A good quantum mechanics book for the self-learner?

[Qubix]

Shankar, Sakurai, Dirac (must read the Master's book) and if you are interested in some examples, applications, etc, you could always look through Greiner - Quantum Mechanics - an introduction

 

[lanedance]

is there any opinions on ballentine? I've ended up with a copy am planning to work through

 

[George Jones]

is there any opinions on ballentine? I've ended up with a copy am planning to work through

See

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=276701.

 

[lanedance]

thanks

 

[Mugwump101]

How is the Linus Pauling book on Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Chemistry?

 

[czelaya]

How is the Linus Pauling book on Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Chemistry?

I've skimmed through it. It's decent. A great introductory book for Quantum Mechanics applied to chemical systems is Ira Levine's Quantum Chemistry. It requires only very basic math: calculus, multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. For relativistic quantum mechanics applied to chemistry there is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Kenneth G. Dyall & Knut Faegri Jr.

 

[vedo]

Well Landau Quantum mechanics is maby not introductionary course,but deffinetly something that have to be seen.Mesiah Quantum mechanics with its two levels maby is the best thing.Herbut Quantum mechanics cover all aspects with group theory applications,but not sure if english version is avaliable.

 

[jasonRF]

These books, "Understanding [More] Quantum Physics" by Morrison,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0137479085/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0139283005/?tag=pfamazon01-20
might be a good stepping stone for the self-learner
to the more advanced QM texts.

I second this recommendation. My wife has these, and I think they are phenomenal. Reading them is like attending a course given by a truly gifted lecturer. The first book covers basics, in a way that anyone can understand. He does a much better than average job of explaining both the physics and going through the mechanics of using QM to solve problems, including pointing out pitfalls. The second book includes perturbation theory, etc., and is also very good but not quite as good as the first book.

Definitely great books for the self-learner.

jason

 

[vedo]

Well after seeing Lenard Suskinds lectures on quantum mechanics at youtube all books seems less less interesting.Also at youtube great teacher prof Balakhrishnan lectures on quantum physics are really profound introductionary course.

 

[tculig]

I would very warmly recommend "Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications" by Nouredine Zettili. It is packed with solved problems and gives a very clear and gradual introduction to quantum physics. Mind you, you should still learn linear algebra in depth before doing any quantum physics.

 

[krlosdrbta]

Best book.ever about Quantum Mechanics is Cohen-Tannoudji, it's for underdegree and for graduate studies. You will find it fun!

 

[rhombusjr]

I recommend Quantum Physics: A Fundamental Approach to Modern Physics by Townsend (literally brand new (2010), not to be confused with his Quantum Mechanics book). Currently using this book in my into quantum course.

 

[metro2089]

I can't recommend a book but I have been following this free lecture series you might find useful if you have not heard of nptel yet.

http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/video.php?courseId=1090

 

[totentanz]

Is there a book teachs you only the mathematical tools before you start?

 

[totentanz]

we have get so many choices,I am really 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

 

[rhombusjr]

we have get so many choices,I am really 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

I don't know about the other recommendations, but at least for mine, it was assigned by a prof. and I liked it. The prof. probably assigned it because they thought it was "the best" for intro quantum. So, by asking if there's a prof. that will tell you which is "the best," you aren't going to get any better answers since often students only know about texts assigned or recommended by a prof., so the students' recommendation of what is "the best" is really a trickle down of what a prof. thought was "the best."

As for the just learning the mathematical tools for QM, on an elementary level you'll need differential equations and linear algebra. At higher levels you'll need partial differential equations, Fourier analysis, perturbation theory, path integration, etc. Most of this is taught in upper level undergrad physics classes. How much you need depends on how far into QM you want to go. In my mind, a "math tools for QM" book without any QM is not worth reading; you won't learn the context of what you're doing in relation to the math or the physics. You're better off just learning the math from a QM book or a regular math text.

If you just want to go straight into string theory, there are popular science books which will introduce you to the subject. If you want the full technical details of string theory, you'll probably need much more knowledge of physics than intro qm and relativity. I don't know any more about string theory than what's in popular shows on the Science Channel, so I can't say for sure what all the math/physics it requires.
Probably of interest to you: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-251-string-theory-for-undergraduates-spring-2007/

 

[totentanz]

I don't know about the other recommendations, but at least for mine, it was assigned by a prof. and I liked it. The prof. probably assigned it because they thought it was "the best" for intro quantum. So, by asking if there's a prof. that will tell you which is "the best," you aren't going to get any better answers since often students only know about texts assigned or recommended by a prof., so the students' recommendation of what is "the best" is really a trickle down of what a prof. thought was "the best."

As for the just learning the mathematical tools for QM, on an elementary level you'll need differential equations and linear algebra. At higher levels you'll need partial differential equations, Fourier analysis, perturbation theory, path integration, etc. Most of this is taught in upper level undergrad physics classes. How much you need depends on how far into QM you want to go. In my mind, a "math tools for QM" book without any QM is not worth reading; you won't learn the context of what you're doing in relation to the math or the physics. You're better off just learning the math from a QM book or a regular math text.

If you just want to go straight into string theory, there are popular science books which will introduce you to the subject. If you want the full technical details of string theory, you'll probably need much more knowledge of physics than intro qm and relativity. I don't know any more about string theory than what's in popular shows on the Science Channel, so I can't say for sure what all the math/physics it requires.
Probably of interest to you: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-251-string-theory-for-undergraduates-spring-2007/

Thanks for your answer,but what I want to say is that I am really confused,I started with "QM Demystified" and I think is a good book and it make the proble part of the cours and when you solve them by your own,you feel wonderful...but days ago someone in the forum told me that it is the worst choice...and I started over again with Griffiths...what do you think?

 

[rhombusjr]

Thanks for your answer,but what I want to say is that I am really confused,I started with "QM Demystified" and I think is a good book and it make the proble part of the cours and when you solve them by your own,you feel wonderful...but days ago someone in the forum told me that it is the worst choice...and I started over again with Griffiths...what do you think?

I can't say that I've read "QM Demystified" or Griffiths, so I can't give an opinion on either. I have found Griffiths E&M book to be quite good, so his QM text shouldn't be a bad choice. In general I would be wary of Demystified books, I've heard professors give many recommendations for supplementary texts for various classes and I've never ever heard of a "Demystified" or "For Dummies" type of book recommended. Speaking of recommendations, one that comes up over and over again is Feynman's Lectures on Physics. Its a three volume set and the the 3rd one focuses on QM. Its definitely one that you want to look at.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I quite like 'Quantum Reality: Theory and Philosophy' by Jonathan Allday. Covers the basics with UK High School level Maths.
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781584887034;jsessionid=f87EFAqvnf1-tQwo+Gog7w**

 

[totentanz]

thanks rhombusjr

 

[Daverz]

Thanks for your answer,but what I want to say is that I am really confused,I started with "QM Demystified" and I think is a good book and it make the proble part of the cours and when you solve them by your own,you feel wonderful...but days ago someone in the forum told me that it is the worst choice...and I started over again with Griffiths...what do you think?

The reason someone told you that is probably because McMahon has a reputation for sloppiness in his writing, and the publisher for sloppiness in their editing.

 

[brocks]

Thanks for your answer,but what I want to say is that I am really confused,I started with "QM Demystified" and I think is a good book and it make the proble part of the cours and when you solve them by your own,you feel wonderful...but days ago someone in the forum told me that it is the worst choice...and I started over again with Griffiths...what do you think?

Wow, you stopped reading a book you liked because some anonymous stranger on the internet said it was bad?

I don't know about you, but when I registered for this forum, nobody checked my credentials. The guy who said it was bad may be a super-genius who thinks any text below advanced graduate level is a waste of time, or he may be an idiot who flunked out of college and blames whatever texts he was using. Or he may just have different tastes than you.

I've seen a lot of posts in this forum that say "X is a terrible book," where X is a text that many, many profs in many, many universities have been using for years. In fact, I can give two examples right off the top of my head --- Tipler's Physics, and Strang's Linear Algebra. Both get panned here, but both have been widely used for years, as you can see by googling for syllabi at ".edu" sites.

I have no knowledge of the particular book you're talking about, but if I liked a book, I'd keep reading it even if my best friend said he didn't like it. I sure as hell wouldn't stop reading it because some stranger didn't like it.

 

[totentanz]

Wow, you stopped reading a book you liked because some anonymous stranger on the internet said it was bad?

I don't know about you, but when I registered for this forum, nobody checked my credentials. The guy who said it was bad may be a super-genius who thinks any text below advanced graduate level is a waste of time, or he may be an idiot who flunked out of college and blames whatever texts he was using. Or he may just have different tastes than you.

I've seen a lot of posts in this forum that say "X is a terrible book," where X is a text that many, many profs in many, many universities have been using for years. In fact, I can give two examples right off the top of my head --- Tipler's Physics, and Strang's Linear Algebra. Both get panned here, but both have been widely used for years, as you can see by googling for syllabi at ".edu" sites.

I have no knowledge of the particular book you're talking about, but if I liked a book, I'd keep reading it even if my best friend said he didn't like it. I sure as hell wouldn't stop reading it because some stranger didn't like it.

Listen my friend,I am not an expert on the field...imagine that you are in a city that you do not know and you ask a stranger for direction...there is two opetions,the stranger know the city or not 50-50,and then,if the stranger is telling the truth or not...and at last you get 25% chance to find your way...but if you count on your self you have 0% chance to find the way...

 

[dark_raider]

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.

 

[totentanz]

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 really works

 

[dark_raider]

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]

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 until 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]

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]

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]

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 until 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.