Is this a good book to learn quantum physics?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion evaluates "Quantum Mechanics of Particles and Wave Fields" by Arthur March, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses for learning quantum mechanics (QM). While the book provides a solid foundation in QM, it lacks coverage of recent developments and essential topics like angular momentum, which are typically included in first-year graduate curricula. Readers may find the text terse compared to more contemporary textbooks such as Shankar or Sakurai. Ultimately, the suitability of March depends on individual learning goals, with the book being beneficial for those interested in historical perspectives rather than current graduate-level content.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic quantum mechanics concepts
  • Familiarity with angular momentum in quantum physics
  • Knowledge of nuclear physics and field theory
  • Experience with contemporary quantum mechanics textbooks like Shankar or Sakurai
NEXT STEPS
  • Research recent developments in quantum mechanics since 1951
  • Study angular momentum and Clebsch-Gordon coefficients in quantum mechanics
  • Compare "Quantum Mechanics of Particles and Wave Fields" with modern textbooks
  • Explore applications of quantum mechanics in current physics graduate programs
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics, historical texts, and the evolution of quantum theory in academic curricula.

Vectronix
Messages
66
Reaction score
2
Quantum Mechanics of Particles and Wave Fields by Arthur March... Does anyone know of the author? I think I found an error in this book. :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have a copy of March, Quantum Mechanics of Particle and Waves, Dover Ed. I must have been impressed by the topics it or I would not have bought it. First off, I notice that the Dover reprint was of a book that was written in 1951. This is not necessarily bad. If you complete the text you will know QM, but you will not cover any topics in QM that came up during the last 60 years. Nevertheless, the old masters, really new their QM.

It looks like the addition of angular momentum (e.g Clebsch Gordon Coefficients) is not addressed. This is usually in the curriculum for first year physics grad students.

On the other hand, later section in March addressing nuclear physics and field theory are more than what first year physics grads generally take.

Summary, whether March is good depends on your goals. You can certainly learn QM from March, and if you go through it, you may learn a lot that is not covered in physics graduate school programs these days. This may be worth pursuing. If your goal is to what the grad students cover these days and prepare you for recent applications, this is not your book.

March is certainly terse, and I think most common first year textbooks like Shankar, or Sakurai, are an easier read.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K