I want to buy two Quantum Mechanics books, what would be the best combination ?

[yicong2011]

Hi,

I want to buy two Quantum Mechanics books, but I am pondering what would be the best combination. My definition of BEST is resourceful, lucid, in-detail. As a physics student, I think two quantum mechanics books putting on my shelf is quite enough...

My List:

David Bohm, Quantum Theory
Albert Messiah, Quantum Mechanics
R Shankar, Principle of Quantum Mechanics
J J Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics
Nouredine Zettili, Quantum Mechanics (Concepts and Application)
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu and Frank Laloe, Quantum Mechanics


Or you have any better suggestions?

Thanks.

 

[kof9595995]

if you just started learning QM, Griffiths then Sakurai is a good choice. Messiah and Cohen are quite encyclopedic, good for references.

 

[FunkyDwarf]

Landau Lifgarbagez vol 3 and 4

 

[yicong2011]

if you just started learning QM, Griffiths then Sakurai is a good choice. Messiah and Cohen are quite encyclopedic, good for references.

Actually, I have learned Quantum Mechanics...
Thanks.

 

[dextercioby]

Either one of Albert Messiah's or Cohen-Tannoudji for extended reference on many topics + the 2 volumes of Galindo & Pascual (a mathematically rigorous approach to key topics not discussed in many <famous> references) to is the optimal combination in my view.

EDIT: If 2 is the number, then you may replace the 2 old encyclopedias (M or C-T) with Leslie Ballentine's book which has some interesting comments on <hot> topics, most of them interpretation-related. M an C-T adopt the traditional Copenhagian view of Bohr, Born, Dirac & von Neumann.

 

[Demystifier]

If you already know QM but you want to enrich your knowledge with a more modern view, I recommend
L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development

 

[vanhees71]

I vote for Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, and Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A modern Development.

 

[Eynstone]

Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Dirac.

 

[Daverz]

If you're buying, Cohen-Tannoudji just seems way overpriced to me.

Shankar is very good at including the details you need for self study.

 

[physiker_192]

Suggestion:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199560277/?tag=pfamazon01-20

This book has a rich appendix of ~ 220pages, which covers a wide range of topics (e.g. classical mechanics, group theory, full quantization of EM field, CP violation... ),, similar to Cohen's book supplements (I hate the way Cohen's is structured).As for the content, basically its currently my favorite English book on Quantum Theory/Mechanics and topics are well explained.
I have Zettili too, but I found Zettili good for the first few chapters (till addition of Angular momenta), but it doesn't explain properly many important concepts and fails miserably at the time dependent perturbation theory.

The end of chapter problem sets solutions are on the author's web page and on the accompanying CD. The problem sets are divided into two categories, analytical and numerical.

Also, the printing quality of the paper back edition is good and still holds after extensive use, unlike Zettili's paperback edition where the spine got damaged due to extensive use and pages are almost falling out.

The only topic that Konishi & Paffuti's fall short at is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics which is introduced very briefly.

 

[yicong2011]

Suggestion:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199560277/?tag=pfamazon01-20

This book has a rich appendix of ~ 220pages, which covers a wide range of topics (e.g. classical mechanics, group theory, full quantization of EM field, CP violation... ),, similar to Cohen's book supplements (I hate the way Cohen's is structured).


As for the content, basically its currently my favorite English book on Quantum Theory/Mechanics and topics are well explained.
I have Zettili too, but I found Zettili good for the first few chapters (till addition of Angular momenta), but it doesn't explain properly many important concepts and fails miserably at the time dependent perturbation theory.

The end of chapter problem sets solutions are on the author's web page and on the accompanying CD. The problem sets are divided into two categories, analytical and numerical.

Also, the printing quality of the paper back edition is good and still holds after extensive use, unlike Zettili's paperback edition where the spine got damaged due to extensive use and pages are almost falling out.

The only topic that Konishi & Paffuti's fall short at is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics which is introduced very briefly.

How does this book tackle with the Special Functions (Bessel Function, Neuman Function, Associated Legendre Function) and Sturm-Liouville Eigenvalue Problem? I always confused at those two aspects when solving Schroedinger Equation in certain potential field. (I highly rely on the computer code, not good at paper work on solving Schroedinger Equation) I wish it may have a good explanation on those issues.

 

[dextercioby]

[...]
The only topic that Konishi & Paffuti's fall short at is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics which is introduced very briefly.

I never heard of this book until now (it's probably very new). Judging by the TOC on amazon.com, it looks very promising. A lot of good things. Nice find.

As for your comment, there's no such thing as a <Relativistic Quantum Mechanics> (*), but only <Quantum Field Theory>.

(*) Actually, the probabilistic interpretation for a <relativistic quantum mechanics> fails miserably, however, a very good approximation of the energy spectrum of hydrogen atom & hydrogenoid ions can be obtained with a <classical> Dirac equation. More on this topic in Weinberg, vol.1.

So your concern contains no issue.

 

[atyy]

My two (as a non-physicist) would be Shankar, and Aharovov and Rohrlich.

 

[jfy4]

As for your comment, there's no such thing as a <Relativistic Quantum Mechanics> (*), but only <Quantum Field Theory>.

Why do you say this?

 

[Meir Achuz]

Hi,
As a physics student, I think two quantum mechanics books putting on my shelf is quite enough...

It is not enough if it doesn't include Dirac.

 

[Daverz]

It is not enough if it doesn't include Dirac.

It's a classic, but I don't know that it's all that essential.

 

[hitmeoff]

I think Bohm is one level under Griffiths or right at the level of Griffiths. So if you know QM at the level of Griffiths, you can cross this one off your list.