Best Intro to Quantum Mechanics: Griffiths vs Dirac

[Astrum]

What is the best intro to QM?

I was settled on Griffiths, but it seems there are only two kinds of people in this world, those who recommenced Griffiths, and those who strongly don't recommended it.

I'll give a bit of background, so I can get the best possible recommendations.

I'm still in the process of learning intermediate classical mechanics (Taylor along side with Morin), and I'm also in the middle of Griffiths's Intro to EM. I've done some linear algebra in the past, enough to the point where I think I should be alright with the math in any undergrad QM text.

Many of the complaints with Griffiths is that he's too casual, too sloppy and the text doesn't really prepare you adequately for the next level graduate text. Those who recommend him say that it's clear, "exciting", and generally very good for self-study.

I've also seen a lot of people recommending Dirac, which seems odd, wasn't it written back when dinosaurs walked the earth?!

Griffiths has the most reviews, and the majority are positive, so I'll probably end up going with that, but I'm interested in hearing the opinions of others.

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know Griffths's text. For sure, Dirac's book is one of the first and at the same time the best books on QM ever written. I'd not recommend it, however, to begin with. My favorite is J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics to get a basis and then Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A modern development for the interpretation. For advanced studies I also highly recommend the brand new book by Steven Weinberg, which is marvelous as all his textbooks.

 

[verty]

Look at past threads, this is a VERY common question.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Griffiths butchers the math worse than Aragorn butchers the messenger in Return of the King. I still don't get how people can tolerate that book.

 

[atyy]

Griffiths butchers the math worse than Aragorn butchers the messenger in Return of the King. I still don't get how people can tolerate that book.

The cat climbing the raising operators is priceless.

I haven't read Griffiths, but surely his butchering is standard physics butchering?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Lol. Certainly the ladder operator cat is the biggest selling point of the book, I would have to agree.

 

[dextercioby]

I don't know Griffths's text. For sure, Dirac's book is one of the first and at the same time the best books on QM ever written. I'd not recommend it, however, to begin with. My favorite is J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics to get a basis and then Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A modern development for the interpretation. For advanced studies I also highly recommend the brand new book by Steven Weinberg, which is marvelous as all his textbooks.

While I usually agree with Hendrik's opinions built on his vast expertise with physics books, I would have to refrain myself from endorsing his reccomendation of Sakurai's text as an introduction to QM, i.e. to someone who's had no experience with QM.

OTOH, I completely hate introductory texts altogether so I'd be a hypocrite to reccomend one. As verty said, it's probably the most common question in the books section of the forum.

 

[Astrum]

I've read through a lot of book reviews and form posts on PF, nobody can seem to agree on anything here, it seems that there's a wealth of QM material, but none of them are all that great.

I've seen several people mention Landau as an option as well.

So here are the choices I'm considering:

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-A-Modern-Development/dp/9810241054 - Ballentine

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0306447908 - Shankar

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Sakurai/dp/0805382917/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358654695&sr=1-1&tag=vglnk-c905-20 - Sakurai

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Applications-Nouredine-Zettili/dp/0470026790/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_p?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311000942&sr=1-1&tag=vglnk-c905-20 - Zettilli

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Non-Relativistic-Theory-Edition/dp/0750635398/ref=pd_sim_b_2 - L&L

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927/ref=pd_sim_b_1 - Griffiths

I generally have a difficult time picking out textbooks because I like to buy the physical textbook (I know there are "other" ways of obtaining them, of which I am also guilty:shy:), it's just a lot easier to read and use than a computer version. I'm not a fan of spending large sums of money on 2-3 different textbooks for the same subject.

The most common text by far seems to be Griffiths, with Shankar and Sakurai coming in about tied for second.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I think Ballentine might be biting off a bit more than you can chew at the present. As dexter's signature says, never learn math from a physics book meaning it's good to have learned the functional analysis used in Ballentine beforehand from an actual math book. Out of all the ones you mentioned, I would personally recommend Zettilli for an introduction.

 

[Astrum]

You're not limited to recommending a text out of the ones I listed.

I've seen a lot of positive things about Zettili, so I'm leaning towards that one.

 

[George Jones]

Zettili is great for seeing how calculations are done, but it is somewhat weak conceptually, and it omits completely some of the most exciting material in modern quantum theory, i.e., quantum entanglement and the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem etc.

 

[Astrum]

-_- This is exactly what I was talking about.

Maybe I need to pick TWO books?

 

[DimReg]

It kind of sounds like you are teaching this material to yourself. In that case, I would recommend Shankar. It's pretty much the only book you'll need for QM, or at least the closest you'll ever get to being able to use only one book.

I liked using Griffiths, but it's not a great choice if you are only going to have one QM textbook. Actually, one of the only advantages I found with Griffiths is the typesetting: it's physically easy to read, which isn't particularly important, but can take some frustration off. It's not really a better book, but sometimes it was easier to stare at its equations than another book's.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The only negative thing I can say about Shankar is the lack of an abundant number of exercises but that's not really a big deal since there are a wealth of problems you can get from secondary sources. Other than that, I would agree with DimReg. The other good thing about Shankar is it is very self-contained because the first two chapters have an intro to the necessary LA and classical mechanics that you might have otherwise not seen (Poisson brackets for example). Also he has a chapter on the path integral formulation so that's pretty cool.

Anyways, it's a good thing that there are so many choices out there. Sticking with one book is not necessarily a good thing because different books have different things to offer.

 

[Astrum]

Huh, I saw that guy walking outside Yale one day when I was in New Haven (at least I think it was him, 'twas a long time ago).

I'll take this as my primary text, what's a good text as a secondary? I have Feynman's lectures on QM which I'll be sure to read along side, but a book for questions is probably in order. Nice difficult questions are the best, preferably with an answer booklet of some sort, just to peek at if I get stuck.

 

[Fredrik]

Maybe I need to pick TWO books?

Maybe even three. A good option is to pick an easy intro like Griffiths, and supplement it with Isham. (It's an easy book that explains the interesting concepts and doesn't explain how to calculate stuff). Then you move on to one of the tougher books, like Ballentine or Zettili. Maybe even Galindo & Pascual, if you want a more mathematical approach.

At some point you will probably realize that you have to get better at linear algebra. I recommend Axler for that, especially if you have already studied linear algebra but need to refresh your memory.

Of the books I mentioned, Isham and Axler are the only ones I've read almost cover to cover. You may want to get a second opinion about the other books I mentioned.

 

[atyy]

Well, if you're self-studying - let's say you're a non-physicist like me, then why not just learn the basics in any good traditional textbook like Gasiorowicz, Zettili, Shankar, Griffiths, Rae, Peebles etc. You should be safe with anyone of those since you have Feynman. Then you can pick up the more "exciting" stuff depending on your taste by reading things like Nielsen and Chuang's quantum computation, Aspect's quantum optics or Wen's condensed matter. I think the main things are to quickly learn the very simple conceptual framework using spin 1/2 like in Feynman or any quantum computation based approach like Preskill's http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/#lecture or Mermin's http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/mermin/qcomp/CS483.html, and then learn the old fashioned calculations of spectra and scattering even though it's very boring, since those were the way quantum mechanics got established as being correct. If you have professional aspirations, then obviously you shouldn't take advice from a layman like me.

 

[Astrum]

Maybe even three. A good option is to pick an easy intro like Griffiths, and supplement it with Isham. (It's an easy book that explains the interesting concepts and doesn't explain how to calculate stuff). Then you move on to one of the tougher books, like Ballentine or Zettili. Maybe even Galindo & Pascual, if you want a more mathematical approach.

At some point you will probably realize that you have to get better at linear algebra. I recommend Axler for that, especially if you have already studied linear algebra but need to refresh your memory.

Of the books I mentioned, Isham and Axler are the only ones I've read almost cover to cover. You may want to get a second opinion about the other books I mentioned.

Do you think Shankar along with Griffiths and Feynman would suffice? I'm in the process of using two books for classical mechanics, Morin and Taylor, in the case that something is confusing or not clear in Morin, it's extremely helpful to be able to consult with Taylor.

I've studied linear algebra at the level of your typical one semester undergrad course, I'll also be picking up a copy of Lang for a more thorough and theoretical approach.

 

[lugita15]

I recommend Townsend's A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics. It's basically like an undergraduate version of Sakurai, so that it does a good thorough job of introducing the mathematical formalism like bra-ket, while demanding less in the way of mathematical prerequisites. But what I really like about it is that, like Feynman Lectures volume 3, it gives the physical motivation in terms of spin systems, so that you work your way through finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces before getting to time-evolution and continuous positional eigenstates.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Please don't take this the wrong way but does Townsend really require fewer mathematical pre-requisites than Sakurai? I mean Sakurai is very light on math to begin with so that's why I was asking. From a first glance Townsend doesn't really seem to be much different from Sakurai at all (as far as the mathematics goes).

 

[lugita15]

Please don't take this the wrong way but does Townsend really require fewer mathematical pre-requisites than Sakurai? I mean Sakurai is very light on math to begin with so that's why I was asking. From a first glance Townsend doesn't really seem to be much different from Sakurai at all (as far as the mathematics goes).

I think the difference between the two texts is the level of mathematical maturity demanded. Townsend's book holds your hand while introducing the mathematical formalism of QM, at times giving concrete examples before diving into abstract notation, whereas Sakurai expects you to absorb new mathematical machinery without batting an eyelid.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I see. I was never a fan of Sakurai's book though: the mathematical arguments are extremely hand-wavy and the machinery is very light on the mathematical side but that's just me. I was just curious as to whether Townsend had more rigorous mathematical arguments, sort of like Ballentine for undergrads

 

[lugita15]

I see. I was never a fan of Sakurai's book though: the mathematical arguments are extremely hand-wavy and the machinery is very light on the mathematical side but that's just me. I was just curious as to whether Townsend had more rigorous mathematical arguments, sort of like Ballentine for undergrads

Ballentine for undergrads... now that would be a great book. I hear that Hughes' "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" is the closest thing, but I haven't read it myself.

You're right that Sakurai's math is hand-wavy, and the book isn't that mathematically sophisticated from the point of view of someone who has a good mathematical background. But from the point of view of someone who has only taken, say, single variable calculus and a bit of multivariable calculus, they might be blown away when they see Sakurai suddenly talking about tensor operators. That's what I meant when I said Townsend is Sakurai for undergrads: Townsend has about the same level of rigor as Sakurai, but his presentation is different.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

Griffiths butchers the math worse than Aragorn butchers the messenger in Return of the King. I still don't get how people can tolerate that book.

Surely you must be joking, WBN.

Griffiths is an excellent baby introduction to quantum mechanics. I don't think there's a much better book to start with and if I had to suggest ONLY one book to learn QM from it would be Griffiths. If you were to go through it while intensively doing each problem (and reflecting on the results of each problem), you'd have a decent grasp of of the subject for an undergraduate.

That said, Shankar is much more complete and (although WBN may object) it has a fair number of problems. If you were to do every problem in Shankar and understand their results, you'd have a VERY strong understanding of the subject.

If you want to supplement it with books at a more graduate level for completeness, I would suggest keeping Baym, Merzbacher, and Landau on your shelf.

Sakurai is a rather poor book, I think.

 

[lugita15]

Griffiths is an excellent baby introduction to quantum mechanics. I don't think there's a much better book to start with and if I had to suggest ONLY one book to learn QM from it would be Griffiths.

ZombieFeynman, have you seen Townsend?

 

[ZombieFeynman]

ZombieFeynman, have you seen Townsend?

No, I have not had a chance to go through it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Surely you must be joking, WBN.

I'm not sure if that's a reference to the Feynman book or not but if it is, it got me giggling for a while . Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad introductory book to the physics of QM, quite the contrary in fact. Griffiths is a master of physical intuition it would seem, especially based on his EM text which I love to death. I was saying the math in the book is so insultingly low level that I can't see how people tolerate the book based on that aspect. People have their own preferences of course!

 

[Enigman]

Griffiths butchers the math worse than Aragorn butchers the messenger in Return of the King. I still don't get how people can tolerate that book.

I don't remember Aragorn butchering any messengers in the movie but as far as the book is concerned he just stares at the messenger until the guy wets his pants...
(I think I will go watch the movie again...8th time I think)

Oh and FYI after reading this thread a few days ago I ordered R. Shankar just came in yesterday, thanks everyone :)

 

[micromass]

I don't remember Aragorn butchering any messengers in the movie but as far as the book is concerned he just stares at the messenger until the guy wets his pants...
(I think I will go watch the movie again...8th time I think)

It's in the deleted scenes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To_RJ_mPNqM

 

[WannabeNewton]

It's in the extended edition DVD; it doesn't show up in the regular version of the movie. Have fun with Shankar!

 

[Enigman]

It's in the extended edition DVD; it doesn't show up in the regular version of the movie. Have fun with Shankar!

I intend to

 

[Dr Transport]

I'm going to admit my age on this one, but here are some texts that I really like, but I'll warn you, they are all out of print:

McGervey, more modern physics that QM, but never the less a decent text.
Slater, Quantum Theory of Matter, every time I read that book I learn something else.
Schiff, another I one am not seeing mentioned.

Now, these texts are not filled with bra-ket notation, but I didn't learn that until late in my graduate career.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, I also like the older texts, e.g., Pauli's famous review on wave mechanics, Sommerfeld's "Atombau und Spektrallinien", Landau/Lifgarbagez Vol. 3 and so on. However, I'd not recommend to learn quantum mechanics from a text that overemphasizes wave mechanics and then within wave mechanics the time-independent Schrödinger equation. The abstract formalism is more appropriate to understand the structure of quantum theory and doesn't overemphasize the position representation and the wave aspects. In my experience, many students come to the wrong conclusion that only energy eigenstates have some physical meaning. Also scattering theory is often taught in the time-independent scheme from the very beginning, although it's much better to start from a time-dependent approach, using proper wave packets as incoming states rather than plane waves, which are not even states in the strict sense at all.

A lot of confusion can be avoided by starting with the Hilbert-space structure. However, of course, you must start with some intuitive picture, why one has to use this abstract formalism. I think, Sakurai does this in a very nice way.

 

[theoristo]

check this http://www.cargalmathbooks.com/#Quantum Mechanics