I'm looking for a Quantum Mechanics textbook

In summary, the conversation is about recommending a textbook for Quantum Mechanics with a heavy theoretical approach. Various recommendations are made, including Griffiths, Sakurai, Townsend, McIntyre, Landau and Lifshitz, Weinberg, Gottfried, Sommerfeld, Shankar, and Ballentine. The importance of balancing concepts and calculations is discussed, as well as the philosophical approach in different textbooks. It is suggested to consider one's own background and goals in choosing a textbook.
  • #36
Vanadium 50 said:
Commutators first.
Of course, this means "symmetries first", and that's anyway the right approach to a consistent narrative of all of theoretical physics. If there is one methodological breakthrough of 20th-century physics then it's Emmy Noether's invariant-theoretical approach to physics!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
atyy said:
Maybe https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Bn7MaT3X8fkC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

In a way also https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470026790/?tag=pfamazon01-20 which mentions the uncertainty principle in chapter 1, and then derives the uncertainty principle from commutation relations in chapter 2.

Of course it's a bit unfortunate that Heisenberg's historical argument doesn't have that much to do with the usual uncertainty principle, and many textbooks motivate the latter from the former.
The irony is that Heisenberg's historical argument is indeed wrong, and it took Bohr several days of hard persuasion to correct it! We've discussed this several times in the forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Here's a rather harsh critics of the above mentioned Zettili's book - and also Ballentine's - http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~raggio/QM2/bzt.pdf in the way they treat irreducible spherical tensor operators.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and dextercioby
  • #39
Why not Dirac's book for a first book in QM?
 
  • #40
fluidistic said:
Here's a rather harsh critics of the above mentioned Zettili's book - and also Ballentine's - http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~raggio/QM2/bzt.pdf in the way they treat irreducible spherical tensor operators.

Fair point and useful to know. However, the topic of (spherical) tensor operator is glossed over in university courses on QM for its applications are not immediate or standard or deemed mandatory.
 
  • #41
martinbn said:
Why not Dirac's book for a first book in QM?
The only reason I see is a somewhat old-fashioned notation.
 
  • #42
I attended classes in QM at 4 different graduate schools. Two out of the four treated spherical tensor operators above the level of the textbook. The two professors who taught the classes out of their notes emphasized their importance. But it could be because one of the professors who taught the class was a student of Wigner's.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
547
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
863
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top