Learning Quantum Mechanics: Classical vs Operator Based

[dextercioby]

A very good book,indeed.However,i think the interested (PhD) student would benefit more from solving (or at least trying to solve) the problems in Sakurai's book.

Daniel.

 

[Kane O'Donnell]

Dude, you *love* that book! This is like the hundredth thread you've mentioned it in! I'm starting to wish we had a copy at Newcastle.

Kane

 

[dextercioby]

You don't...? : You don't know what you're missing,though.

Daniel.

P.S.I'm a bigger fan of Galindo & Pascual's book.

 

[quantumdude]

Dude, you *love* that book! This is like the hundredth thread you've mentioned it in! I'm starting to wish we had a copy at Newcastle.

You're talking about Sakurai? If so: GET IT! GET IT! GET IT!

Seriously, I read that book for pleasure.

It is written with the purpose of graduating students to QFT, and it does a great job at it.

 

[Kane O'Donnell]

You don't...?

Nope, we don't. I should probably get the Physics Society here to buy a copy if it's that good

Kane

 

[vanesch]

Nope, we don't. I should probably get the Physics Society here to buy a copy if it's that good

I also think it's worth the money (although it is an expensive book...).

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[dextercioby]

Even though it does a great job with the angular momentum part,it's not for the mathematically dedicated theorist.It gives a nice physical overview of the results,but the mathematical foundation is almost absent.

It is useful to provide a different approach to the whole subject.

Daniel.

 

[redwraith94]

I picked up a book called The Encyclopedia of Quantum mechanics, and when I have time I read through it. It is fascinating!

 

[meister]

We use Liboff here in the junior level undergraduate introductory course on QM, and I must say the mathematical approach is a bit daunting. I bought the Griffiths book as a supplement and I think I like the approach in that book a little better; I'm not that great at linear algebra!

 

[marcusl]

I can't exactly remember. Too old, I guess . I remember using Anderson's "Modern Physics and QM" and liking it a lot. Very straightforward, terse but readable. Flipping through it now, I think the order of topic introduction respects the reader's intelligence. The harmonic oscillator is solved right away in bra-ket notation since that's introduced early in the book, then it's done over using raising-lowering operators. Nice.

The primary text for undergrad QM was Merzbacher, with Anderson as the supplement (I think). Merzbacher uses a spiral approach--working problems initially without deriving formalism (a little perturbation theory is quoted early on, for instance), then introducing wave mechanics and reworking them, then later covering linear algebra, bra-kets, perturbation theory, etc.,--that didn't work well with the pace of the class. QM lasted only 2 quarters since spring quarter was Nuclear Physics, so the class really zipped! It was hard.

In grad school we used Baym. Some in the class griped all year that we got robbed because we didn't use Schiff, but I liked Baym.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can't exactly remember. Too old, I guess . I remember using Anderson's "Modern Physics and QM" and liking it a lot. Very straightforward, terse but readable. Flipping through it now, I think the order of topic introduction respects the reader's intelligence. The harmonic oscillator is solved right away in bra-ket notation since that's introduced early in the book, then it's done over using raising-lowering operators. Nice.

Whoa! You should look my journal (or the PF Blog) and see my review of the text. You are the first person on here that I know of besides me that have used that text. :)

Zz.

 

[marcusl]

Whoa! You should look my journal (or the PF Blog) and see my review of the text. You are the first person on here that I know of besides me that have used that text. :)

Zz.

Ok, nice review!

My son came home this week and wants to prepare over the summer for his upcoming QM class, which is why I am thinking about QM books for the first time in years. Anderson really covers all the topics you'd like in an undergrad course, and he just puts the material out straight. Anyone else know this book? (or do only youngsters read this forum )

My son may yet use Griffiths because he really liked his E&M book...

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, nice review!

My son came home this week and wants to prepare over the summer for his upcoming QM class, which is why I am thinking about QM books for the first time in years. Anderson really covers all the topics you'd like in an undergrad course, and he just puts the material out straight. Anyone else know this book? (or do only youngsters read this forum )

My son may yet use Griffiths because he really liked his E&M book...

Griffith is not a bad alternative, so he can't go wrong with that.

BTW, welcome to PF. We will try not to confuse you with the more well-established Marcus that hangs around the String/LQG section of PF. :)

Zz.

 

[marcusl]

Thank you for the welcome, Zz! The other Marcus clearly is a theoretician, I'm experimental, or used to be. Nowadays I'm a manager, and the closest I get to experimental work may be home renovations.

One of my favorite experimental quotes, from a woodworking forum: "I've cut it three times and it's still too short!"

 

[bamboum]

The best way of understanding the quantum mechanics starts with the physics and the history of QM. The feeling of all physicits can must understand before reallygoing in the mathematical aspect of the things. Hilbert espace of square integrated functions has only sense if you know something about the probability aspect of state functions. A base of vectors states? The role of operator and its need must be understood in the physics of MQ. After you can have look to Cohen's book... Try to read books of famous guys: Dirac, Fermi, Landau... There were no so hard to read... You must know that mathematicians think to teach MQ ! Crazy !
I agree Messiah is one of the best up to now...