Name Of A Good Quantum Mechanics Book?

[M. next]

I want a name of a good Quantum Mechanics book, that has good exercises (it is not necessary that both be in the same textbook).
All what I can inform you of is that this will be my first Quantum Mechanics course for a third year physicist.
Thanks.

 

[micromass]

I've heard good things about this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470026782/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[GarageDweller]

Personally, I like books with rather detailed derivations and explanations, diagrams are not that important in QM as there really isn't anything to visualize, as opposed to maybe SR or GR (The manifold and space-time diagrams are essential to forming an intuitive understanding of these 2 theories).
Stay away from those math-lite texts, they'll just frustrate you and waste your money.

 

[genericusrnme]

I second micromass' suggestion, zettili's book is a good one!
And what GarageDweller said, stay far away from griffiths' QM book

If you're already comfortable with some okay linear algebra and juggling about with awkward integrals you might want to check out shankar's principles of quantum mechanics, it's a little more advanced than zettili but it also has a lot more explanation and exposition which I find quite nice in an introductory textbook. Shankar's book also has good exercises and some hints if you get stuck.

There's also Landau and Lifgarbagez' book with is a bit older and follows very strictly the wave mechanics approach, it also has a fair amount of exposition and it deals with the classical limit quite early on which is something a lot of QM textbooks miss out on (Shankar does have a chapter on it but it is still pretty short).

 

[M. next]

Thanks for your answers. And please genericusrnme, why stay away from griffiths' QM book?
I have a good mathematical background, but honestly I have no idea what QM talks about? Is it highly mathematics dependent?

 

[homeomorphic]

diagrams are not that important in QM as there really isn't anything to visualize

For a rebuttal of this statement, refer to The Road to Reality, by Roger Penrose, Chapters 21-24, I think especially the intro to chapter 22, where Penrose calls it "a pity" to take such an attitude.

I agree diagrams are less important, but I disagree that there isn't anything to visualize.

 

[kostas230]

Thanks for your answers. And please genericusrnme, why stay away from griffiths' QM book?
I have a good mathematical background, but honestly I have no idea what QM talks about? Is it highly mathematics dependent?

You need to be fairly comfortable with Linear Algebra: matrixes, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, linear operators etc. Also it helps habing a strong backround in differential equations (both ODEs and PDEs)

To learn basic QM you need to know classical mechanics. If you want to go deeper, you might want to study EM.

 

[Jorriss]

I kept hearing about that quantum book Zettili so I checked it out. It's amazing! It's the best quantum book I've ever read. It's not really advanced enough for a full graduate course but I would of LOVED to have used that as an undergraduate.

 

[genericusrnme]

Thanks for your answers. And please genericusrnme, why stay away from griffiths' QM book?

Because it is one of those books that attempts to do "quantum mechanics for dummies" the result is a book that contains inconsistencies (iirc at one point he DEFINES something one way and later asks as an exercise 'is this always the case') and handwaving proofs of theorems. Schrodingers equation is simply introduced with no mention as to where it came from.. It's just a horrid book for anyone who wants to understand the subject rather than just remember, as he sais, 'what mathematicians tell us the answer is' and spew out answers to stock questions in an exam.

I have a good mathematical background, but honestly I have no idea what QM talks about? Is it highly mathematics dependent?

You should be okay, QM at the level of Zettili and Shankar requires you know how to play about with some tricky integrals (pretty much just gaussian integrals) and understand some linear algebra, hermitian matrices having real eigenvalues and orthogonal eigenvectors etc and the notion that functions also form a vectorspace. If you know that you should be alright!

 

[M. next]

Thanks, you were very helpful.