A good quantum mechanics book for the self-learner?

[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.

 

[totentanz]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492
You may post there questions or comments regarding the material in the book.

 

[Qubix]

A beautiful Quantum Mechanics and Introductory Quantum Field Theory book I recently got my hands on is Desai

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521877601/?tag=pfamazon01-20

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]

thank you for your asking, I am ready to learn quantum mechanics, so I got lots of information from the replies, thanks.

 

[cheng zhen]

Griffith An intriduction to QM

 

[smodak]

A beautiful Quantum Mechanics and Introductory Quantum Field Theory book I recently got my hands on is Desai

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521877601/?tag=pfamazon01-20

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]

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.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1891389785/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[WannabeNewton]

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]

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]

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 got to 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).

 

[bigQ]

Quantum mechanics by Linus Pauling (you can get it on archive.org ) and Griffiths of course.

 

[pillow47]

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 ?

Sakurai is a classic. But I think Townsend is a better book for undergraduates. It's more approachable and more patient in its exposition.

 

[Ellis1644]

For a really basic intro to am then try open university books for their level 3 course in quantum mechanics. Assumes the reader has little knowledge of qm and the required maths is basic. All further maths needed is taught within the books. Since the OU specialises in self learning it should be a good starting point, but it's just an intro. Doesn't really delve into much formalism and only touches on advanced stuff such as entanglement

 

[JPKelly6]

I was going to try these 2 texts for QM:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1891389629/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/019539349X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I plan to read Smith's book 1st. Anyone have experience with them?

JPK