What are you reading now? (STEM only)

  • Other
  • Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Reading
  • Featured
In summary, D. J. Tritton's "Physical Fluid Dynamics" is a book that he likes for its structure, beginning with phenomenology before delving into the equations. He also likes the book for its inclusion of experimental results throughout. He recently read J. MacCormick's "Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future" and found it to be very readable. Lastly, he is reading S. Weinberg's "Gravitation and Kosmologie" and Zee's "Gravitation".
  • #491
vanhees71 said:
Historically that may be right, but neither the PE nor Compton scattering prove the necessity for quantization of the em. field.
What demonstrated the necessity of the quantization of the em field?
 
  • Like
Likes fluidistic
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #492
vanhees71 said:
Historically that may be right, but neither the PE nor Compton scattering prove the necessity for quantization of the em. field. This is really well-known now. Why do textbook writers, particularly of QM intro textbooks, always just copy the mistakes from the tradition?
Obviously, it's not known well enough.

vanhees71 said:
Besides, where are the postulates clearly stated?
Sec. 5.3.
 
  • #493
caz said:
What demonstrated the necessity of the quantization of the em field?
Spontaneous emission, I would say.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Frabjous
  • #495
Demystifier said:
Obviously, it's not known well enough.Sec. 5.3.
Ok, well. Where can I find an hermitean operator to measure in the lab? Maybe I ask my experimental colleagues on Monday ;-))... Then there's an "instantaneous collapse". The question is, why does one need another 1000+x-page sloppy book on QM? :-((
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #496
vanhees71 said:
Then there's an "instantaneous collapse". The question is, why does one need another 1000+x-page sloppy book on QM? :-((
Who is worried about philosophical quibbles now? :wink:
 
  • #497
It's not philosophical. I don't bother too much about the "instantaneous collapse" postulate without even mentioning that it's highly problematic. That you may indeed see as a philosophical detail, I'll never would bother to discuss with beginners in QM, but as far as I could see glancing over the book, it's sloppy also in the math (and thus also in the physics). Admittedly, I have a few points I check to see whether I want to buy a new QM physics book.

(1) How are states defined: the author states its given by the state ket. That's too sloppy for my taste, because it's very important to identify a ray (or equivalently the projection operator ##|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|##) with a (pure) state and not ##|\psi \rangle## itself. Without this, there'd be no non-relativistic QM (the unitary representations of the Galilei group don't lead to physically useful quantum theories), no half-integer spin, and many more problems.

(2) The operators representing observables must be essentially self-adjoint; Hermitean is not sufficient. Also one measures not an Hermitean (or self-adjoint) operator in the lab but real-world "objects", but the latter is again maybe a bit philosophical, but I've never understood what people mean when they state they'd measure an abstract mathematical entity like a self-adjoint operator in Hilbert space. I've never seen one around me ;-)).

(3) Is the question, why orbital angular momenta have only integer and not half-integer eigenvalues (properly) addressed? As expected from (1) and (2), of course not. Already Pauli knew in 1925/26 that of course the claim that a wave function must be unique as a classical field is not a valid argument. The lack of realizing this is of course due to the sloppiness with regard to item (1) above.

(4) Is the photon picture used at least qualitatively correct, if it is used at all in a beginners-QM (non-relativistic QM)? The answer is definitely no here too.
 
  • #498
vanhees71 said:
(2) The operators representing observables must be essentially self-adjoint; Hermitean is not sufficient. Also one measures not an Hermitean (or self-adjoint) operator in the lab but real-world "objects", but the latter is again maybe a bit philosophical, but I've never understood what people mean when they state they'd measure an abstract mathematical entity like a self-adjoint operator in Hilbert space. I've never seen one around me ;-)).

I don't get the claim. It is true that the physically relevant QM representation of the Galilei group is not faithful but projective. Yet, it is a unitary projective representation.
 
  • #499
Sure, but why should you look for projective representations in the first place if the absolute phase of the state ket were physically significant?
 
  • #500
@vanhees71 I have seen you dislike most popular intro QM books, eg. Griffths QM and now Zwiebach's new book. What book do you usually recommend to a complete novice?
or do you simply believe there is no one good intro QM book :(
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #501
Hamiltonian said:
@vanhees71 I have seen you dislike most popular intro QM books, eg. Griffths QM and now Zwiebach's new book. What book do you usually recommend to a complete novice?
or do you simply believe there is no one good intro QM book :(
Laundau Lifshitz
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Hamiltonian
  • #502
Hamiltonian said:
@vanhees71 I have seen you dislike most popular intro QM books, eg. Griffths QM and now Zwiebach's new book. What book do you usually recommend to a complete novice?
or do you simply believe there is no one good intro QM book :(
Sakurai, Ballentine, Weinberg, Messiah, Landau and Lifschitz vol. 3, Dirac. There are many good into books.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Demystifier and Hamiltonian
  • #503
vanhees71 said:
Sakurai, Ballentine, Weinberg, Messiah, Landau and Lifschitz vol. 3, Dirac. There are many good into books.
No list can be complete without Cohen-Tanoudji's books...
P.S
I really should start reading this book, reminds me of Courant-Hilbert or Courant-John in calculus.
I only read parts, and it's good I read Cohen-Tanoudji that once I took an exercise in an undergraduate QM1, there was a question on Glauber something. No one in class knew how to answer this exercise but me, cause I gave a look at the book's index.

Good for me... :oldbiggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, vanhees71, Demystifier and 2 others
  • #504
vanhees71 said:
Sakurai, Ballentine, Weinberg, Messiah, Landau and Lifschitz vol. 3, Dirac.
But some of those say that there is collapse. :wink:
 
  • #506
Demystifier said:
But some of those say that there is collapse. :wink:
Sure, if you look for books, where they don't mention collapse, the list will be very short ;-).
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #507
vanhees71 said:
Admittedly, I have a few points I check to see whether I want to buy a new QM physics book. ...
These are interesting criteria. What is the set of books satisfies these four criteria, and also is suitable for a first undergrad quantum mechanics course (beyond Modern Physics) at a typical North American university? It wouldn't surprise if it's the empty set. :oldwink:
 
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian and vanhees71
  • #508
For me, no textbook is perfect. I'm happy to get some misrepresentations; basically every book has them and no author is God. I prefer writing style and topic selection. The very first reason I read textbooks is because I'm in love with physics and mathematics, and if an author resonates with that in his writing style, much can be forgiven.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes vanhees71, Frimus, martinbn and 1 other person
  • #509
George Jones said:
These are interesting criteria. What is the set of books satisfies these four criteria, and also is suitable for a first undergrad quantum mechanics course (beyond Modern Physics) at a typical North American university? It wouldn't surprise if it's the empty set. :oldwink:
Well, Sakurai is pretty close. My favorite intro textbook is unfortunately not available in English: E. Fick, Einführung in die Grundlagen der Quantentheorie, Aula-Verlag Wiesbaden (1979)
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc
  • #510
vanhees71 said:
Well, Sakurai is pretty close. My favorite intro textbook is unfortunately not available in English: E. Fick, Einführung in die Grundlagen der Quantentheorie, Aula-Verlag Wiesbaden (1979)
Someone give Vanhees a large annual salary, so that he can translate German math/physics books!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Astronuc, Demystifier and Hamiltonian
  • #511
vanhees71 said:
Sure, but why should you look for projective representations in the first place if the absolute phase of the state ket were physically significant?

Do most (all) QM books don't say that? I remember being told from the very beginning by my QM teacher that total phases were irrelevant, so it's not something I actively look at in books, it seems quite obvious.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #512
That's the point. It's not a very difficult fact that not vectors in Hilbert space but rays represent (pure) states, and you can (and imho should!) teach it from the very beginning, but it's often not stated explicitly in the introductory chapters of newer QM textbooks. In a book like Sakurai it indeed is taught correctly from the very beginning. Also the related issue with the orbital angular momentum is discussed correctly there.
 
  • #513
vanhees71 said:
Besides, where are the postulates clearly stated?

Demystifier said:
Sec. 5.3.
This version of the axioms is given in the I Essentials part of the book. A more sophisticated version of the axioms (for isolated systems) is given in section 16.6, which is in the II Theory part of the book. Here, Zwiebach clearly states "A1. States of the System The complete description of a quantum system is given by a ray in a Hilbert space H." (Zwiebach's bold)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Demystifier
  • #514
I'm reading The art of statistics by Spiegelhalter now. Fun book which stresses conceptual aspects of statistics and data analysis.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, PhDeezNutz and vanhees71
  • #515
Finally an honest math book title
1652916617342.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, LCSphysicist, DaveE and 5 others
  • #516
BWV said:
Finally an honest math book title
View attachment 301619

Ah, yes. I remember that book. It's the one where you need preliminaries to understand the preliminaries of page 1.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Demystifier and BWV
  • #517
andresB said:
Ah, yes. I remember that book. It's the one where you need preliminaries to understand the preliminaries of page 1.
Yes, found the first part easy to follow, then he lost me

1653018609362.png
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu, Astronuc, LCSphysicist and 5 others
  • #518
BWV said:
In (1), the indices do not match. In (2), the horizontal line of the square root is too short. And I don't see how is 2+3=5 clear, it took several hundred pages to prove 1+1=2 by Whitehead and my avatar.
 
  • Like
Likes BWV, vanhees71 and Hamiltonian
  • #519
"Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics" by Joel David Hamkins (Professor of Logic and Fellow in Philosophy at Oxford). After 50 pages about numbers (of various kinds) he writes " "I am truly very sorry, but we do not know, fully, what numbers are." He is a very engaging writer.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, Hamiltonian and berkeman
  • #520
George Jones said:
"Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics" by Joel David Hamkins (Professor of Logic and Fellow in Philosophy at Oxford). After 50 pages about numbers (of various kinds) he writes " "I am truly very sorry, but we do not know, fully, what numbers are." He is a very engaging writer.
Maybe you'll also like

Why Beliefs Matter: Reflections on the Nature of Science,

https://www.amazon.nl/dp/0198704992/

then (written by a mathematician) 😁
 
  • Like
Likes romsofia
  • #521
BWV said:
Finally an honest math book title
View attachment 301619
This is actually how I experience quite some of these math books too, and mostly read mathbooks/notes written by physicists like Tong or Zee nowadays (God knows I tried!). I guess I value intuition more than rigor.
 
  • Like
Likes BWV
  • #522
haushofer said:
Maybe you'll also like

Why Beliefs Matter: Reflections on the Nature of Science,

https://www.amazon.nl/dp/0198704992/

then (written by a mathematician) 😁
This seems like a fun book, I will probably be getting it. Thanks for mentioning it!
 
  • #523
George Jones said:
"Lectures on the Philosophy of Mathematics" by Joel David Hamkins
Thank you for the suggestion, now I'm reading it too.
 
  • Like
Likes George Jones and Hamiltonian
  • #524
haushofer said:
For me, no textbook is perfect. I'm happy to get some misrepresentations; basically every book has them and no author is God. I prefer writing style and topic selection. The very first reason I read textbooks is because I'm in love with physics and mathematics, and if an author resonates with that in his writing style, much can be forgiven.
Like 'Misrepresentation Theory'?
Demystifier said:
Thank you for the suggestion, now I'm reading it too.
JDH is a major poster in Math Logic in Math Stack Exchange, maybe in Overflow too. He's one of those monsters with like 500k score, so that maybe you can gleam some of his material from there. I met him once. Cool guy, but seems to have a wolfman thing going. Careful with him after sundown, as the J, H stand for Jekyll and Hyde ;) Joking on the wolfman look. He was very nice0. I read, understood and explained to someone his take on how Compactness in Logic compares to Compactness in Topology like 3 times, and then forgot most of it.
 
  • #525
I am reading the principals of fusion energy
 

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
832
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
892
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
868
Back
Top