Is this enough background to begin QM\GR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cpsinkule
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a background in Electrodynamics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics, and special relativity is sufficient for transitioning into Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR). The original poster expresses concern about skipping certain mathematical topics, particularly those related to electromagnetic fields and specific functions, while focusing on theoretical understanding rather than applications. Responses affirm that the foundational knowledge is adequate for moving into QM and GR, emphasizing the importance of selecting the right textbooks. Recommendations include "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by Hughs and "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Hartle, along with caution against using Griffiths for QM due to its less formal approach. The consensus is that the poster is well-prepared to delve into these advanced topics, with a focus on theoretical frameworks.
cpsinkule
Messages
174
Reaction score
24
I have recently independently studied my way through Electrodynamics (Schwartz, Griffiths, and Shadowitz), Lagrangian\Hamiltonian formalism of Dynamics, about two books on special relativity, and a few books entailing mathematics for QM and GR. I did, however, skip through most of the parts on electromagnetic fields in matter and solving the laplace\poisson equations (I completely skipped bessel functions, harmonic functions, and legendre polynomials for brevity) to save time. My question is as follows: Is this background sufficient to move into QM and GR? I am wholly interested in the theoretical points of the theorems and not so much on the application (which is another reason I skipped the sections I did). I want to be able to understand QM and GR from a theoretical point of view and I am worried I have skipped too much to have a satisfactory understanding to move on to these subjects. Any suggestions would help.

Thanks in advance,

Chris
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yea that's enough.

The more important thing to worry about IMHO is the textbook. I like Wald for GR and in your case since your are interested in the theory Hughs - The Structure And Interpretation Of QM prior to Ballentine - QM A Modern Development.

Ballentine develops QM from two axioms and relegates, correctly, the Schodenger Equation etc to its true basis - a derivation from Galilean invariance.

Thanks
Bill
 
Thanks Bill! I'm really excited to extend my knowledge to these fields and ready to start!
 
cps...
I agree..you are 'good' to go'..have fun.
 
Yep, you are good to go, and you'll see how wise your decision was not to learn about Bessel functions, spherical harmonics, etc. within classical physics. It's much more natural to get these issues covered within quantum theory, where you'll learn that all these functions are representations of orthonormal complete bases of the Hilbert space \mathrm{L}^2 of square-integrable functions. Have fun!
 
If you're just beginning to study these subject then I recommend, as always, "a Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics" by Townsend and "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" by Hartle. For the QM, you need linear algebra and series solutions to diff eqs. For GR, diff geo would be great but not really needed for Hartle since he develops what you need to know.
I think after working through these books, you'll be comfortable to move onto graduate/advanced texts like Sakurai and Wald. Also, I would advise against picking up Griffiths for QM. It's not very formal and works mostly in position space, not developing the full dirac notation and therefore missing some great insights. Since you said you're more of a theory guy, then Townsend would be great.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
69
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top