Good textbook(s) for self-studying Quantum Physics

[Meow12]

Could you please suggest a good textbook for self-studying quantum mechanics? Not something too advanced. I have a math degree, so I'm not averse to equations.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think Ballentine is a reasonably good textbook.

 

[PeroK]

Could you please suggest a good textbook for self-studying quantum mechanics? Not something too advanced. I have a math degree, so I'm not averse to equations.

You could try these notes:

http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys304/Handouts/QuantumPhysicsNotes.pdf

 

[anuttarasammyak]

One of classics is Dirac’s in 1930 if you would enjoy literature and history.

 

[Meow12]

One of classics is Dirac’s in 1930 if you would enjoy literature and history.

But hasn't quantum physics changed since Dirac?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

He belongs to pioneers who established QM. I do not think the textbook is old or not exact in current standard. It is still printed now. I would add that I don’t recommend it for students who would use QM practically.

 

[apostolosdt]

One of classics is Dirac’s in 1930 if you would enjoy literature and history.

Feynman had tried it while undergrad but soon he abandoned it as “too difficult” and turned to Pauling & Wilson’s.

 

[anuttarasammyak]

Pauling ＆ Wilson's was also a good book for me to apply QM in our real world. "Notorious" Dirac's book is commented in below linked radio broadcast at 47:00. I enjoyed it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fw0p

 

[Frabjous]

Look at the suggestions before purchasing. A good textbook is actually a personal choice for you.

Schwabl
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Franz-Schwabl/dp/3540719326/?tag=pfamazon01-20
McIntyre
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321765796/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Morrison
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321765796/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Townsend https://www.amazon.com/dp/1891389785/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Zwiebach https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0997R9CJ5/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I am unfamiliar with it, but it is a Dover book (i.e., cheap)
Park https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486441377/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[vanhees71]

But hasn't quantum physics changed since Dirac?

I'd say that quantum mechanics (non-relativstic quantum theory) has not changed in its foundations, but there's of course plenty of new insights in the last ~80 years. Nevertheless Dirac's book is amazingly up to date, and the Dirac formalism (prepresentation independent formulation with abstract operators and bras and kets) is the one, where you can most easily express the physical meaning and mathematical structure of the theory. Nevertheless, I'd recommend a more recent book. My favorite since I've learnt QM in the first theory lecture on the subject is

J. J. Sakurai and S. Tuan, Modern Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wesley (1993).

There's a newer edition with Napolitano as co-author. AFAIK the only difference is that he added a chapter on so-called "relativistic quantum mechanics", which I strongly recommend NOT to read, because the only consistent formulation of relativistic QT is relativistic QFT, and thus one should learn relativistic QFT from the very beginning, when one wants to study relativistic QT, for which I recommend on the introductory level

S. Coleman, Lectures of Sidney Coleman on Quantum Field
Theory, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1142/9371

 

[haushofer]

I like the notes of David Tong:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/quantum.html

Concise, clear and with emphasis on the conceptual parts.

 

[MichPod]

As not too advanced, but good, I can recommend David Miller, Quantum Mechanics for Scientists and Engineers. While providing very accessible approach, it introduces/covers some 90% of standard QM topics + even introduces some advanced topics from quantum optics.
Also, Susskind, "Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum" may be considered a good and compact introduction or an addition to Miller.
As a contribution to self studying, for the first book, MOOC is available on edx.org, for the second one, you can find videos on youtube.

 

[jbergman]

I think Ballentine is too challenging for a first book. I like Sakurai's book. Alternatively, Griffith's is commonly used for Wave Mechanics.

 

[MichPod]

I think Ballentine is too challenging for a first book. I like Sakurai's book. Alternatively, Griffith's is commonly used for Wave Mechanics.

Hmmm... interesting. From your impression, is Ballentine more advanced than Sakurai? I understand they both are ranked as graduate level textbooks.

 

[apostolosdt]

Could you please suggest a good textbook for self-studying quantum mechanics? Not something too advanced. I have a math degree, so I'm not averse to equations.

Since you've got a degree in math, why don't you try a text on QM written specifically for mathematicians? You might find the approach more interesting.

 

[Meow12]

Since you've got a degree in math, why don't you try a text on QM written specifically for mathematicians? You might find the approach more interesting.

I'm hardly a mathematician--I just have a 3-year B.Sc. in math. To clarify, I only want an undergraduate-level textbook of QM.

 

[PeroK]

I'm hardly a mathematician--I just have a 3-year B.Sc. in math. To clarify, I only want an undergraduate-level textbook of QM.

Griffiths!

 

[apostolosdt]

I'm hardly a mathematician--I just have a 3-year B.Sc. in math. To clarify, I only want an undergraduate-level textbook of QM.

It's good to discuss textbooks on QM with a sincere person. Anyway, you probably need a rather short, yet accurate account of QM at an introductory level. Much to the surprise of many members here, I would then suggest Dicke & Wittke's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," Addison-Wesley (original publication, 1966), a mere 380-page textbook. I'm sure you can find it in a good university library.

 

[apostolosdt]

Griffiths!

Yes, Griffiths is also very good.

 

[MichPod]

There is no any good book on QM unless you already know QM.

 

[PeterDonis]

There is no any good book on QM unless you already know QM.

If that is the case, how can anyone ever learn QM?

 

[jbergman]

Hmmm... interesting. From your impression, is Ballentine more advanced than Sakurai? I understand they both are ranked as graduate level textbooks.

I think Sakurai starts off more slowly and builds more gradually into the material, focusing on spin first which is fairly simple.

Ballentine starts using density operators right away in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 is a tour de force for deriving various observables from symmetries of Galilean transformations. It moves rather fast and you have to fill in more details on your own.

 

[vanhees71]

Hmmm... interesting. From your impression, is Ballentine more advanced than Sakurai? I understand they both are ranked as graduate level textbooks.

Ballentine is a bit more advanced than Sakurai, given that he gives a brief introduction to rigged Hilbert spaces. On the other hand this tremendously helps to understand the issues with self-adjoint operators (domain, co-domain etc) and continuous spectra. Concerning the "interpretation issues" Ballentine is the best I know, but I'd not recommend to go into interpretation when just beginning to learn the physics. The "shutup-and-calculate approach" is the best at this state ;-)).

 

[Vanadium 50]

OP, what are you looking for exactly? Eiseberg/Resnick and Landau, for example, are both good books, but they are very different books.

 

[Meow12]

OP, what are you looking for exactly?

I know some tidbits of quantum mechanics (mainly from Stephen Hawking's popular science books) like the uncertainty principle, the inherent randomness and unpredictability of quantum experiments, and wanted to delve a little deeper into the subject.

 

[vanhees71]

Then, I'd rather suggest to first look at some undergrad textbook. Feynman vol. 3 is great for that!

 

[apostolosdt]

Or this one (there are other two; the whole course is a three-quarter undergraduate-level course; all lectures are with videos, etc.):
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/

 

[MichPod]

Or this one (there are other two; the whole course is a three-quarter undergraduate-level course; all lectures are with videos, etc.):
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/

Yep. And they also have another version (quite a different one) of this course+videos given by another professor:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/

 

[MichPod]

I did not study/read it all, but I was very positively impressed from the first paragraphs.

A.I Lvovsky - Quantum Physics, an introduction based on photons

Of course it is not only about photons.

 

[Meow12]

I just listened to an awesome YouTube lecture on Quantum Mechanics by Sean Carroll:

I may buy his book Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime someday. This is really what I was looking for--not grad school textbooks.

 

[Frabjous]

I just listened to an awesome YouTube lecture on Quantum Mechanics by Sean Carroll:

I may buy his book Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime someday. This is really what I was looking for--not grad school textbooks.

This is not self-studying quantum physics. This is listening to quantum stories.

You were given plenty of undergraduate text suggestions.

 

[Meow12]

This is not self-studying quantum physics. This is listening to quantum stories.

You were given plenty of undergraduate text suggestions.

I guess I should've been more clear in my OP--I have no intention of solving the Schrodinger wave equation.

 

[Frabjous]

I guess I should've been more clear in my OP--I have no intention of solving the Schrodinger wave equation.

Then I would suggest
Feynman V3
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html
Lindlay
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465067867/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Ghirardi
https://www.amazon.com/dp/069113037X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have a math degree, so I'm not averse to equations.

I have no intention of solving the Schrodinger wave equation.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

If you are near finishing your degree in math I think it’s well worth your time to familiarize yourself with simple potentials via solving the Schrödinger equation.