Griffith's Introduction to Elementary Particles

AI Thread Summary
Understanding quantum mechanics (QM) is essential for successfully navigating a particle physics course that utilizes the discussed textbook. While the text does explain fundamental concepts, a solid grasp of key QM topics such as wave-functions, orbital angular momentum, spin, and the addition of angular momentum is crucial. A formal course in QM, ideally at the level of Griffith's textbook, is recommended to adequately prepare for the material. Engaging with the instructor can provide clarity on course expectations, as teaching styles vary significantly. Overall, while it may be challenging to tackle the course with minimal QM knowledge, the well-structured nature of the textbook could facilitate comprehension, making the effort worthwhile for students.
GleasSpty
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I was thinking about sitting in a course next quarter that used this textbook, and no prerequisites are listed, so I was wondering what kind of things should I know to get through the text.
The thing I am most worried about is my knowledge of QM. I only know the little QM I have studied independently and what we did in an intro. modern physics course. I will be taking a full blown QM course concurrently with the Particle Physics course, but am unsure if this will be enough.

After flipping through the text for about an hour or so, I haven't found anything he supposes you to know but don't, i.e. everything I didn't understand he appeared to expalin in the text.

I'm still a little worried though: if I only know very little QM, will I be completley lost with this text?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You will be little confused, the things you need to know are also presented in his book. But the basic stuffs like wave-functions and states, orbital angular momentum, spin, and addition of angular momentum must be known quite well. Although some things are recapitulated for you in his particle physics book.

So I would not recommend going through a course in particle physics without quantum mechanics, at the level of Griffith's textbook in quantum mechanics.
 
Griffith's is an amazing book though. I don't think it would be a huge undertaking to tackle most of the book with just a single course taken on QM, as it's so well written; but you would definitely need at least 1 formal course on QM, and it might take you a while longer than average.

Definately worth the effort
 
assuming this is at a university where you are a student, my advice to you is to ask your instructor. Many instructors use a book only as a guide, but fill in many details in lecture. others do exactly the opposite! so you should talk to him or her and find out what is expected of you.

QM is vital for particle physics (as you might imagine!). but if the course is taught correctly, you might be okay. No one here can answer that for you.

Good luck!
 
thank's
 
thank's this book is that what i need for my university
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top