QM or Relativity first for self learners?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm Relativity Self
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether to learn Quantum Mechanics (QM) or Special Relativity first for self-learners, particularly those with a background limited to classical physics. Participants explore the connections between the two subjects and the prerequisites for understanding them effectively.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests starting with Special Relativity, emphasizing the importance of understanding Lorentz transformations and their connection to Electromagnetism.
  • Another participant proposes a two-stage approach to learning QM: first an introductory course with basic math, followed by a more comprehensive quantum text, while avoiding quantum field theory initially.
  • There is a mention of the necessity to study classical Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics as part of the learning process.
  • A participant inquires about the suitability of Feynman's work for learning, noting that it may contain superfluous points.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of prior exposure to classical electromagnetism, suggesting it may be beneficial to review this material before tackling Special Relativity.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of a solid foundation in Electromagnetism as it relates to the development of Special Relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the order of learning QM and Special Relativity, with no consensus reached. Some advocate for starting with Special Relativity, while others suggest beginning with QM. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various textbooks and resources, indicating a lack of consensus on the best materials for learning. There are also references to personal educational experiences that may influence their recommendations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for self-learners in physics, particularly those transitioning from classical to modern physics, and those seeking guidance on structuring their studies in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

Tyro
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
I decided to expand my knowledge on Physics a little from what I was taught at school, which was mostly classical/Newtonian stuff. I am planning on learning both Quantum Mechanics & Relativity. Which one should I learn first, so that the knowledge from that first subject would help me learn the other? Why is that? (I'm interested in looking out for some of those connections)

My education in Physics stopped at A-level...otherwise known as Year 12. After that, in the engineering degree I was in, you stick mostly to Newtonian stuff, apart from a little relativity in Celestial Mechanics. From what I know, the E3's (Electrical & Electronic Engineers) did QM.

The Physics subject in the A-level examination board I sat for (Cambridge's) did not touch Relativity at all. As for QM, it was very introductory, mostly thermionic emission from ZnO (IIRC) and how various experiments concluded that light had wave-particle duality and delivered its energy in distinct packets, instead of being purely a wave. The syllabus stopped at saying "there is more than meets the eye for light." Literally.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
My opinion for what it's worth.

First do special relativity, and do it with the math (Lorentz transformations) and try to get up to Electromagnetism in relativity. I say that because if you can do that it will be pretty assured that you really know four-momentum and energy and can work with them. Besides, covariant EM will come back to haunt you.

Then do basic quantum mechanics. Do this in two stages. First a basic introduction to the ideas, with math, probably as a one dimensional model. Do as many problems as you can. Then start in on a full bore quantum text (but NOT quantum field theory! Stay away from that till you get your quantum legs). You goal here should be to master ket algebra, Hilbert space, eigenvalues, and be able to do (some of) the problems in the Schaum's outline for QM.

Somewhere in here you want to study classical Lagrangean and Hamiltonian dynamics, at least up to poisson bracket gymnastics. Don't waste time on math courses beyond what you know (calculus is important and feeling comfortable with integration by parts will be a big help).

If you've got this far, look around for an online study group in quantum field theory, and good luck!

I haven't mentioned textbooks. They come and go, and others will be able to give you the current faves. I do want to plug "What is Quantum Mechanics? A Physics Adventure" for the basic QM course. I wish it had beeen around when I was starting out.
 
*Starts taking notes* :smile:

How about Feynman? From what I was told by some that he is good, but at times tends to dwell too much on superfluous points.

Otherwise I still have the textbooks from my A-levels (with lots of unread chapters on QM & Relativity...), like Young and Hecht. I've got a Halliday & Resnick at my parent's place too. I could ask them to post it over.

At what stage do you recommend general relativity?

Oh, BTW, we learned about classical electromagnetism in a very convoluted way. We weren't actually taught Maxwell's laws in an A,B,C,... way like how you're taught Newton's laws (e.g. "This is the first law. This is the second.") Rather we were just exposed to a concept, which may have been a basic Maxwell law, or a corollary. So, should I brush up on classical EM theory as well?
 
I would try and get a good book on EM before you try and take on special relativity. Why? SR is a natural evolution from the work Lorentz & Poincaré did on EM. A good course in EM should give you the feeling "ooh, I see where this is going".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
502
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
608
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K