- 14,564
- 7,158
The new (2020) book on quantum foundations by Durr and Lazarovici:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085Z9LZKZ/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085Z9LZKZ/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Unfortunately the first author, D. Durr, passed away a couple of days ago, due to Covid-19.vanhees71 said:That's a very good book. I know the German edition from 2 years ago.
haushofer said:Highly recommended.
pinball1970 said:EDIT. the image is small
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
Second addition
David J. Griffiths
Or a cat dead from falling off a ladder. You cannot properly motivate QM without a dead cat.atyy said:Does this have a picture of a cat climbing a ladder?
atyy said:Does this have a picture of a cat climbing a ladder?
Got it, page 45atyy said:http://astro.dur.ac.uk/~done/qm2/catladder.jpg
Hmmm, the ladder is important, maybe you'll find it inside the book (around the operator treatment of the harmonic oscillator)?
@atyyatyy said:http://astro.dur.ac.uk/~done/qm2/catladder.jpg
Hmmm, the ladder is important, maybe you'll find it inside the book (around the operator treatment of the harmonic oscillator)?
pinball1970 said:@atyy
Why is this important?
Schrodinger’s cat, ladder, harmonic oscillator?
If this is so hard it requires diagrams to illustrate points then I am probably not going to able to follow it.
If it’s a physics joke then I don’t get it.
Simple? Yeah ok.caz said:It‘s a joke. There are these important things called ladder operators, so of course physicists want Schrodinger’s cat to be climbing a ladder. Physicists are simple folk.
What did the bartender charge him for a drink?pinball1970 said:“A neutron walked into a bar,”
What do you mean exactly?Demystifier said:K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319918087/?tag=pfamazon01-20
I would compare it with Ballentine for QM.
Level of rigor, depth of thinking, foundations to applications ratio, ...AndreasC said:What do you mean exactly?
Thanks. Also what do you mean by "inductive approach"?vanhees71 said:Lechner's electrodynamics is really "modern" in the sense that it presents electrodynamics as it should be presented after 1905 as a relativistic field theory (of course on the graduate level only). It's not just the xth reproduction of Jackson's inductive approach, which anyway cannot be topped so easily by rewriting it ;-).
By the way, what do you think of Zangwill's book?Demystifier said:Level of rigor, depth of thinking, foundations to applications ratio, ...
It's going the old-fashioned way by starting with electrostatics going through magnetostatics, quasistatics, and only finally to the full Maxwell equations. The deductive approach (though as old as Hertz's famous monograph) is more modern. You just start with the Maxwell equations in vacuum (of course in differential form ;-)) as the fundamental theory. That's honest in the sense that it's just the elementary formulation of everything having to do with electromagnetic phenomena (on the classical level). It cannot be logically derived from anything more fundamental. The "derivations" of the inductive approach leading in steps from electrostatics to the full Maxwell equations are heuristic (though important for an intuitive understanding).AndreasC said:Thanks. Also what do you mean by "inductive approach"?
I didn't read it in depth, but superficially it looks to me like a new edition of Jackson.AndreasC said:By the way, what do you think of Zangwill's book?
Personally I like it but it's a bit too much information for learning perhaps. Iirc it is 950+ pages. It goes pretty in depth however and it has these boxes which mention interesting phenomena or historical facts etc. Kind of unusual for a book at this level. I'm not sure I would say it is like a newer Jackson, Jackson did things in a rather different order. Jackson started from potentials and went into boundary value problem solving pretty much. Zangwill starts from the Maxwell equations.Demystifier said:I didn't read it in depth, but superficially it looks to me like a new edition of Jackson.
Sounds like MTW!AndreasC said:Iirc it is 950+ pages. It goes pretty in depth however and it has these boxes which mention interesting phenomena or historical facts etc.
It does, kind of. But it's actually more condensed than MTW.romsofia said:Sounds like MTW!
Yuck, probabilityAndreasC said:My package arrived, whoooo!
View attachment 282229
Demystifier said:K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective (2018)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319918087/?tag=pfamazon01-20
I would compare it with Ballentine for QM.
I have three of the books in the image, as well as three more that aren't in the image, but that were written by authors in the image.AndreasC said:My package arrived, whoooo!
Which ones? I am guessing one of them is quantum theory and you also have Lie algebras by Brian Hall.George Jones said:I have three of the books in the image, as well as three more that aren't in the image, but that were written by authors in the image.
Yes. I also have "Calculus of Several Variables" by Lang and "Introduction to Topological Manifolds" by Lee.AndreasC said:Which ones? I am guessing one of them is quantum theory and you also have Lie algebras by Brian Hall.
Sounds interesting. I guess it's something for masochists ;-)).andresB said:That talk in the preface about massless charged particles is intriguing.
Aren't we all masochists?vanhees71 said:Sounds interesting. I guess it's something for masochists ;-)).
No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.MathematicalPhysicist said:Aren't we all masochists?![]()
So you don't like chemistry?Demystifier said:No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.![]()
Who do you ask, me or the guy in #444? It was him who said that he doesn't read it voluntarily. If you ask me, I like physical chemistry, but not the rest of chemistry.MathematicalPhysicist said:So you don't like chemistry?
Always use inclusive- or when talking to me...Demystifier said:Who do you ask, me or the guy in #444? It was him who said that he doesn't read it voluntarily. If you ask me, I like physical chemistry, but not the rest of chemistry.
I'm currently reading Introduction to Nanoscience by Hornyak, Dutta, Tibbals and Rao, as well as Introduction to Nanotechnology by Poole and Owens. I'm doing a course on nanosci and though it seemed a bit out of my interests in the beginning, I'm actually pretty interested now!Demystifier said:What book are you reading now, or have been reading recently? Only STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) books are counted.