Wanted: complete errata sheet for quantum mechanics demystified

[lolgarithms]

yo.

today I got "quantum mechanics demystified", and I heard it has a lot of typos. Can you list them all for me (in tex if possible)?

 

[Doc Al]

See here: http://quantummechanicsdemystified.blogspot.com/2008/08/quantum-mechanics-demystified-erratta.html

 

[lolgarithms]

the author's errata sheet doens't list all the typos.

can someone please find ALL of them?

 

[j93]

working on it captain

 

[physicsnoob93]

Is that a good book? Just wondering, might buy it.

 

[lolgarithms]

it has so many ****in mistakes. sumtimes whole pages are replete w/ typos.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

the author's errata sheet doens't list all the typos.

can someone please find ALL of them?

The book has much deeper problems than the typos. Even his definition of a group is wrong.

 

[Doc Al]

I would not recommend this book.

 

[maverick280857]

I would not recommend this book.

Doc, I was just wondering..whats your opinion of the QFT demystified book?

 

[Doc Al]

Doc, I was just wondering..whats your opinion of the QFT demystified book?

Sadly, what little QFT knowledge I once had has atrophied long ago, so I cannot give an informed opinion. But I did give that book a look, and own several of his others (including the quantum and relativity ones); I do not care for any of them. (Which is not to say that some good stuff cannot be gleaned from them, numerous mistakes notwithstanding, if you know where to look. Nonetheless, I'd give them a pass.)

 

[malawi_glenn]

Doc, I was just wondering..whats your opinion of the QFT demystified book?

We have some old threads about that particular book.

MY opinion is that it COULD be good if there were less typos and better organized, e.g. sometimes he just repeats the definition of things on the very next page, and refer reader to wrong chapters.

It contains some good stuff although, but I one has to know the stuff before I guess, otherwise one will not get far with all the typos etc.

 

[Daverz]

From reading the Amazon reviews, it's not just the density of typos that's the problem with the QFT book, it's that he makes many flat out wrong statements about the physics.

On a subject I'm more familiar with, I can't imagine anyone being "demystified" by his relativity book. It's just an info dump.

As for a good, cheap QM book, maybe the book by Park that has been reprinted by Dover.

 

[lolgarithms]

[quote="jimmysnyder]The book has much deeper problems than the typos. Even his definition of a group is wrong. [/quote]
Where does he give the definition of the group? What is the correct definition? I wanted all the errors, not just the typoes.

No wonder everyone hates demystified books. I have a lot of them because they sell them at Barnes &Noble.

What are you guys' opinions on the string theory demystified book?

 

[malawi_glenn]

Where does he give the definition of the group? What is the correct definition?

No wonder everyone hates demystified books. I have a lot of them because they sell them at Barnes &Noble.

What are you guys' opinions on the string theory demystified book?

Page 50

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)#Definition

Have not studying it, A First Course in String Theory is the best intro text

 

[mbarby]

guys guys guys. i bought the book with enthusiasm to begin to understand the mechanics of the quantum world. i have to say that for and outsider (i am a computer engineer with no quantum related physics background) the book is rather good. it is giving different examples. if you are a physicst or in a more related area the book might be too simple for you. but i liked it. the only bad thing about the book is the famous errors. for a self study man like me, it is crucial to know if i did it wrong or right and i can't be sure of that for this book.. other than that i like this kind of books ...