Need a book on Modern Physics to supplement Griffiths QM

[hmparticle9]

I am reading Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. The mathematics and most the physics are going down well, but now and again I hit a complete roadblock. I quite simply don't have the education. Most of the time it is "modern physics".

Should I buy a book like "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Young and Freedman which has it all under one roof. Or "Modern Physics" by Krane. I should point out that I don't own any physics textbooks apart from Griffiths. So maybe it is better off that I get the first option. Or maybe you guys have some ideas for a generic physics textbook.

 

[kuruman]

Before advising you, we need to know how much formal, i.e. coursework, you've had in math and physics. If you start with Modern Physics without having had Mechanics and Electricity and Magnetism, it's like going to the theatre in the middle of a two-hour movie: you will the remaining hour trying to guess what's what, who's done what to whom.

Formal physics education is presented historically, earlier discoveries first. There is a reason for that. Modern Physics was formulated and based upon our understanding of electricity and magnetism which in turn was based upon our understanding of basic mechanical concepts like acceleration, energy, momentum, etc. So we need to know your background.

 

[TensorCalculus]

I am reading Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. The mathematics and most the physics are going down well, but now and again I hit a complete roadblock. I quite simply don't have the education. Most of the time it is "modern physics".

Should I buy a book like "University Physics with Modern Physics" by Young and Freedman which has it all under one roof. Or "Modern Physics" by Krane. I should point out that I don't own any physics textbooks apart from Griffiths. So maybe it is better off that I get the first option. Or maybe you guys have some ideas for a generic physics textbook.

Definitely give Y&F a shot. I am a massive fan of that book: it basically taught me physics. No doubt that it is a really good textbook that I think every student will benefit from: clear explanations, good principles, and endless quality practice problems. Got it for £5 at a charity store and it is the single best purchase I have ever made in my life.

I'm not sure how useful it will be if you want to study modern physics specifically though: it covers everything from mechanics to electromagnetism to optics and more. The modern physics section is only 7 of the 44 chapters in the book with 2 of the chapters on QM and 4 others being very closely related to QM. However since Griffiths is your only physics textbook... maybe it is worth spending time not just on modern physics but on other aspects of physics too. If you haven't been well-versed in classical mechanics I see no reason why you should be skipping straight to modern physics: make sure everything else is solid otherwise I fear you will have a hard time. I don't know how much you have studied physics so I can't comment on whether Y&F will be a good choice for what you want to learn or not.

EDIT: Just realised that while I was writing Kuruman said exactly what I meant to say with those last few lines!

 

[robphy]

I am reading Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. The mathematics and most the physics are going down well, but now and again I hit a complete roadblock. I quite simply don't have the education. Most of the time it is "modern physics".

Can you give some specific examples of the roadblock?

Is the problem to be solved using the math and physics from the text
posed in the context of an unfamiliar-to-you "modern physics" situation?


At some point in my studies, I realized that I should
distinguish the fundamental physics, the formalisms, the applications,
and the mathematical techniques to solve a particular type of problem.

 

[robphy]

I'll repeat my suggestions from your earlier thread.

You might consider some books by Dan Styer: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/index.html

https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/InvitationToQM/ for second-year undergraduates
https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/ThePhysicsOfQM/ for third- or fourth-year undergraduates

https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/InvitationToQM/DescriptionAndEndorsements.pdf

 

[hmparticle9]

@TensorCalculus @kuruman

As part of my maths degree I did vector calculus, classical mechanics, fluid dynamics. Maybe I should get Y and F.

I have read Shankar's "Fundamentals of Physics I and II". I did all the problems. These books cover a wide array of physics.

 

[kuruman]

I have read Shankar's "Fundamentals of Physics I and II". I did all the problems. These books cover a wide array of physics.

Then you will find Y&F a repetition of what you have already seen and a waste of money. My recommendation is to get Krane's Modern Physics instead.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Then you will find Y&F a repetition of what you have already seen and a waste of money. My recommendation is to get Krane's Modern Physics instead.

As much as I love Y&F, I have to agree that the only thing that it has that Shankar does not is a (IMO) better set of practice problems: in fact if my memory serves me right Shankar covers the topics in a bit more depth than Y&F does. I personally preferred Y&F's style of teaching if you get what I mean, but since you've already learnt the concepts I don't see much point in buying it
BTW, did you watch the course that goes along with the books?

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Quantum Physics by Eisberg and Resnick is rigorous and very readable, in my opinion. The beginning chapters present a thorough overview of the experimental developments that made quantum physics a necessary invention.

I've never read Griffiths so I can't give you a comparison.

A book on Modern Physics will likely do the same, and also provide an introduction to relativity, which may or may not be something you want.

 

[vela]

I have read Shankar's "Fundamentals of Physics I and II". I did all the problems. These books cover a wide array of physics.

Then I think it would help, as @robphy suggested above, if you could give us an example of a roadblock you're running into. Maybe you just need a quick review of a few chapters in Fundamentals of Physics II.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Since you have the math for it. Give Townsend or this one a look.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Paradigms-David-McIntyre/dp/1009310615?tag=pfamazon01-20

I dislike Griffiths quantum mechanics book. I am partial to his EM book.

 

[Muu9]

Since you have the math for it. Give Townsend or this one a look.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Paradigms-David-McIntyre/dp/1009310615?tag=pfamazon01-20

I dislike Griffiths quantum mechanics book. I am partial to his EM book.

What don't you like about Griffiths QM compared to Townsend?

 

[MidgetDwarf]

It doesn't shy away from the mathematics. Griffiths does. While still being explanatory. It overlaps with the more sophisticated Sakurai.

Griffiths goes to great lengths to hide the mathematics.

 

[Muu9]

It doesn't shy away from the mathematics. Griffiths does. While still being explanatory. It overlaps with the more sophisticated Sakurai.

Griffiths goes to great lengths to hide the mathematics.

Which math? Linear algebra and bra ket notation?

 

[dextercioby]

It doesn't shy away from the mathematics. Griffiths does. While still being explanatory. It overlaps with the more sophisticated Sakurai.

Griffiths goes to great lengths to hide the mathematics.

Could you offer an exact example in Griffiths (presumably 3rd Ed., chapter, page, topic)? Thanks!

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Could you offer an exact example in Griffiths (presumably 3rd Ed., chapter, page, topic)? Thanks!

Maybe have a look at Townsend and McTyre book? Then look at Griffiths? The difference is night and day.

 

[Muu9]

Maybe have a look at Townsend and McTyre book? Then look at Griffiths? The difference is night and day.

I was hoping you would go through the effort of doing that for us. Something something burden of proof...

 

[haushofer]

I like Zwiebach's QM book. Especially its coverage of linear algebra is nice.