Recent content by naele

It's more like |a'> = |a',b'> and |b'> = |a'',b''>. I frankly find Sakurai's notation a little confusing/cumbersome so I prefer not to use it. Instead, if |a'> and |b'> are simultaneous eigenstates of each other's operators, what does this tell you about <a'|b'> ?

If [A,B]=0 then |a> and |b> are simultaneous eigenstates of A and B. Given this, can you make the argument you have the freedom to choose |a'> and |b'> such that |a'> = |a,b> and |b'>= |a',b'> ? edit: sorry i don't have Sakurai in front of me anymore so I'm making some mistakes trying to copy...

You're not connecting the operators to the kets. When [A,B]=0 is true, this places conditions on |a> and |b>. You should consider equations 1.4.34a and 1.4.34b as I think it should be helpful to solve the problem.

It's good, but I would skip the special relativity sections.

I'll rank them in order of how much I like them as well as criticisms I have 1) Kardar - Statistical Physics of Particles. It's a good solid book, succinct and to the point. Doesn't cover anything but core topics. Generally the exposition is pretty good and I have no real quibble about it. My...

Well the reason I thought there would be a factor is because, unless I'm doing something wrong, I thought the jacobian for \phi(x_i)\to\phi(k_n) is \frac{1}{V}e^{-ik_n\cdot x_i}. Although now that I think about it, they do say that it is a unitary transformation, so presumably the Jacobian would...

I think I understand that part now, thanks. I do have a problem still with the change of variables from \phi(x_i)\to\phi(k_n). I might be missing something, but there would presumably be a factor of V^{1/n} from the 1/V factor in the Fourier series expansion. And then when I transform from...

I had a question about about the integration measure for the path integral after a unitary change of variables. First they consider a 4D spacetime lattice with volume L^4. The measure is \mathcal{D}\phi = \prod_i d\phi(x_i) They expand the field variables in a Fourier series...

Sure looks like it. It's probably the best calculus physics book out there, but I mean physics is physics so any book will do as long as there aren't any glaring deficiencies.

Isn't AP physics C purely mechanics? Either way, the standard calculus based physics textbook is Halliday and Resnick Fundamentals of Physics. Get yourself a previous edition like the 6th and that'll cover everything you need for the AP test and includes EM

I thought you needed to determine the singularities and their residues? I don't know if you've learned this yet, but if you have a function f(z)=g(z)/h(z) where h(z0)=0 and g(z0)!= 0 then the order of the pole at z0 is equal to the order of the zero at h(z0). The order of the zero can be found...

Hi there friend, consider expanding the numerator and the denominator separately in a Laurent series and then multiply them together to pick out the coefficient of the z^-1 term

On the first page Landau introduces generalized coordinates and on the 2nd page he discusses the least action principle. In principle you have the pre-requisites but you might want to have several other sources at hand while you're studying in case you get stuck and need other perspectives.

Well the most popular calculus book is Stewart. A lot of people around here don't like it, for one reason or another, but it's a solid book; just pricey so consider an older edition. To supplement I recommend getting Schaum's Outline of Calculus and Schaum's 3000 Solved Problems in Calculus...

The classic book to transition out of modern physics is Griffiths. Griffiths is well known to have a nice conversational engaging style. And Chapter 3 gives you exactly what you want. Also he has appendices that fill in the rest of the mathematics that are pre-requisite. Alternatively, I'd like...