Suitability of Sakurai for QM Learning

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysicalAnomaly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sakurai
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the suitability of Sakurai's text for learning quantum mechanics (QM), particularly for someone with a basic background in linear algebra and introductory physics. Participants explore various texts and their appropriateness for self-study in QM, considering foundational knowledge and prior experience.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about the accessibility of Sakurai, noting their lack of experience with ket notation, which Sakurai uses extensively.
  • Another participant suggests that Ballentine and Sakurai are at a similar level of difficulty, while recommending Griffiths as a more accessible option for self-study.
  • A different viewpoint suggests starting with Eisberg and Resnick, arguing that a year of physics is insufficient for Griffiths and emphasizing the need to learn wave equation solutions.
  • One participant mentions having covered the Schrödinger equation in their previous studies, indicating some familiarity with the material but questioning the depth of their understanding.
  • There is a mention of Gasiorowicz's text and a note about its use of ergs, highlighting a potential issue with units in that book.
  • A later reply raises the question of whether Landau's text would be a better alternative, indicating an exploration of various resources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best text for learning QM. There are multiple competing views regarding the suitability of Sakurai, Griffiths, Eisberg and Resnick, and Landau, reflecting differing opinions on the appropriate level of difficulty and foundational knowledge required.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about their readiness for Sakurai and the necessary background knowledge, particularly regarding ket notation and wave equations. The discussion also highlights varying levels of familiarity with different texts and their approaches to QM.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals considering self-study in quantum mechanics, particularly those with a basic understanding of linear algebra and introductory physics, may find this discussion relevant.

PhysicalAnomaly
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was advised to learn QM from Sakurai since I was interested in learning QM. However, my university's library doesn't have a copy so I can't look through it to decide if it is suitable.

I am familiar with all the basic linear algebra (orthogonality, diagonalisation, eigenvectors, vector spaces) and will be learning more from Friedberg. I don't have much experience with de's except for the basics and the basic use of operators and computational solutions. I've read from this forum that these are the two that are most needed.

I've done first year physics along the lines of Knight and HRW and read a bit of Modern Physics by Harris. I've gotten tired though by the way we are assumed to not be able to understand any of the "real" stuff and are treated to condensed and simplified versions where only special cases are considered.

Please advise on the suitability and alternatives as required. Or what I'd need to study before I can jump in.

PS I looked at the first chapter of Ballentine which my library does have and found it to be at a reasonable level, not so difficult that I had to stop somewhere. Is Sakurai more difficult?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ballentine and Sakurai are at about the same level. For comments about Ballentine, see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=276701.

At lower level, but still at a much higher level than modern physics texts, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths is good for self-study.
 
Sakurai uses strictly ket notations. If you are never introduced to ket notations it might be a little hard to follow

QM by Bransden and Joachain uses classical notations which maybe familiar with more people.
 
If you've only had a year of physics then I wouldn't even recommend going as high as Griffiths. I would start with Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, and Nuclei (or something like that) by Eisberg and Resnick. Simply knowing linear algebra isn't enough, you also have to learn how to solve wave equations with different potentials. That book will step you through it.
 
If you mean solving, the Schrödinger equation for different situations then I think I've covered that in Modern Physics... up to the 3D case and hydrogen atom.

Perhaps I should have a look at Eisberg Resnick. Would be good to go and cover nuclear physics as well.

PS I just read the first chapter of Gasiorowicz and realized that all their energy is quoted in ergs. o.O

PPS Would Landau be better?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Quantum Self-Learning QM: Is It Difficult?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Seeking Advice: Starting to Study Quantum Mechanics (and Statistical Mechanics)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Book recommendations for learning QM
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Next steps after Kleppner/Kolenkow and Purcell/Morin
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
QM mechanics book for review and reference
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Quantum Looking for a good String Theory text
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Here's what I've got, where should I go now?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Other Relearning Math: Comparing Resources for the Best Learning Experience
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
12K
Courses Sakurai as a first course in QM
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Studying What Are the Best Steps for Self-Teaching Theoretical Physics?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K