Introduction to Quantum Mechanics? but what book?

[seto6]

this is the booking we will be using in class----> "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David J. Griffiths (2nd Edition, Pearson - 2005, 1995)

so should i be using this book to study Quantum Mechanics?

if not what book would you recommend.

 

[nicksauce]

Griffiths is pretty good. I like Shankar as well. Or Townsend.

 

[Frimus]

As for the introduction to quantum mechanics, Zettili "Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications" is my favorite. It is very clearly written with a lot of worked out examples.

 

[Norman]

When I was first studying QM, I felt it was very helpful to study from multiple books. Having the same thing explained in different ways helped me a lot to bridge the understanding gaps I had. I really liked Shankar- I felt it was thorough.

 

[czelaya]

Griffith is where I started as well. Then I moved to Shanker. What's great about Shankar is that it can be studied at the undrgraduate or graduate level. The transition from Griffith to Shanker, for me anway, was a little shaky, at first, because Shanker introduces axioms about vector spaces and so forth. So Shanker is mathematically, a little, more advanced.

Sakuri is a more modern introduction, but not an introductary book. However, I've always heard how it's an exceptional book, and there is a new edition.

I've heard Townsend's book is quite good also.

There's another introduction book titled Quantum Mechanics "A Time-Depedent Prespective" by David J. Tannor that focuses on the time dependent Schrödinger equation, as opposed to the steady-state Schrödinger equation, and the use of wave packets. This book focuses more on the experimentation aspects of quantum mechanics.

Either way, Griffith's book is the most accessible book to begin with that I know of.

 

[Daverz]

I would go ahead and use Griffiths. I like Shankar, which would make a good supplement, but it's a bit too detailed for a first introduction.

 

[dark_raider]

+1 for Griffiths. Reading his book is like having a professor in front of you teaching QM.

 

[Theorem.]

I'm reading Griffiths on my own time right now and am more than pleased.

 

[seto6]

people keep saying Shankar book's good... what's the name of the book? i would like to read that too b/c i like to understand thing explained in different ways.

thanks for your feed back

 

[Daverz]

Shankar's book is Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed.

 

[czelaya]

people keep saying Shankar book's good... what's the name of the book? i would like to read that too b/c i like to understand thing explained in different ways.

thanks for your feed back

Here you go.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306447908/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Shankar's book covers more material which includes the Dirac equation; an introduction to classical mechanics to understand the importance and dynamics of the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian;Path Integration (I really don't remember whether Griffith's book dives into this subject matter);Symmetries (parity invariance, time-reversal, ect); and, of course, other subjects.

However, I do prefer how Griffith introduces spin (just personal preference).

 

[eXorikos]

We used this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540277064/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm pleased with it. :)

 

[qspeechc]

We also used Griffiths for our QM course, and it seems like I am one of the few people who doesn't like Griffiths, for EM and QM. I also used Bransden and Joachain and I loved this book. It is at the same level as Griffiths but it uses math more; pdes, odes, vector calc, linear algebra etc., but if you've done an EM course you should be ok, I think. I just found Bransden and Joachain much better written and more to my tastes. It is more logically set out and their writting doesn't leave so many gaps, I feel.