly
became confusing or tricky when you try to solve Epstein's problems. That's okay;
it means you're learning.

There's a test of basic conceptual understanding called the "Force Concept

Inventory". After you learn conceptual physics you can download that test. If you
get around 25/30 on it or so, you're ready to tackle a more advanced textbook at
the introductory college level. These things are called "Physics for Scientists and
Engineers" or "University Physics" and such. These books are long and boring, but
you probably need to read one and do lots of the practice problems. It will take a
much longer time than the conceptual physics book and you'll have to go slower.

There are probably a thousand introductions to special relativity out there. I have
no idea which one is best for you. The book "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and
Wheeler is a common one, but lots of people I know didn't like it. I'm not sure
what a better book is. I'd just pick whichever one on Amazon is rated the highest.

After you read that, you can try a book specifically devoted to college-level
mechanics, such as Kleppner and Kolenkow, David Morin, or John Taylor. These
include brief descriptions of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and the
mathematics of relativity. You might also need to learn some more math to
understand these books. There are books called "Mathematics for Physics Students"
and similar things. The one by James Nearing is free and pretty good.

Those books will get you a solid understanding of classical mechanics. There is
still a lot more you can learn after that, but I think it would take more than a
year to get through to the next level of graduate-level material.

A couple other things you might like are the first volume of The Feynman Lectures
and the lectures by Leonard Susskind. Most people can't learn from the Feynman
Lectures as a starting point, so I'd read them at the end of the year, not the
beginning. The lectures by Susskind are on youtube. It's about a 20-hour course on
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics that covers the essential ideas. He's also
released them as a book called "The Theoretical Minimum". You might read this after
the "University Physics" level book, or as a break in the middle of it. It's short
and fairly straightforward, but also very abstract.

A couple of unconventional recommendations are to at some point in the year read

Five Easy Lessons by Knight, which is about teaching introductory physics. It gives
good perspectives on the difficulties and hangups students have when learning.
Maybe also Two New Sciences by Galileo. He wrote it to convey his own conceptual
understanding of basic physics to common people, back at a time when we only had
bits and pieces of the math we need. It's an interesting historical viewpoint that
could also help things click for you.

Learning physics is hard. I tried to describe what I know about it here.

shareciteimprove this answer

answered Jan 2 '14 at 23:18

Mark Eichenlaub
38k1099189
1

“[...]You don't need to know about affine geometry or symplectic endomorfisms

(whatever they are)[...]” if you're referring to my post, it's simply symmetric.
Also, probably the words “affine geometry” are too much altisonant: I just meant
those things like parametric and cartesian equations of planes and lines, changes
of coordinates and stuff like that. – pppqqq Jan 3 '14 at 16:03
add a comment
up vote
5
down vote

I'll just note a couple of things when self-studying.

In order to avoid "the rabbit hole" you should have a look at several books, choose
one and stick to it. Reading other books and Wikipedia is useful because you'll
have different views, but it will reduce your concentration (hyperlinks are
specially dangerous).

You should also try to understand every derivation. For example, a good technique
is to have a piece of paper and "fill in the gaps" in a theorem proof. If you feel
that you don't understand the math behind, it's time to study from a math book.

In particular, I think that John Taylor's book is a good introduction.

shareciteimprove this answer

answered Jan 2 '14 at 20:54

jinawee
8,44243371

Some time ago I began on the Wikipedia pages for "Topos" and "Sheaf" and somehow,
four hours later, I realised I was reading about the life of Richard III of England
and the end of the Plantagenets, staying on Wikipedia pages the whole time! I
couldn't for the life of me recall how I got there, I think a biography of
Alexander Grothedieck must have gotten me to something French, and then somehow I
jumped across the la Manche into England ... – WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance Jan 2
'14 at 23:58
add a comment
up vote
4
down vote

A book recommendation is sometimes a hard thing to do in retrospect. (There are

several books that I hated when I was using them in class but have since nearly
worn out.) For this reason I will recommend the three physics texts which I feel
are best suited to study in general and perhaps you can do some research and decide
for yourself.

First, the most recent edition of Serway and Jewett is pretty close to a standard
as far as introductory texts go. It is aimed at college freshmen. There are a lot
of examples and problems and the material is pitched low and slow across the plate.
However, it will not cover Lagrangian or Hamiltonian Mechanics and it takes only a
cursory glance at relativity.

Second, John Taylor's Classical Mechanics is widely used and very well-liked. I
also like it, and whenever I get confused about something I pick it up to see what
he has to say. He covers everything (in greater or lesser detail) including the
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and relativity. Strictly speaking, you don't
need much mathematical background here, but it helps. (If I were to recommend only
one book, this would be it. I highly recommend it.)

Third, Goldstein is a graduate level text, and as such, few punches are pulled. He
covers all of the bases (at times in excruciating mathematical detail). I suspect
you will find this text pitched too high and too fast for your liking.

You can probably borrow a copy of any of these if you have an acquaintance in the
physics department of a local college. That would give you an opportunity to see if
you like any of them, which is the most important thing: if you are going to spend
a few years on this, you need to have a book that you can enjoy reading. In fact,
you might find it useful to start with Serway-Jewett and then move on to Taylor and
finally graduate to Goldstein.

Now that I've made my book recommendations I'll give you three more small tips:

(1) I suggest brushing-up on your single-variable calculus. A lot. You'll need it,
especially if what you are interested in is the "why" rather than the "how." In
fact, if you get comfortable with one-variable, you should glance at multi-variate
calculus as well. It's not much different so don't be worried, but you should know
the difference between partial derivatives and total derivatives and be able to
handle multiple integrals (particularly in polar coordinates).

(2) You'll need other math, too. Trigonometry is very important, but the headliner
here is vectors. "Little arrows with lengths and directions" is basically all you
need in simple Newtonian mechanics, but if you want to get down and dirty with
relativity, you'll need linear algebra (i.e. row vectors, column vectors, and
matrices). Orthogonal transformations will become your new best friends, and you
will eventually have a brief and passionate romance with symplectic matrices, and
this is only the tip of the iceberg. However, this only applies if you want to get
your hands dirty with the real mathematical machinery. The concepts are not
difficult, but the math can be overwhelming and very confusing.

You will probably want text books specifically for linear algebra and calculus,
too. There are many good calculus texts which deal with vector calculus (i.e. dot
products, cross products, vector-valued functions, line integrals, etc.), but they
won't deal with linear transformations (matrices) in detail. You'll have to decide
for yourself how deep into this rabbit hole you'll go. Which brings me too my final
piece of advice...

(3) Remember that Classical mechanics took hundreds of years to get to where it is
today. To get the type of firm grasp that you may be seeking will take great effort
because it will constitute mastering the life's work of many highly intelligent
individuals. Take it slow and expect to struggle. And sometimes you just need to
accept things as axiomatic, which is to say that they are true because they work.
Newton's Laws are of that kind: they cannot be proved, only corroborated by
experiments. They must be taken as they are, as axioms of a theory. Eventually, if
you follow the rabbit-hole long enough, all roads lead to axioms.

I hope this helps. Best of luck to you!

shareciteimprove this answer

edited Jan 3 '14 at 6:09

answered Jan 2 '14 at 23:06

Geoffrey
3,3351928

add a comment
up vote
2
down vote

but who then contain another term Z, who redirects to ... which leaves me with
no understanding.

Don't try to take it all at once. Mechanics is a vast subject and it takes a $lot$
of time to "get it". This is not so much due to complexity of the basic theory, as
due to variety of applications that often require some smart combination of the
basic principles interpreted in the right way and often also some mathematical
resilience. The best way is to start with simple elementary things and understand
them through solving problems.

I learned mechanics step by step. Take few good high-school physics textbooks on
mechanics, and try to do the problems, even invent ones - think about what you
learn. 80% of university mechanics is in the high school textbook, only with
simplified math and language. If you can solve the problems and understand majority
of it, then you should try some university-level textbooks.

So I'm searching for a clear textbook that explains Newtonian mechanics well,
then goes to special relativity, then to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. I
would be very thankful.

It is much better to seek for those topics in several books. More people know more,
and often author A is good on mechanics, but not so good on relativity and vice
versa.

For basic mechanics, my favourite were:

Feynman's lectures on physics, vol. 1;

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html

This is great book in all chapters. Mechanics is exposed very nicely with great
deal of originality and personal approach of Feynman.

textbook by Gettys, Keller, Skove http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?

url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=keller%20gettys%20skove

standard American style textbook, the best of its kind I've seen.

Berkeley course on physics, part I. Mechanics

http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Berkeley-Physics-Course-
Vol/dp/B000OFGY3S/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1388691985&sr=1-2-
catcorr&keywords=berkeley+course+on+physics+mechanics

more advanced stuff, and great.

You should be able to find these in physics university library.

Then for relativity, there are many good and even some superb books. I learned a
lot from a great intro paperback book by a Czech autor, with blue cover, I think it
was Karel Bartuška, Deset kapitol ze speciální teorie relativity (only in Czech,
should be in public libraries). The chapter on Special relativity in Serway:
Physics for Scientists & Engineers

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Chapters-23-
46/dp/1439048398/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388693282&sr=1-
12&keywords=serway+physics

is a nice-and-short intro. Also more advanced textbook by Katz: Introduction to the

Special theory of relativity

http://www.amazon.com/introduction-Special-Theory-
Relativity/dp/B0000CMHIO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388692825&sr=1-
1&keywords=katz+relativity

seems very nice, and Einstein's elementary book Relativity: Special and General
theory

https://archive.org/details/relativityspeci00einsgoog

is very readable.

For Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, you will find some good texts on the
Internet, for example by David Tong: Classical Dynamics:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html

And, of course, the greatest but formidable book on this subject is

Landau & Lifshitz: Mechanics, Course of theoretical physics

http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-
Physics/dp/0750628960/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388692793&sr=1-
1&keywords=landau+mechanics

In few dozens of pages, there it is all. It is a hard book, but very much worth
reading. Will be digestible after you've waden through Tong or some other beginner-
friendly source:-)
shareciteimprove this answer

answered Jan 2 '14 at 20:34

Ján Lalinský
11.2k929

add a comment
up vote
2
down vote

First, I want to say clearly that I'm a second-year Physics student, so I have only
a little experience about the matter. However, maybe I can give some advice.

1. As you have realized, the lack of good mathematical background can be a real
distraction and can also make you waste a lot of time in trying to understand
things that are properly explained in some mathematical terms that you haven't seen
before. So my first advice is: learn basic mathematics. Some of the things that you
need to know well from the first analysis course (this is not intended as a list):

The notions of limit and continuity.

The notion of derivative. Taylor expansion.
The notion of the Riemann integral over real intervals and its link with the
derivative.
Differential equations.

About points 1 and 2, my opinion is that single-variable calculus is too limiting.

Since the extension of the concepts of continuity and differentiation to functions
from $\mathbb R ^n$ to $\mathbb R ^m$ is really not a big jump, I suggest to study
these concepts in this little more generality. It'll make easier to understand
concepts such, for example, “potential energy”.

Integration over subsets of $\mathbb R ^n$ is more delicate and you really won't
need a lot of it to learn basic newtonian mechanics, so I think you can postpone it
to a second moment (however you will need it to understand propositions like the
Liouville's theorem, for example).

There isn't a lot to say about the importance of differential equations. In

particular: $$\ddot x=-\omega ^2x.$$ There's a lot of good analysis books, an
example being Rudin's PMA (try to give a look). However, this is a really though
book. Maybe a softer approach is given in Spivak's Calculus, I haven't read it
though. But he's an excellent writer, in my opinion.

Some concepts from linear algebra that you need to know are:

Vector spaces (and affine spaces).

Linear applications.
The vector space structure of $\mathbb R ^n$. Linear systems, matrices.
Affine geometry.
Scalar products, vector spaces with a metric given by a SP. Isometries.
Eigenvalues. Symmetric endomorfisms. The spectral theorem.

The abstraction of “vector space”, together with the study of the natural
applications beetween these sets, i.e. linear ones, is something of huge
importance. The concept of affine space, that rests on the former, is important
too, since any natural description of the space-time is in terms of an affine space
(and not a linear space). About point 6, it's really important to understand at
least the statement of the Spectral theorem. A first example of its power will
arise from the study of rigid bodies.

Apart from their importance in classical mechanics, I suggest to study hard all
this stuff simply beacause it's all really beautiful.

A book that deserves mention, even if treats more advanced subjects, is Spivak's
“Calculus On Manifolds”. I think that this book is really precious to a physician
that needs to learn a lot of advanced mathematics in a relatively small time.

2. Now we come to physics. I don't want to list topics, because there's not much to
advice about it. I'll mention some of the books which I studied and I'm currently
studying from.

Feynman lectures, book 1. This is a MUST. Someone says that it's better to read
him later. I don't agree, I think that this lessons are enlightening at all level.
From the first time I read Feynman, I found him brilliant and his style very
engaging.
Taylor - Classical Mechanics. This is a good introduction to Newtonian
mechanics: a nice and easy to follow approach to the basic theorems, with full
explanations in all its derivations and remarks where some simplification is being
made. It contains some interesting problems and also a brief introduction to
Lagrangian Mechanics.
V.I. Arnold - Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. I'm actually reading
this. It's an incredibly fascinating book, and also a laborious one. I suggest to
go through this once you've mastered the Newtonian formulation. I'm aiding myself
through this book with “Calculus on Manifolds“, which was one of the reasons to
mention it.

This answer grew up a little more than I was expecting, but I think I've said all I
had to say. If you have questions, feel free to ask. I hope this can help.
shareciteimprove this answer

edited Jan 2 '14 at 22:14

answered Jan 2 '14 at 20:42

pppqqq
2,43321133

Dear @pppqqq, $\\$ If you read my last paragraph you would know that I did limits,
Riemann integrals, derivatives... through KhanAcademy and MIT OpenCourseware.
Thanks for the advice. $\\$ Regards. – Tomáš Sommer Jan 2 '14 at 21:26

Give a look at the updated answer... that was only the prelude :-) cheers – pppqqq
Jan 2 '14 at 22:16
3

Rudin? Spivak? Arnold? For someone who's just glanced non-analysis calculus and
wants to self-study??? Almost anyone who attempts this will fail and become
dejected. And even upon success, one will be considered a mathematician but won't
be able to solve any actual physics problem of the type the OP wants to understand.
– user10851 Jan 2 '14 at 23:55

@ChrisWhite I agree with you. The suggested references are too "heavy" for a
beginner. I didn't know anything about multivariable calculus (at least not at the
level of Spivak, which is notoriously tough for non-mathematicians) nor had I heard
of V. I. Arnold when I studied classical mechanics in my first year in college. –
Isidore Seville Jan 3 '14 at 6:23

@ChrisWhite OP says: “My dream for the next years of my life is to understand
mechanics: Newtonian, SR, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian.”. From what I understand, the
OP wants to invest a large part of his time in studying physics. OFCOURSE he should
not start from Arnold, Rudin & Co.! I will state it explicitly and apologie about
it not being clear. – pppqqq Jan 3 '14 at 8:28
show 3 more comments
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged newtonian-
mechanics classical-mechanics resource-recommendations education or ask your own
question.

asked

4 years ago

viewed

20,172 times
active

4 years ago
Linked
19
Recommendations for good Newtonian mechanics and kinematics books
173
Why does kinetic energy increase quadratically, not linearly, with speed?
24
How do you start learning physics by yourself?
37
Classical mechanics without coordinates book
18
How can I determine whether the mass of an object is evenly distributed?
22
How many points are required to make a black box
23
A rope attaches the Moon to the Earth. What happens?
Related
4
In what order should the subjects be studied in order to get to String Theory
24
How do you start learning physics by yourself?
3
How do I learn higher level physics?
1
Prerequisites for classical mechanics by Susskind
1
Learning Undergrad Physics
0
I need a good book for learning mechanics in non-inertial frames
2
Need A Collection Textbooks To Use As Stepping Stones to QFT
3
Self Learning Quantum Mechanics and QFT, how to?
1
Prerequisite online course on classical and Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics to be
able to understand Quantum Mechanics
1
Classical Mechanics Video Lessons (for the Elderly)
Hot Network Questions

Adding the third floppy drive?

What would be an ideal breathable atmosphere for a planet so that fire couldn't
start naturally?
Email received regarding Security flaw in website
Years ago, this was the password for our firewall
Should domains which only make redirects (aka tiny urls) be encrypted (https)?

more hot questions

Physics

Tour
Help
Chat
Contact
Feedback
Mobile
Company

Stack Overflow
Stack Overflow Business
Developer Jobs
About
Press
Legal
Privacy Policy

Stack Exchange
Network

Technology
Life / Arts
Culture / Recreation
Science
Other

Stack Overflow
Server Fault
Super User
Web Applications
Ask Ubuntu
Webmasters
Game Development

TeX - LaTeX
Software Engineering
Unix & Linux
Ask Different (Apple)
WordPress Development
Geographic Information Systems
Electrical Engineering

Android Enthusiasts
Information Security
Database Administrators
Drupal Answers
SharePoint
User Experience
Mathematica

Salesforce
ExpressionEngine® Answers
Stack Overflow em Português
Blender
Network Engineering
Cryptography
Code Review

Magento
Software Recommendations
Signal Processing
Emacs
Raspberry Pi
Stack Overflow на русском
Programming Puzzles & Code Golf
 Stack Overflow en español
Ethereum
Data Science
Arduino
Bitcoin
more (26)

Photography
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Graphic Design
Movies & TV
Music: Practice & Theory
Worldbuilding
Seasoned Advice (cooking)

Home Improvement
Personal Finance & Money
Academia
Law
more (16)

English Language & Usage

Skeptics
Mi Yodeya (Judaism)
Travel
Christianity
English Language Learners
Japanese Language

Arqade (gaming)
Bicycles
Role-playing Games
Anime & Manga
Puzzling
Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair
more (32)

MathOverflow
Mathematics
Cross Validated (stats)
Theoretical Computer Science
Physics
Chemistry
Biology

Computer Science
Philosophy
more (10)

Meta Stack Exchange

Stack Apps
API
Data
Area 51

Blog Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

site design / logo © 2018 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc
by-sa 3.0 with attribution required. rev 2018.1.19.28483
Physics Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled