• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products via PF Here!

Courses Is Griffiths' QM sufficient before studying quantum computation?

  • Thread starter Haorong Wu
  • Start date
88
11
Hello, again. My current interest is quantum computation.

I've finished Griffiths' QM for the first time. Because it only takes me a month studying the book, I may have study it superficial, so I plan to study it again and complete all the problems after each chapter.

Then is this book sufficient before I start to study quantum computation, or should I study another textbook, such as Shankar's, Cohen's or Sakurai's?

ps. I'm wondering is qm mainly about solving wave functions? Griffiths talks almost all about how to solve wave functions in his book, except for the last chapter.
 

DrClaude

Mentor
6,969
3,141
I think that mastering the Dirac notation, the matrix formulation of QM and, to a lesser degree, density operators is essential to work with quantum computation. Griffiths appears a bit think in these domains.

Cohen-Tannoudji and Sakurai are good choices. There is also Townsend, which is a kind of "Sakarai light." One book I know less may be good for you is the one by David H. McIntyre. It is an introductory book at the level of Griffiths, but uses the Dirac notation from the beginning.

ps. I'm wondering is qm mainly about solving wave functions?
It depends on what field. People working in quantum computing basically never use wave functions. People in atomic and molecular physics use wave functions all the time.
 
88
11
I think that mastering the Dirac notation, the matrix formulation of QM and, to a lesser degree, density operators is essential to work with quantum computation. Griffiths appears a bit think in these domains.

Cohen-Tannoudji and Sakurai are good choices. There is also Townsend, which is a kind of "Sakarai light." One book I know less may be good for you is the one by David H. McIntyre. It is an introductory book at the level of Griffiths, but uses the Dirac notation from the beginning.


It depends on what field. People working in quantum computing basically never use wave functions. People in atomic and molecular physics use wave functions all the time.
Thanks, DrClaude. I heard that some part of the Sakurai's book is not so good. I think I'll try the Cohen's next.
 

DrClaude

Mentor
6,969
3,141
I heard that some part of the Sakurai's book is not so good.
I don't know which part that would be. Sakurai is a very good book, but it is an upper-level undergraduate book.

In my previous message, I forgot to say that, since you haven't done the exercises in Griffiths, it would be best not to do them, but go through the material in another book and do the exercises therein.
 
88
11
I don't know which part that would be. Sakurai is a very good book, but it is an upper-level undergraduate book.

In my previous message, I forgot to say that, since you haven't done the exercises in Griffiths, it would be best not to do them, but go through the material in another book and do the exercises therein.
I heard that after finishing the first three chapters, Sakurai died and his friend finished the rest part according to Sakurai's outline. Thus the rest part of the book seems a bit confusing.

Are there anything wrong with Griffins' problems?

Also, I heard that the number of exercises in Cohen's book is not enough. Then, maybe I should try Sakurai's book.

Ah, it's tough to choose. Maybe I should buy them both.
 

DrClaude

Mentor
6,969
3,141
I heard that after finishing the first three chapters, Sakurai died and his friend finished the rest part according to Sakurai's outline. Thus the rest part of the book seems a bit confusing.
The book was indeed written by someone else, but based on Sakurai's notes. I would go for the latest edition, revised by Napolitano. (Caveat: some people at PF do not like that edition. I use it in my lectures).

Are there anything wrong with Griffins' problems?
No. It is simply that you might as well go for another perspective instead of going through Griffiths again.

Also, I heard that the number of exercises in Cohen's book is not enough. Then, maybe I should try Sakurai's book.

Ah, it's tough to choose. Maybe I should buy them both.
That can be expensive. Is there a library you could borrow one of them from?
 
88
11
The book was indeed written by someone else, but based on Sakurai's notes. I would go for the latest edition, revised by Napolitano. (Caveat: some people at PF do not like that edition. I use it in my lectures).


No. It is simply that you might as well go for another perspective instead of going through Griffiths again.


That can be expensive. Is there a library you could borrow one of them from?
I decide to try Sakurai's book, and buy Cohen's as well.

Though I can't borrow any of them, they are sold in a pretty low price in China. 50RMB for Sakurai's and 80RMB for Cohen's. In US dollar, they only cost 20 dollars in total. It seems that a Chinese company has purchase their copyrights, so their prices are incrediblely low in China.

ps. I have to buy Griffiths' book for 100 dollars. It took me days before I finally decided to buy it.

Thank you again, DrClaude. You've helped me a lot.
 
If your main interest is quantum information then since you have a little background in QM I would just pick up Nielson and Chuang's book which is the standard in QM. They cover a little bit of the QM necessary at the beginning as well as some linear algebra. Knowing in depth details about angular momentum and symmetries (Sakurai) wont help with QI.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Is Griffiths' QM sufficient before studying quantum computation?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Is Griffiths' QM sufficient before studying quantum computation?

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
884
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
854

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top