The Greiner Series: Undergraduate Friendly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ganymede
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Greiner series, particularly its introductory Quantum text, which some have compared to the Landau-Lifshitz series. While the Greiner series is noted for its comprehensive examples, it is considered quite advanced and not necessarily suitable for undergraduates. Participants express that although the books are good, there are likely better alternatives for Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) that are more accessible to undergraduate students. Concerns about typos in earlier editions are acknowledged, with later editions reportedly correcting these issues. Overall, the consensus leans towards the Greiner series being less undergraduate-friendly than desired.
ganymede
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Does anyone have any experience with the Greiner series, specifically his introductory Quantum text ? I have heard it being touted as the new Landau and was wondering if the series is undergraduate friendly. I am well aware that there are quite a few typos (supposably corrected in later editions) but the prospect of examples worked out in their entirety is rather appealing.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No,they cannot be compared with the L-L series,for thousands of reasons.They are good books,right now i have the SM course on my desk and probably will use it for the SM exam.
They're pretty advanced,i don't know what u mean by "undergraduate friendly".But for QM & QFT I'm sure there are dozens of better books.


Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
No,they cannot be compared with the L-L series,for thousands of reasons.They are good books,right now i have the SM course on my desk and probably will use it for the SM exam.
They're pretty advanced,i don't know what u mean by "undergraduate friendly".But for QM & QFT I'm sure there are dozens of better books.


Daniel.

By undergraduate friendly, I mean something that can be read and understood, to some extent, by an undergraduate. Specifically and undergraduate who is going to be enrolled in a QM course.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top