A good quantum mechanics book for the self-learner?


by Moneer81
Tags: book, mechanics, quantum, selflearner
totentanz
totentanz is offline
#55
Apr8-11, 12:52 PM
P: 42
Quote Quote by dark_raider View Post
If i may interrupt, realizing i am the source of your little controversy, i'd like to say what is my point of view about this matter. I am at pretty the same situation with totentanz (self learner) and i am at about the same mathematical skill level. Two years before, i started to try understand QM. I got Mahon first but, guess what, great disappointment. Despite the "demystified" label, i can assure you it was not demystifying at all. The guy who wrote it must have thought that his book will be read from graduates on QM, otherwise i cannot explain all these things he was taking for granted as mathematical prerequisites. Of course, you can put in our equation the fact that i'm not a genius so all these may be simple but i just can't undestand them. Though, when i got griffiths, it was like an eureka moment. Reading his book makes you think you have a professor teaching you. And this is the most important thing for self learners, since we do not have the opportunity of being in a classroom. I shall not write more because you're going to thing i am griffiths' son or something. I just wanted to quote my point of view about this.
Thanks my friend,I want to get familair with the tools...for the concerpts,you can try the Teaching Company courses like (Einstein,physist,philosopher,..)or better one (Relativity and Quantum Revolution)...but we need to know the mathematical tools,so we can understand how the theory realy works
dark_raider
dark_raider is offline
#56
Apr9-11, 03:52 AM
P: 49
I am not exactly sure about what exactly you're searching for. Do you need the mathematics of the physics needed for string theory?
totentanz
totentanz is offline
#57
Apr9-11, 04:46 AM
P: 42
Quote Quote by dark_raider View Post
I am not exactly sure about what exactly you're searching for. Do you need the mathematics of the physics needed for string theory?
Yes this is what I want...after looking I think quantum mechanics will take me 3-5 years to get it ,then I will go to general relativity say an other 5 years then QED and QCD then String Theory...(I hope to live untill this time)...as Hawking once put it "There is two kind of people get paied for doing what they like: a prostitute,and a true man of science"
dark_raider
dark_raider is offline
#58
Apr9-11, 05:26 AM
P: 49
Wow you are very patient. Actually as i see it this is the no1 skill a self learner must have. Personally, i prefer to go through all these fields you said (QM, GR, SR, QED) at the same time. You see, since i am not bunded to a university's program, i like to keep interchanging between them in order not to get bored. But that's me.
Anyway, i think it's all about what you want to learn. I for example want to know more about how all these work. I am not interested in finding new solutions to the equations of GR, or get a PhD in physics. I just ask "why". That said, i put more efford on the geometrical interpretation of the mathematics used in physics. Actually to my surprise, i found out that the way physics is taught in universities (at least in my country) is a mechanistic one. Students just keep doing exercises, not realizing why they are solved the way they do.
In conclusion, i think that the sources that have helped me most during these three years of self learning are griffiths' books, susskind's lectures on youtube and endless hours in wikipedia.
totentanz
totentanz is offline
#59
Apr9-11, 12:29 PM
P: 42
Quote Quote by dark_raider View Post
Wow you are very patient. Actually as i see it this is the no1 skill a self learner must have. Personally, i prefer to go through all these fields you said (QM, GR, SR, QED) at the same time. You see, since i am not bunded to a university's program, i like to keep interchanging between them in order not to get bored. But that's me.
Anyway, i think it's all about what you want to learn. I for example want to know more about how all these work. I am not interested in finding new solutions to the equations of GR, or get a PhD in physics. I just ask "why". That said, i put more efford on the geometrical interpretation of the mathematics used in physics. Actually to my surprise, i found out that the way physics is taught in universities (at least in my country) is a mechanistic one. Students just keep doing exercises, not realizing why they are solved the way they do.
In conclusion, i think that the sources that have helped me most during these three years of self learning are griffiths' books, susskind's lectures on youtube and endless hours in wikipedia.
Yes my friend,you are abslutly right,for me I study mechanics(vehicules)...and we've learned linear algebra(I personally hated the subject)...and I discovered that it is one of the mathematical foundation of Quantum Theory...and I've spent 5 years in the university and I still in the second year...and I've learn ONE thing ,just a simple one..."It is not the paper that makes you,is what you do that makes you what you are now" thank you my friend
rhombusjr
rhombusjr is offline
#60
Apr9-11, 12:31 PM
P: 97
Quote Quote by totentanz View Post
Yes this is what I want...after looking I think quantum mechanics will take me 3-5 years to get it ,then I will go to general relativity say an other 5 years then QED and QCD then String Theory...(I hope to live untill this time)...as Hawking once put it "There is two kind of people get paied for doing what they like: a prostitute,and a true man of science"
You do realize you could get a Ph.D. in physics in that amount of time, right? Starting from square 1: 4 years for B.S., ~5-6 for Ph.D.

A word of caution: String Theory is still just a theory, and there are many respectable physicists who doubt it's correctness. So there's a chance that by the time you've self-taught yourself QED, QCD, QFD, that String Theory will have been proven wrong. Not saying that will be the case, but it could happen.
totentanz
totentanz is offline
#61
Apr9-11, 01:10 PM
P: 42
Quote Quote by rhombusjr View Post
You do realize you could get a Ph.D. in physics in that amount of time, right? Starting from square 1: 4 years for B.S., ~5-6 for Ph.D.

A word of caution: String Theory is still just a theory, and there are many respectable physicists who doubt it's correctness. So there's a chance that by the time you've self-taught yourself QED, QCD, QFD, that String Theory will have been proven wrong. Not saying that will be the case, but it could happen.
I do not want to have ???in physics,I just want to understand it,it is as simple as that,and a bout the wrong path of String Theory,maybe you are right,but do we have a better choice?I personally don't like the people who critique alot...as one philosopher(I don't not remember who he is): "To find a fault,this maybe easy,but to do better ,this maybe difficault"
I know many PhD proffesssors in my university in physics who does not have any idea about String Theory or Quantum Loop Theory...outside of his special field,he is like Alice,have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes....thanks
A. Neumaier
A. Neumaier is offline
#62
Apr15-11, 05:27 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942
Quote Quote by totentanz View Post
we have get so many choices,I am realy confused...I mean is there any physics professor of physics in the forum that can tell us what is the best? and when do you know you've get it?...because if there is an other way,I wil go directly to String Theory,but relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the basic tools...thanks for everyone,and we wait for an answer
What is best depends on what you know already and at which level of sophisitcation you know it. There is no canned answer.

Try http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019
totentanz
totentanz is offline
#63
Apr16-11, 03:05 AM
P: 42
Quote Quote by A. Neumaier View Post
What is best depends on what you know already and at which level of sophisitcation you know it. There is no canned answer.

Try http://de.arxiv.org/abs/0810.1019
Thanks...but I am intersted in how to DO QM.thanks for the book it seems very intersting after reading the index
A. Neumaier
A. Neumaier is offline
#64
Apr18-11, 02:13 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,942
Quote Quote by totentanz View Post
Thanks...but I am intersted in how to DO QM.thanks for the book it seems very intersting after reading the index
Reading about QM well done tells you how to do it.

By the way, a discussion thread for the current draft (v2) of my book ''Classical and Quantum Mechanics via Lie algebras'' has just be approved - see http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492
You may post there questions or comments regarding the material in the book.
Qubix
Qubix is offline
#65
May4-11, 11:38 AM
P: 74
A beautiful Quantum Mechanics and Introductory Quantum Field Theory book I recently got my hands on is Desai

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechan...4527037&sr=8-1

Very clear book, I would recommend it to the beginner, work it all the way to the end and then you can pick up a QFT book, no problem.
timec2
timec2 is offline
#66
Dec7-11, 08:21 AM
P: 1
thank you for your asking, I am ready to learn quantum mechanics, so I got lots of information from the replies, thanks.
cheng zhen
cheng zhen is offline
#67
May17-13, 11:46 AM
P: 1
Griffith An intriduction to QM
smodak
smodak is offline
#68
May18-13, 02:54 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by Qubix View Post
A beautiful Quantum Mechanics and Introductory Quantum Field Theory book I recently got my hands on is Desai

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechan...4527037&sr=8-1

Very clear book, I would recommend it to the beginner, work it all the way to the end and then you can pick up a QFT book, no problem.
800 page book. I am 42 - I will probably retire before I finish this book :) It looks very good however, so, I ordered a used copy.
pillow47
pillow47 is offline
#69
Jun3-13, 01:41 AM
P: 8
I strongly recommend Townsend's A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics. Crystal clear, ample examples. Feels like he's telling you a story without losing the mathematical rigor. He claims it's the best undergraduate QM book out there. Definitely the best one I've ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/A-Modern-Appro...ntum+mechanics
WannabeNewton
WannabeNewton is online now
#70
Jun3-13, 04:37 AM
C. Spirit
Sci Advisor
Thanks
WannabeNewton's Avatar
P: 4,941
Quote Quote by pillow47 View Post
I strongly recommend Townsend's A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics.
Based off of the Amazon preview, this book looks quite similar, in exposition and level of rigor, to Sakurai's text. If you have used Sakurai yourself, would you say Townsend's book is unequivocally better than Sakurai's text? Or at least to first order ?
dextercioby
dextercioby is offline
#71
Jun3-13, 06:38 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 11,866
It would be bad if that book were at the level of 'rigor' as Sakurai's Modern QM text. Basically the only rigor I saw in Sakurai's book was in proper usage of the techniques of complex analysis.
WannabeNewton
WannabeNewton is online now
#72
Jun3-13, 06:51 AM
C. Spirit
Sci Advisor
Thanks
WannabeNewton's Avatar
P: 4,941
Quote Quote by dextercioby View Post
It would be bad if that book were at the level of 'rigor' as Sakurai's Modern QM text. Basically the only rigor I saw in Sakurai's book was in proper usage of the techniques of complex analysis.
Lol you gotta love how Sakurai introduces kets and bras without ever mentioning what dual spaces are (heck I don't even remember if he defines what a vector space is xD).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Good book to understand eigenvalue for quantum mechanics? Science & Math Textbook Listings 2
Good book on fluid mechanics Science & Math Textbook Listings 0
Looking for a good undergrad mechanics book Science & Math Textbook Listings 9
Good Orbital Mechanics book? Astrophysics 3
A good Quantum Mechanics text book Introductory Physics Homework 0