Most accurate modern physics book

[Whitehole]

I have been plagued by modern physics and quantum mechanics books before that employ the traditional approach where they start from Photoelectric effect, Blackbody radiation, etc. (This is really not an issue but in fact illuminating since it shows how old QM developed) until you read about outdated concepts like the wave-particle duality, stating it for the purpose of history is fine but are there books which teach modern physics (I say this because I'm doing a TA job to sophomore students) "THE RIGHT WAY", say teaching the correct POV in thinking about quantities in QM as say, quantum particles, etc. Quantum mechanics books will also do but please stay in the undergrad realm. Better if anyone could provide the "Correct" books that a physics major should read in the five major subjects of physics in order to avoid misleading textbooks (Classical Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, Electromagnetism, and Quantum Mechanics), if it is hard to be constrained in the undergrad realm, grad books can be also included but please recommend good and correct books to read.

I'm calling @vanhees71 specially since based on what I read of his posts he is very strict on details when it comes to these issues which is good for what my question is.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, there are some very good modern books like Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics. The best heuristic introduction I ever read is in Schwinger, Quantum mechanics - symbolism for atomistic measurements. These are, however, pretty advanced graduate textbooks rather than introductory "modern physics" textbooks. It's indeed a pity that obviously nobody writes a really modern textbook on "modern physics", which is somehow ironic in itself...

 

[Whitehole]

Well, there are some very good modern books like Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics. The best heuristic introduction I ever read is in Schwinger, Quantum mechanics - symbolism for atomistic measurements. These are, however, pretty advanced graduate textbooks rather than introductory "modern physics" textbooks. It's indeed a pity that obviously nobody writes a really modern textbook on "modern physics", which is somehow ironic in itself...

Oh... That sounds really bad, really really bad, that will allow for many confused students and misconceptions to spread more. I thought I was just choosing the wrong books to study on, well, how should one study QM then in order to avoid those pitfalls, example the wave particle duality, etc.? What books will you choose to study if you were given a chance to relive your senior, undergrad, up to grad school?

 

[mpresic3]

Are you a TA (Teaching Assistant ?) for sophomore students? Do teaching assistants decide on the textbook, or for that matter the approach for introducing QM to their students?

Who are the sophomore students? Are they all honor physics students many of who will do graduate work in physics. Or re they likely to continue in chemistry or an allied field. I ask this because in my own memory of the chemistry program, the faculty would have been more interested in whether their students could use quantum mechanics to calculate the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom, or variational principles for the helium atom, and their physical chemistry textbooks (e.g. Moore or Atkins) begin with the photoelectric effect and black body radiation.

BTW. If you want to cringe, try seeing how quantum mechanics is presented in chemistry videos on YouTube.

The chemistry faculty or material science faculty may be more interested in what the early quantum theory offers than whether they have a complete understanding of wave-particle duality or whether the bras and kets are dual spaces etc.

As a teacher, you may need to be more constrained by what the particular students should learn, than what you want to teach them, even if you present some inaccuracies.

 

[Whitehole]

Are you a TA (Teaching Assistant ?) for sophomore students? Do teaching assistants decide on the textbook, or for that matter the approach for introducing QM to their students?

Who are the sophomore students? Are they all honor physics students many of who will do graduate work in physics. Or re they likely to continue in chemistry or an allied field. I ask this because in my own memory of the chemistry program, the faculty would have been more interested in whether their students could use quantum mechanics to calculate the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom, or variational principles for the helium atom, and their physical chemistry textbooks (e.g. Moore or Atkins) begin with the photoelectric effect and black body radiation.

BTW. If you want to cringe, try seeing how quantum mechanics is presented in chemistry videos on YouTube.

The chemistry faculty or material science faculty may be more interested in what the early quantum theory offers than whether they have a complete understanding of wave-particle duality or whether the bras and kets are dual spaces etc.

As a teacher, you may need to be more constrained by what the particular students should learn, than what you want to teach them, even if you present some inaccuracies.

The students are regular physics majors in their sophomore year. I guess most of them would go to grad school so teaching the correct concepts is a must. I myself learned the material in a very scattered way so I'm asking whether there are books that teach these materials more or less in one place. I'm assigned to the discussion time with the students so it is really helpful if I can give them resources that could avoid pitfalls.

 

[Demystifier]

It's indeed a pity that obviously nobody writes a really modern textbook on "modern physics", which is somehow ironic in itself...

I think that's because a good textbook should never be too modern. Modern, in my dictionary, means something related to the current research, while a textbook should emphasize stuff that is already well established. Books that study really modern stuff exist, and are called scientific monographs (not textbooks).

 

[Whitehole]

I think that's because a good textbook should never be too modern. Modern, in my dictionary, means something related to the current research, while a textbook should emphasize stuff that is already well established. Books that study really modern stuff exist, and are called scientific monographs (not textbooks).

What then would your answer be to my original post?

 

[DrClaude]

A good book that appears to satisfy your criteria is Quantum Mechanics by David H. McIntyre. He starts from the Stern-Gerlach experiment and builds the framework of QM from that, using Dirac notation from the beginning.

There is a mention of wave-particle duality, but I think that the it is introduced in a way that is no too bad, focusing on the fact that quantum particles have characteristics that can be seen as particle-like and wave-like when compared to classical physics.

 

[vanhees71]

Oh... That sounds really bad, really really bad, that will allow for many confused students and misconceptions to spread more. I thought I was just choosing the wrong books to study on, well, how should one study QM then in order to avoid those pitfalls, example the wave particle duality, etc.? What books will you choose to study if you were given a chance to relive your senior, undergrad, up to grad school?

Well, I'd start still with the textbook we had in our Quantum Mechanics 1 lecture, which was

J.J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics

I recommend the older "revised edition", edited by S. F. Tuan, or to ignore the parts about relativistic QM in the newer "2nd edition" by J. Napolitano.

 

[Demystifier]

What then would your answer be to my original post?

For a very modern and accurate, yet quite elementary, introduction to quantum mechanics I would suggest Schumacher (who coined the word "qubit) and Westmoreland:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/052187534X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[olddog]

Can I ask a question? How come I don't see many people using Eisberg and Resnicks, Quantum Theory of Atoms, Molecules and Solids? As an undergrad years ago, once I got my hands on it, I loved it.

 

[Demystifier]

Can I ask a question? How come I don't see many people using Eisberg and Resnicks, Quantum Theory of Atoms, Molecules and Solids? As an undergrad years ago, once I got my hands on it, I loved it.

Yes, apart from missing modern topics, it is one of the best "first courses" on quantum physics.