A good quantum mechanics book for the self-learner?

[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