Book on Quantum Mechanics needed

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around finding resources for learning quantum mechanics (QM). While Cohen-Tannoudji's book is recognized as a key text, many participants suggest it may not be the best starting point for beginners. Alternatives like Griffiths, Shankar, and the Schaum's outline on QM are recommended for their accessibility and clarity. Online resources are also highlighted, including lecture notes and courses from various universities. Participants express a preference for different teaching styles and notations, with some favoring Bra-Ket notation for its mathematical clarity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of selecting the right materials based on one's current understanding and learning goals in quantum mechanics.
QuantumReg
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi All!

Does anyone know about some books on QM over the net?
I know there is Cohen Tannoudji's book, which is some kind of a bible in this topic, but for now I only want to feed my interest and to call up my knowladge in QM. I have been learning it at the university though, but that was a long time ago. So what I need is some kind of a hardcore tutorial. Does something like this even exist for free on the net, or do I have to buy the Cohen Tannoudji book instead?

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks guys!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are many QM textbooks available; Cohen-Tannoudji is not the book I'd start with, if I were you. There are some gentler books available, like Griffiths.

- Warren
 
  • Like
Likes Jiman
Is it available on the net, or only in book stores?
 
i want one copy of Cohen-Tannoudji .who has it? i will be grateful!
 
I also want a copy of Cohen Tannoudji book, but yet I haven't found one :(
 
Last edited:
Amazon sells the 2 volume set for 181.00 dollars
 
Here are links to a couple of courses online...

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm1/

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/qm2/

http://zopyros.ccqc.uga.edu/~kellogg/docs/rltvt/rltvt.html

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/

I agree with chroot, Griffiths is a good start, although I have said many times before on these forums that I personally do not care for it. At this point in time, there really isn't a better text out there, some of the older texts could be consulted. The Schaums outline in Quantum Mechanics is really good and I am considering the purchase to have a qm book on my desk at work for quick consultation. Cohen-Tannoudji is not the text to start with at all, over the years I have found it to be more palatable but I know a whole bunch more now that I did in grad school. The more you know about qm, the more you will like it but I felt that I was not getting the eduaction I needed when using Cohen-Tannoudji. I would suggest Baym, Messiah, Schiff or Slater, not in that order. Schiff is the best out there by far if you can get it, I have 2 copies and they get used all the time. Slater is dated but readable, Messiah is a classic and Baym has been used in more than one school I looked at for grad school. Another choice is go with Yarivs' Quantum Electronics, it has a decenbt amount of qm and leads directly into the application of it. It was refreshing to re-read it a few years after grad school.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you can get messiah from dover for about $20 or so. that's a pretty good choice if you can't afford the $180 for example.
 
  • #10
i prefer shankar; his treatment is reasonably mathematical and very clear.
 
  • #11
These two notes look quite good! Thanks Rach3!
Anyway, I prefer the Bra-Ket notation (I learned QM using this stuff)...
Does anyone know about some good lectures online which uses this?
 
  • #12
The two notations are complementary. You could do wave mechanics with position eigenkets, but it would be an excess. It's extremely easy to translate: e.g., a wavefunction \psi(x) is simply a state with representation

| \psi \rangle = \int dx \, \psi(x) | x \rangle

in the position eigenket basis. (This means \hat{X}\left|x\rangle=x\left|x\rangle). The eigenkets correspond to Dirac delta functionals as wavefunctions; the expansion above is the same as saying

\psi(x)=\int dy \, \psi(y) \delta (y-x).

We don't gain anything by being more abstract!

(and translating the other way, \psi(x)=\langle x | \psi \rangle).

I think Townsend's textbook starts off with a detailed introduction to ket notation, in the context of spin-1/2 particles. It's based on Sakurai's (graduate) textbook, so it's probably more thorough with Dirac notation than Griffiths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top