Best Quantum Mechanics Texts for Graduate Students | Expert Recommendations

[tornpie]

I'm a mathematics grad student looking to take graduate quantum mechanics in the fall. The prof isn't using a text, but I think I might want to have one around in case. Are there any Quantum Mechanics texts that are like a Rudin is to Analysis?

 

[tornpie]

One other thing, I haven't taken any physics since calculus based introductory physics, like Halliday, Resnick.

Also, are there texts like this for the other core areas of physics like Grad E+M, Grad Mechanics, and Grad Thermodynamics?

 

[robphy]

Check out http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm
(Scroll down... this links should point to lower portions of the page... but the links have a typo in them.)

 

[Galileo]

My class used Griffith's introduction to Quantum Mechanics. The book may be
nice for use in class because of the problems, but for self-study it sucks.

I highly recommend Cohen Tannoudji's "Quantum Mechanics".
The text is clear, elaborate and pedagogically written.

 

[ZapperZ]

So am I the only one here who is ... er... "amused" by the fact that this person is going to be enrolling in a GRADUATE level QM class with only intro physics background? I mean, think about it. Would someone who has completed a year's worth of classes using Halliday and Resnick, be able to comprehend the material coming out of, let's say, Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" or even Merzbacher's "Quantum Mechanics" (both of which are typical graduate level texts)? Merzbacher, for instance, doesn't bother much with a single harmonic oscillator (he assumes you have already seen that in undergrad QM), he goes quickly to DOUBLE harmonic oscillator! He also doesn't waste time with simple square well potential in tunneling problems (again, something that one should already know in undergrad QM), he goes quickly into WKB approximation!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing. If you can do it, hey, more power to you. Maybe I'm just jealous because I am not smart enough and had to go through all the steps in between to get to that stage! :)

Zz.

 

[Nenad]

well, he is a math grad, so he should have a good background on the mathematics. Good luck man.

 

[JohnDubYa]

He is going to need all the luck he can get. QM is more than just applied mathematics.

 

[JohnDubYa]

This thread reminds me of a hotshot electrical engineering student we had in Classical Electrodynamics. On his first exam, he scored THREE out of 100. When the professor placed our graded exams out by his doorstep, he made sure to place the engineering student's on the top.

We felt bad for him, so we stuck it in the middle of the pack. Two hours later, it was back on the top of the stack. Obviously the professor was sending a message.

 

[quantumdude]

I love Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics. It's interesting to read, the exercises are instructive, and it provides a smooth transition to QFT.

 

[Njorl]

My class used Griffith's introduction to Quantum Mechanics. The book may be
nice for use in class because of the problems, but for self-study it sucks.

I highly recommend Cohen Tannoudji's "Quantum Mechanics".
The text is clear, elaborate and pedagogically written.

I liked Cohen-Tannoudji as well.

I agree with JohnDubya. More than any other physics course, I think QM is not just applied math. The actual math involved is some of the easiest you'll encounter in graduate physics, but the concepts are some of the hardest.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

So am I the only one here who is ... er... "amused" by the fact that this person is going to be enrolling in a GRADUATE level QM class with only intro physics background? I mean, think about it. Would someone who has completed a year's worth of classes using Halliday and Resnick, be able to comprehend the material coming out of, let's say, Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" or even Merzbacher's "Quantum Mechanics" (both of which are typical graduate level texts)? Merzbacher, for instance, doesn't bother much with a single harmonic oscillator (he assumes you have already seen that in undergrad QM), he goes quickly to DOUBLE harmonic oscillator! He also doesn't waste time with simple square well potential in tunneling problems (again, something that one should already know in undergrad QM), he goes quickly into WKB approximation!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing. If you can do it, hey, more power to you. Maybe I'm just jealous because I am not smart enough and had to go through all the steps in between to get to that stage! :)

Zz.

My undergrad EM fields proffessor earned his BA in music, his masters in biology, then "on a whim", thought "getting a PhD in physics would be fun". I wanted to hit him.

I remember undergrad quantum. We got into it like you'd get into a tub full of ice water. It seemed one by one we each had our own epiphanies as we "got it". I can't see plowing through it without this indoctrination, like we did in grad school.

Njorl

 

[gravenewworld]

I used Alberty and Silbey's Physical Chemistry for my undergrad P Chem course. Don't be fooled though, PHYSICAL Chemistry is all about the physics behind Chemistry. This book was very hard to follow, it could easily be, and probably should have been, used in a grad course. Half of the book is dedicated to a very indepth treatment of thermodynamics. The beginning of the second half is for QM and applications of QM such as spectroscopy etc. I'm sure there are physics text on QM that go into more detail into QM, but with this book you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone, thermo and QM. This book provides a very rigorous explanation for thermo and basics of QM.

 

[Njorl]

I used Alberty and Silbey's Physical Chemistry for my undergrad P Chem course. Don't be fooled though, PHYSICAL Chemistry is all about the physics behind Chemistry. This book was very hard to follow, it could easily be, and probably should have been, used in a grad course. Half of the book is dedicated to a very indepth treatment of thermodynamics. The beginning of the second half is for QM and applications of QM such as spectroscopy etc. I'm sure there are physics text on QM that go into more detail into QM, but with this book you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone, thermo and QM. This book provides a very rigorous explanation for thermo and basics of QM.

Interesting. I noticed that most curricula present thermo first, then quantum. This just seems all wrong to me. I remember the first time I studied thermo, it was very unintuitive. I didn't really grasp what I was learning. Actually, I was learning how to solve problems, but not learning any physics. It wasn't until grad school that I learned the quantum foundations of thermo (stat mech really).

It is ironic that this sort of parallels the life (and death) of Boltzman. Had he developed his theories on the behavior of gases after quantum mechanics became accepted, he might not have had such a terrible time of it.

Njorl

 

[tornpie]

I guess I feel after Rudin, you've pretty much established yourself as a scholar. I've come into contact with all kinds of stuff that comes from quantum in stochastic processes, mathematical finance, functional analysis, etc. I figure the math won't be hard at all leaving me to concentrate on the rest of the stuff.

I'm also wondering if the way to go for the good physics is to skip physics undergrad and concentrate on the math. Physics undergrad courses from my indirect contact (friends taking the classes, etc.) always seemed to be too informal and boring and Gawd do I hate lab.

 

[tornpie]

I'm also leaning towards Landau's book. Sakarai seems a little expensive and extravagant.

 

[Lonewolf]

One other thing, I haven't taken any physics since calculus based introductory physics, like Halliday, Resnick.

Also, are there texts like this for the other core areas of physics like Grad E+M, Grad Mechanics, and Grad Thermodynamics?

Jackson's 'Classical Electrodynamics' and Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' are pretty much standard graduate texts for the first two subjects. I imagine you'll have no problems with the mathematics.

I think you should at least become familiar with some standard results from the undergraduate physics courses before diving into the graduate stuff. You'll thank yourself for it later.

 

[marlon]

USE BRANSDEN AND JOACHAIN

THEY ROCK YOUR QM-WORLD

from
marlon brando

 

[vanesch]

I'm also wondering if the way to go for the good physics is to skip physics undergrad and concentrate on the math. Physics undergrad courses from my indirect contact (friends taking the classes, etc.) always seemed to be too informal and boring and Gawd do I hate lab.

All carreer paths are imaginable, but aren't you affraid of learning to fly before knowing how to walk ? I think there is undergrad material you should know. Of course you shouldn't follow the typical undergrad courses, which are meant also to get you to some maturity (which you have acquired elsewhere). But there is simple stuff you should know by heart.

Also, a future physicist who says that he hates experimental work is probably like a medical doctor who hates sick people :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[ZapperZ]

Jackson's 'Classical Electrodynamics' and Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' are pretty much standard graduate texts for the first two subjects. I imagine you'll have no problems with the mathematics.

I think you should at least become familiar with some standard results from the undergraduate physics courses before diving into the graduate stuff. You'll thank yourself for it later.

As a case in point, Jackson's book covers the whole undergraduate electrostatic material not just in one chapter, but in the INTRODUCTION of the book, for heavens sake! He fully expects that you already know your undergraduate material by the time you start this book. If you don't, you should stick a fork in you, because you're done!

Zz.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Agreed. Bransden and Joachim rocks! But tough to find when I was in grad school. Has it come back into print?

 

[Lonewolf]

As a case in point, Jackson's book covers the whole undergraduate electrostatic material not just in one chapter, but in the INTRODUCTION of the book, for heavens sake! He fully expects that you already know your undergraduate material by the time you start this book. If you don't, you should stick a fork in you, because you're done!

Zz.

Good point. Even those who have had a full education in undergraduate physics can struggle with EM at the level of Jackson. Pretty, it ain't.

 

[tavi_boada]

landau's books are the paradigm of extravagance and sofistication. in my opinion, sakurai's first 4 or 5 chapters are absolutely brilliant, beautiful and comprehensive.

i would recommend you review your notes on optics and electromagnetism. one of the things that i like the most about sakurai's book is that it starts out shocking you with the stern-gerlach experiment, and you have to know a bit of physics to be shocked (not much though).

in my opinion, there is no bible of quantum mechanics as there is with EM (jackson) and classical mechanics (goldstein). The first chapters of any of the following will do for you: sakurai, bransden,feynman (whole 3rd vol). o recommend you stick to these before venturing with landau.

i must say i don't like the tone of some of the earlier posts. I think physicists are a bit snobbish sometimes. in my opinion this it's great taking subjects that aren't of one's own discipline.

 

[oreopoj]

Shankar forever

Dear friend,
If you're trying to learn quantum mechanics through self-study, Shankar's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" is the ultimate book.
I know ahead of time that others in this forum will critisize this suggestion, but believe me, if you really want to understand QM, use this book. This first chapter of the book is dedicated to teaching/reviewing the necassary math for QM; this would go well with your background.

 

[tornpie]

I agree with you on the snobbish side, but I get to feeling that way sometimes too in math. Some physics majors decided they wanted to try some topology. The class had the typical 4 or 5 math majors who I knew would be there, and about 15 physics majors. Needless to say, after the first week there was only one lone physics major and he stayed for the duration to his credit.

I think the whole thing has to do with formalism. Seems to me that QM was developed with mathematical formalism instead of guys in the 20's smoking up and throwing absurd ideas around. True that some of it was due to experimentation, but the true meat of the subject was math.

I try to tell anyone in physics (or any subject), that you'll never be worse off after taking a math class, especially pure math. Any monkey can throw numbers into an equation, but to truly understand what the hell is going on there is invaluable. The physics people should spend some more time proving numbers irrational and delta-epsilon arguments.

Personally, I see little difference between physics and math.

 

[ZapperZ]

Considering that *I* was the first one on this string to throw out the cold water on this whole thing (and thus, probably one of the "snobbish" one), let me just point out that both of you did NOT even address the validity of the points that I made via the examples I gave. Where was my assertion of the assumed prerequisites for a graduate level QM class wrong? Was I completely baseless at being "amused" at the skipping of entire knowledge of undergraduate QM (and classical mechanics and classical E&M, which do, after all, come into play in QM)?

And this has nothing to do with taking "other" classes outside of one's major. Why would I want to discourage people from taking physics classes, considering that this would add to more money going to physics departments? All I wanted to do was to leave the impression that, for us mere mortals, jumping into a graduate level QM (or E&M, or Classical Mechanics) without adequate preparation isn't something usually recommended.

So how was that being "snobbish"?

Zz.

 

[tornpie]

Sorry ZapperZ.

I guess there is some amusement to be had at skipping the entire undergrad sequence of physics. As far as the prerequisites, you are probably right too. But it seems like in physics and math, the courses tend to be self-contained since they are redoing everything in a rigorous manner. I'd agree with you more for a Eng. Lit., Poly Sci, (insert your favorite humanity to bash here) to jump into grad level physics and math.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry ZapperZ.

I guess there is some amusement to be had at skipping the entire undergrad sequence of physics. As far as the prerequisites, you are probably right too. But it seems like in physics and math, the courses tend to be self-contained since they are redoing everything in a rigorous manner. I'd agree with you more for a Eng. Lit., Poly Sci, (insert your favorite humanity to bash here) to jump into grad level physics and math.

I don't quite understand you.

When I was an undergraduate student, I took various "advanced level" classes in Litrature, Environmental Studies, Philosophy, etc as part of my liberal arts electives. However, I doubt that one could even jump in a 200 level physics classes without adequate preparations! I can see this clearly in that I never encounter an English Lit major, for example, taking an intro to Modern Physics class to fulfill his/her physical science elective. Don't believe me? Try giving one of them a copy of, let's say, Tippler's modern physics text and see how long for them to decipher just the first chapter alone.

I also do not understand what it means for a physics course to be "self-contained". For example, in Liboff QM text, was there any clear explanation on what exactly is meant by "orthornormal" functions? I hate to think that a student trying to understand the non-intuitive nature of QM is also forced to also forced to study the mathematics at the same time. This is the least desirable way to learn any physics when the mathematics gets in the way. So I highly disagree that these courses are "self-contained".

More than anything, practically all physics courses require that you have the "skill" to be able to analyze and decipher a given problem. The ability to look at a problem, to know what kind of "frame" or coordinates to use, to be able to think 2 or 3 steps ahead in setting up the problem, and the ability to quickly realize when things just simply do not look right, are all analytical SKILLS that one simply cannot learn by just reading a book - they can only be ACQUIRED through repeated exercises and practice!

To use mathematics effectively in applications, you need not just knowledge, but skill. Skill can be obtained only through practice. You can obtain a certain superficial knowledge of mathematics by listening to lectures, but you cannot obtain skill this way.

--- Mary Boas in "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Ed. (Wiley 1983)

Zz.

 

[kakarukeys]

the maths in qm are mainly Linear Algebra (Complex inner product space), Differential equations, Continuous Groups...

If you want to learn the maths in QM, all the books that were recommended are not suitable. there is a series of Physics books written for Mathematicians, I forgot the names, but all books have yellow covers.

If you want to learn Physics mixed with a lot of maths. Maybe P.A.M. Dirac or
Ballentine

 

[vanesch]

I guess there is some amusement to be had at skipping the entire undergrad sequence of physics. As far as the prerequisites, you are probably right too. But it seems like in physics and math, the courses tend to be self-contained since they are redoing everything in a rigorous manner.

Just for information, I also changed fields: I first did a master in electromechanical engineering, and then I directly did my masters in physics. Even though there is probably more coverage between engineering and physics than between math and physics, you have to get used to "a different culture" and people from within the field (my physics co students) would have liked to see me fall on my face, I'm sure. That didn't happen at all, but I do have to say I had to take up quite a lot of "undergraduate" material on my own. However, other things turned out to be much easier for me than for my fellow students, so this compensated.

Probably the same will happen to you: your co-students will struggle with mathematical ideas you know and find easy, and you will struggle with some physical intuition and knowledge that will seem evident for your co students. So you'll have to work on that on your own, but you will gain time on the more mathematical stuff, so you should be able to handle the thing. However, do not make the mistake of thinking that physics is simply applied mathematics, it isn't. You do not write down the axioms in the beginning and then "turn the crank" ; there is always some extra physical input.
I don't think you can get around skipping undergrad physics ; only you'll probably be able to digest it in a much faster pace than by following undergrad courses. But somehow you'll have to get through it.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[tornpie]

Here's the email I've been getting back from the profs for QM:

It is assumed that you know differential equations and matrix theory. Some knowledge of infinite dimensional spaces--Hilbert spaces is also helpful. The math demands are not all that high. I am around if you want to discuss this more.

Concerning the text:

The course is mainly based on lecture notes that I post on courseweb and other resources. I ordered copies of Messiah as a good purchase at $29 but it's not really the course textbook.

and classical mechanics:

If you have taken any undergraduate course on mechanics that is most of what you need. If you already have the math background then you should be in pretty good shape. The course will be self-contained and I will give a brief reminder of the main aspects of particle mechanics. Mainly what you need to know are: linear and angular momentum for particles, conservation of momentum and energy, potential and kinetic energies and equations of motion for particles. all of that is contained in any undergrad course.


BTW, I was curiuos, what kind of math courses have you taken Zapper? Seems like a background in linear algebra and analysis would come in handy for you. Particularly, the material covered in Spivak, Lax, and Rudin.

 

[Lonewolf]

Concerning the text:

The course is mainly based on lecture notes that I post on courseweb and other resources. I ordered copies of Messiah as a good purchase at $29 but it's not really the course textbook.

I found Messiah horrible to learn from, but it makes a great reference book when you become familiar with the material. (I'm assuming the text being referred to is the two-volume set).

 

[ZapperZ]

BTW, I was curiuos, what kind of math courses have you taken Zapper? Seems like a background in linear algebra and analysis would come in handy for you. Particularly, the material covered in Spivak, Lax, and Rudin.

The official math courses that I had as an undergrad were 3 semesters of Calculus, 1 semester of Diff. Eq., 1 semester of vector calc, 1 semester of complex analysis. Those are all taken from the Math Dept. In addition, the physics dept. also offered a 2-semester course in mathematical physics (which I found to be a lot more useful than most of the math classes that I took). The text used was Arfken's, which is fine if you already have a good math background, but not good if one is doing a self-study or weak in math. I much prefer the Mary Boas text that I quoted in a previous posting. It is something an undergrad in physics (and engineering) can pick up at the Sophomore level and get to study the math needed in his/her upcoming classes.

Zz.

 

[tornpie]

I've often wonder why they don't guide physics majors more towards becoming formally trained mathematicians. Physics, to a point, can be done with just applied math, but at some point one hits a ceiling that needs pure math to get beyond. Areas in math like differential geometry, real, complex, harmonic, and functional analysis, Lie algebras, etc. come in real handy for a lot of problems. In fact, I'd imagine there are many problems that can't even be comprehended without a suitable math background and other problems that get so messy with lower math that are absolutely elegant using topology and other areas of math.

 

[ZapperZ]

I've often wonder why they don't guide physics majors more towards becoming formally trained mathematicians. Physics, to a point, can be done with just applied math, but at some point one hits a ceiling that needs pure math to get beyond. Areas in math like differential geometry, real, complex, harmonic, and functional analysis, Lie algebras, etc. come in real handy for a lot of problems. In fact, I'd imagine there are many problems that can't even be comprehended without a suitable math background and other problems that get so messy with lower math that are absolutely elegant using topology and other areas of math.

Unfortunately, you're assuming that ALL physicists are going to be theorists! :) I have never studied topology, for example, at least not in the formal sense. And I don't think I needed it nor missed it. [then again, maybe that's because I'm just a lowly experimentalist]

Secondly, and this again is a quote from Mary Boas's text in the Preface:

The question of proper mathematical training for students in the physical sciences is of concern to both mathematicians and those who use mathematics in applications. Mathematicians are apt to claim that if students are going to study mathematics at all, they should study it in careful and thorough detail. For the undergraduate physics, chemistry, or engineering student, this means either (1) learning more mathematics than a mathematics major or (2) learning a few areas of mathematics thoroughly and the others only from snatches in science courses... Now it would be fine if every science student could take the separate mathematics courses in differential equations, advanced calculus, linear algebra... and so on. However, most science students have neither the time nor the inclination to study that much mathematics...

It is for this very reason that many physics departments are offering a course in mathematical physics. It is meant to at least give an overview of the kinds of mathematics that a typical physics student would need while going through a physics program. People who need more (like those String theorists) would certainly take more math classes, but at least, these mathematical physics courses would fulfill the need of giving the students some basic understanding of the tools.

Zz.

 

[tornpie]

Now we've stumbled on to a real relevant problem for mathematics and mathematicians. There are areas in the physical sciences that are easy math problems that yield Nobel prizes. In one of the recent AMS (American Mathematical Society in case anyone didn't know) publications, they had an article about an application in the area of Fourier Analysis that got some chemists Nobel prizes. The particulars escape me, but it laments about the lack of willingness on the part of some mathematicians to work on something that isn't groundbreaking in mathematics. The mathematicians don't want to do the work, and the scientists don't want the mathematical background with all the hassle. Of course it goes on and says that some of the blame lies on the mathematicians for not making themselves and some areas of math more accessible.

I guess I'm of the opinion is more math will make one a better problem solver at whatever area they are in and also that many of the easy problems in the sciences are already solved. It's all a matter of how much time one is willing to invest. The payoff can be substantial. As for you, maybe try to fit in a few courses on rigorous analysis and algebra, then hopefully, you may have to thank me someday when you accept the prize from the committee.

 

[ZapperZ]

Now we've stumbled on to a real relevant problem for mathematics and mathematicians. There are areas in the physical sciences that are easy math problems that yield Nobel prizes. In one of the recent AMS (American Mathematical Society in case anyone didn't know) publications, they had an article about an application in the area of Fourier Analysis that got some chemists Nobel prizes. The particulars escape me, but it laments about the lack of willingness on the part of some mathematicians to work on something that isn't groundbreaking in mathematics. The mathematicians don't want to do the work, and the scientists don't want the mathematical background with all the hassle. Of course it goes on and says that some of the blame lies on the mathematicians for not making themselves and some areas of math more accessible.

I guess I'm of the opinion is more math will make one a better problem solver at whatever area they are in and also that many of the easy problems in the sciences are already solved. It's all a matter of how much time one is willing to invest. The payoff can be substantial. As for you, maybe try to fit in a few courses on rigorous analysis and algebra, then hopefully, you may have to thank me someday when you accept the prize from the committee.

Er... as for ME?

I'm already a "practicing physicist" and have gone through as much mathematics as I care to have. It hasn't "hampered" my productivity considering the rate of publications I have per year. Besides, at this level, one learns what one needs on one's own anyway. My more immediate concern is designing a photocathode with a higher QE than what we have now. You'll understand if trying to "fit in a few courses on rigorious analysis and algebra" is waaaay down on my list of things to do.

And lest you think that the anecdotal cases of mathematics mixing with physics is unique, let me point out that there are MANY areas of study in which it appears trivial and uninteresting to another person in a different area. I am a condensed matter physicist by training, but I am working in the area of accelerator physics. By condensed matter standard, the problems and methodology that accelerator physicists are faced with as far as material science problems are concerned are quite primitive! Most condensed matter physicists are not even aware of the type of problems accelerator physicists are faced with and therefore are not able to contribute their expertise to it. And most accelerator physicists are not aware of what has been known from material science for them to fully exploit. Someone here somehow had the insight to hire a staff that isn't trained in accelerator physics, but rather in CM, to finally deal with the material science issues that they face.

So what you described isn't unique, nor is it unique to just physics.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

ZAPPER, You the man, you should run for president

marlon

 

[vanesch]

let me point out that there are MANY areas of study in which it appears trivial and uninteresting to another person in a different area.

This is indeed true: I've switched domains a few times (started out with theoretical system identification, then did experimental particle physics, then microwave instrumentation, energy transport, synchrotron instrumentation, and now I'm into neutron detection), and my observation has indeed been that people are often locked-up in their specific domain, not knowing that the "difficult problem" they are dealing with has been solved for about 50 years next doors. Usually in the beginning I'm met with a kind of mixture of agressivity and amusement ("hehe, that new guy thinks he's going to be smarter than me, who has 20 years in the field, let him try") usually followed with some incredulity ("how did he manage") until I myself am absorbed in the field and start acting as an "old guy". That's usually the sign I have to switch fields :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is indeed true: I've switched domains a few times (started out with theoretical system identification, then did experimental particle physics, then microwave instrumentation, energy transport, synchrotron instrumentation, and now I'm into neutron detection), and my observation has indeed been that people are often locked-up in their specific domain, not knowing that the "difficult problem" they are dealing with has been solved for about 50 years next doors. Usually in the beginning I'm met with a kind of mixture of agressivity and amusement ("hehe, that new guy thinks he's going to be smarter than me, who has 20 years in the field, let him try") usually followed with some incredulity ("how did he manage") until I myself am absorbed in the field and start acting as an "old guy". That's usually the sign I have to switch fields :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

Well, to be fair to the accelerator physics people, they ARE aware of the fact that they need to bring in more material science/condensed matter people and expertise into the field. This is especially true in the photocathode research area where more and more condensed matter expertise and techniques are being used to improve both cathode fabrication and characterization. And I will say that I did not encounter the kind of "skepticism" that you described. Practically all accelerator physicists that I've encountered, when they realized of my background, almost unimamously would say "Finally! They hired someone who can do something about this!"

I have a paper that was recently accepted for publication in PRL, and it was a great compliment (at least to me) that both referees wrote in their comments that our work has practical interests in both accelerator physics and material science. As a CM physicist, I see a tremendous area within accelerator physics that I can make contributions to - and that what makes me always look forward to coming into work each morning.

Zz.

 

[quarkman]

"Physics is to Math what Sex is to Masturbation" -Richard Feynman

And didn't he know a lot of mathematics? I am a physicist by choice, but I still love mathematics. I think that both mathematicians and physicists are extra careful in their own domain, but tend to get a little lax when dealing with the other subject. Now if I only had a photographic memory and an instantly understanding one as well, I'd be all set to learn everything I ever wanted to about both subjects.

Also, I would suggest reading the section "Doing too much too soon" inAn Open Letter to the Next Generation by James D. Patterson in the July 2004 edition of Physics Today. I firmly believe hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, so I take what this guy has to say with great weight.

D

 

[vanesch]

Also, I would suggest reading the section "Doing too much too soon" inAn Open Letter to the Next Generation by James D. Patterson in the July 2004 edition of Physics Today.

Indeed worth reading. I committed a few of his sins too, especially the thing about fighting with superiors, and, with hindsight, he's right !
I still think that *I* was right concerning the issues we fought over, but I do think that it would have helped me better to have more people backing me up when I needed good references I must by now have a reputation of someone who can solve difficult problems, but who is also a difficult problem in itself .
There's probably a balance to find between expressing your ideas and fighting for it on one hand, and keeping good relations with the boss
That said, there are (a lot!) of bosses out there with which this is a difficult act!

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Dr Transport]

To jump in late, I too am a practising physicist. If you are a mathemetician, theorem, proof, theorem, proof. If a physicist thinks along those lines he is called a Mathematical Physicist. The true physicst thinks along the lines of using only the necessary math to describe the solution to the problem. A theoretical phycisist, I am one, thinks along more mathermatical lines that an experimentalist. I have seen some really first rate experimental guys who would put me to shame mathematically. I have never studied topology, etc,... it is not used in my line of expertise. Group theory of lattices and angular momentum is as far as I have gone.

To get back on the subject of the original post. If a math major wants a text to learn some quantum mechanincs, try the Schaum's outline for a start, it solves all the classic problems then get a copy of Griffiths or Liboff or maybe Cohen-Tannouji (sic). Stay away from Sakauri or Messiah for they assume too much background at the advanced undergrad level. If a person has a decent level of preparation in differential equations, linear algebra, partial differential equations and special functions, they should be able to handle the math OK. The underlying physical intuition will be some challenge. A friend of mine took undergraduate QM then went on to take a PhD in experimental physics, he had no problemns, but he did work like a dog to pass the qualifiers because of his lack of coursework.

In reading along, I agree with Zapper. He has made the points I would have made if I had been in on this from the beginning.

DT

 

[tornpie]

I just got my copy of Sakurai today. I'm going through the first chapter. This stuff so far is child's play to anyone with a bit of grad linear algebra behind them. I like this bra and ket stuff.

 

[vanesch]

I just got my copy of Sakurai today. I'm going through the first chapter. This stuff so far is child's play to anyone with a bit of grad linear algebra behind them. I like this bra and ket stuff.

If you're interested, I've put up some stuff on that book, like summaries and solved exercises. It is at:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.vanesch/NRQM_main_page.html

The stuff isn't finished, however. But maybe it is useful.
The course itself is over, maybe there will be a continuation one day, I don't know.

If you find errors, remarks etc.. please let me know.

cheers,
patrick.