What knowledge of mathematics and physics do I need to go through and understand this? I have some high school knowledge of mathematics, up to calculus, and some proofs intro, though I probably forgot that.
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
What knowledge of mathematics and physics do I need to go through and understand this?
It's a very elementary and non-mathematical QM book. You only need to basics of Calculus, Linear Algebra and classical mechanics.
>It's a very elementary and non-mathematical QM book
I thought the QM itself is very mathematical in nature, that is it's difficult to get at it without a lot of math? Does it mean the book won't help me understand it properly and is there a need for a better more mathematically rigorous book? I mean if I wanted to read popsci books, I would have done so, but I know it's all watered down crap that gives you the illusion of knowing.
>I thought the QM itself is very mathematical in nature, that is it's difficult to get at it without a lot of math?
It depends on how deep you want it to be, the elementary quantum mechanics requires knowledge of classical mechanics, linear algebra and calculus. For more advanced stuff you need group theory and complex analysis
just start reading it if you want and if you see something you haven't seen it before then look it up on wikipedia or something or just google it and when you understand that bit then keep reading. It's called top-down learning. It speeds things up because you don't have to say, read 5 other whole math textbooks before you start the book you want and then find out you don't need 95% of the stuff from those books. You'll probably forget almost all of it anyway unless you use the information fairly regularly, that's what happens to me anyway
Well, I am none of those things. Which is the reason why I asked on Mongolian carpet viewing forums, for some wise advices.
That is really not a great textbook. It's pretty much just ok, unlike Griffiths' Emag which is the best textbook ever written.
>That is really not a great textbook
Welp, frick, wish I knew about that sooner before I bought it.
It is a great textbook. There is a reason professors keep using it.
Just to be clear, it is not pop-sci and it does involve the necessary mathematics. The haters in this thread will not even be able to point at something this book does wrong. Anything they point out that is "missing" will be something horribly technical or out of the scope of a first year quantum mechanics class.
it's not really all that good. i was one of the few people in my QM class that really enjoyed the book. i took an advanced QM class later, and felt like i was under prepared. that being said, a lot of the things that i needed to key on were in Griffiths, but weren't emphasized.
it's ok as an intro, but jump ship to Sakurai ASAP for proper development.
Don't give vague generalities. What specifically does Sakurai present that Griffiths does not, and is that material really suitable for a first QM book?
I think you are underestimating the fact that Sakurai was the second textbook you read on the subject, and so of course you will understand more from that.
>It is a great textbook
It really isn't. The zeitgeist is like it inherited some of the magnificence of Griffiths' Emag, but it didn't. For instance, there is a notoriously wrong explanation for the origin of atomic spin angular momentum in there. This is just a flat wrong error saying something completely wrong, not like a typo or something. This book is pretty average.
For Griffiths calculus should suffice. It's a book written on a very shallow level. Don't expect to learn QM in depth from this.
PDEs, which means you have to know some about calculus and ODEs. you also need to know linear algebra cold.
It's self-contained.
Sounds like a good book given your background
You can always dabble into more advanced texts if you want, but I suggest you make sure to work through at least one cover to cover, for which Griffiths is a good candidate
>What knowledge of mathematics and physics do I need to go through and understand this?
Waves and Oscillations - A Prelude to Quantum Mechanics -smith
Pic related, on the other hand, is truly a magnificent intro to QM book.
Currently I am working through Roman's Advanced Quantum Theory, which, although it is from the 1960s, is excellent and the best of probably about five non-intro QM books I've looked at.
All right thanks for the suggestion. I am going to of course need work my way up to these books, tough