Quantum Should I Get Both of Dirac's Quantum Mechanics Books?

AI Thread Summary
Paul Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" and "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" are both considered essential texts for anyone serious about studying quantum mechanics. "Principles of Quantum Mechanics," first published in 1930, is noted for its clear exposition of quantum theory, despite its challenging notation. "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" is recognized as a foundational work on mechanical systems with constraints, reflecting the excitement of early quantum theory. Both books are recommended for a physicist's library, with the level of difficulty being comparable to that of Sakurai's work, offering rigorous yet understandable content. The discussion emphasizes the historical significance of Dirac's contributions to quantum mechanics and the unique perspective his texts provide compared to contemporary literature, which often focuses on specialized fields.
doggydan42
Messages
169
Reaction score
18
Hello,

I remembered once hearing of a must-have quantum mechanics book by Paul Dirac. I don't remember if it was his Principles of QM or Lectures on QM. Based on the table of contents, I believe it was the Principles of QM book; however, looking at both I was thinking about getting his Lectures on QM. Is it worth getting both books?

Any thoughts on both these books would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Get both books as a "must have" in a (future) physicist's personal library. Dirac was almost 50 when he singlehandedly derived the theory of mechanical systems with constraints, so his "Lectures of Quantum Mechanics" is the birth book on this highly important topic, pretty much as "Principles of Quantum Mechanics 1st Ed.1930 was the first lucid exposé of QM, with his pretty abstract and unfriendly notation (all those xis made my eyes hurt).
 
dextercioby said:
Get both books as a "must have" in a (future) physicist's personal library. Dirac was almost 50 when he singlehandedly derived the theory of mechanical systems with constraints, so his "Lectures of Quantum Mechanics" is the birth book on this highly important topic, pretty much as "Principles of Quantum Mechanics 1st Ed.1930 was the first lucid exposé of QM, with his pretty abstract and unfriendly notation (all those xis made my eyes hurt).
I will definitely get both. At what level are both books? Is it at the level of Sakurai, Griffiths, in between, or more advanced?
 
I'd say the level is like Sakurai (and in contradistinction to Griffiths rigorous enough to be understandable), and it's among the best textbooks on QT ever written (I only now "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" though. I guess, I've to look at the other book too!
 
I remember reading Dirac's book in the university library and I could literally sense from the text the excitement of the scientists of the time about the new quantum theory with lots of unknowns to be discovered. Unfortunately there isn't anything equivalent to that in today's physical sciences. The unknowns are mostly in specialized fields that only a fraction of physicists really understand.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
688
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
9K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Back
Top