Is My Background Strong Enough for Shankar's Mechanics Book?

  • Context: Quantum 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RubinLicht
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prerequisites Shankar
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether a participant's mathematical and physics background is sufficient to tackle Shankar's mechanics book. It includes considerations of prior coursework, mathematical maturity, and the challenges presented by the book's style and content.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions having completed Calculus I to III and linear algebra but lacks knowledge of Legendre polynomials and Hamiltonians, raising concerns about their preparedness for Shankar's book.
  • Another participant argues that Shankar's explanations of Hamiltonians are intuitive and that prior knowledge of them is not necessary, as he provides explanations when needed.
  • It is noted that while Shankar assumes knowledge of calculus and linear algebra, the main challenge lies in the mathematical intuition required, as he often omits significant steps in his explanations.
  • A different participant agrees that the background is sufficient but emphasizes the need for mathematical maturity and suggests that Shankar's later chapters may be less clear and require supplementary texts like Zetilli and Sakurai.
  • Concerns are raised about the limited number of exercises in Shankar's book, which may not adequately reinforce the material covered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the background described is sufficient to begin studying Shankar's book, but there are differing opinions on the clarity of the later chapters and the necessity of supplementary materials. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the adequacy of Shankar's explanations and the overall structure of the book.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of concern about the mathematical rigor and clarity of Shankar's later chapters, as well as the adequacy of exercises provided in the book. These points highlight potential limitations in the learning experience without resolving them.

RubinLicht
Messages
131
Reaction score
8
I've taken Calc I to III and linear algebra, although the course was overall quite light. I don't know what legendre polynomials are, and haven't learned hamiltonians (and probably won't since its not in morin),
When i start the book i will have finished david morins mechanics book,tenenbaums ODE book and purcells EM book. Is my background strong enough to read shankar or will i struggle (and how much)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shankar explains Hamiltonians, so not knowing about them won't be a barrier. I found his explanation of Hamiltonians quite intuitive and helpful. I learned QM from Shankar and, as I recall, the only prior maths he assumed were calculus and linear algebra. He uses Legendre polynomials but he explains what they are when he uses them, so you don't need prior exposure to them.

The challenge with Shankar is not so much about knowledge as about mathematical intuition. He often leaves out quite big steps, so it can be a struggle sometimes to fill in the missing steps. Also he sometimes relies on a result stated several pages ago in order to achieve a certain step, without quoting it, leaving the reader bamboozled as to the justification for the step.

However, these faults are shared by many other authors, so his book compares reasonably well with other QM texts.
 
I agree with andrewkirk, your background is enough, a little mathematical maturity is also needed. Shankar skips steps in some of the major topics. I would also like to point out that in my opinion Shankar is good for Chapters 1-15 but you should still supplement it with books like Zetilli and Sakurai. The latter chapters feels like he is in a hurry and doesn't explain the material quite well, unnecessarily wordy (I don't even know what exactly what he wants to point out). Also, the EXERCISES! There is too few of them and most of them are related to derivations of what he skipped. So bottomline is, supplement it with other books.
 
Many thanks for the input
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K