[ art /
civ /
cult /
cyb /
diy /
drg /
feels /
layer /
lit /
λ /
q /
r /
sci /
sec /
tech /
w /
zzz ]
archive provided by **lainchan.jp**

[ Return /
Go to bottom ]

File: 1476370384271.png (2.28 KB, 139x35, 2481065c6a33df9fee45fa3ae60d168fd6084109.png)

Do any of you know any good (Relatively simple if at all possible) introductory books or other recourses to quantum physics? If they're books, do you perhaps have them in PDF form (if not then the title and author is fine)?

feel free to move to lit if that would be more appropriate

feel free to move to lit if that would be more appropriate

>>76

If you're *just* starting out and have absolutely no experience, I recommend https://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols/videos . They give pretty good info for the complete physics beginner.

If you've actually taken a physics course that went over the basics, I don't know, because I've never studied the subject in detail.

If you're *just* starting out and have absolutely no experience, I recommend https://www.youtube.com/user/sixtysymbols/videos . They give pretty good info for the complete physics beginner.

If you've actually taken a physics course that went over the basics, I don't know, because I've never studied the subject in detail.

Firstly make sure you know basic calculus (i.e. you should know what an integral is, even if you can't solve more advanced ones). Depending on how far you want to go it would be worth learning matrix maths. You should also be at least familiar with complex numbers.

The textbook I used was Quantum Mechanics by Alastair Rae. I'm certain there are better out there though. It gives a brief introduction to the failures of classical physics (brief as in a couple of pages, not much at all). It also has some nice philosophical discussion as an appendix. I don't have it to hand but from memory it covers all the basic topics in varying detail. I've heard some people don't like it though.

The textbook I used was Quantum Mechanics by Alastair Rae. I'm certain there are better out there though. It gives a brief introduction to the failures of classical physics (brief as in a couple of pages, not much at all). It also has some nice philosophical discussion as an appendix. I don't have it to hand but from memory it covers all the basic topics in varying detail. I've heard some people don't like it though.

File: 1476390973919.png (20.72 MB, 200x200, Michael Spivak - Calculus.pdf)

>>88

can't go wrong with Spivak.

can't go wrong with Spivak.

Actually, wikipedia seems to have a nice introduction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

I've just skimmed it and it seems to read quite nicely. It is not mathsy either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

I've just skimmed it and it seems to read quite nicely. It is not mathsy either.

I think in your case Susskind's Theoretical Minimum book on Quantum Mechanics could be a good read. Make sure you know basic calculus though, you can't go far in physics without calculus and very basic linear algebra. You can find the book on libgen or bookzz.

>>95

Found an inspirational piece by the same author.

https://fledglingphysicist.com/2013/12/12/if-susan-can-learn-physics-so-can-you/

Found an inspirational piece by the same author.

https://fledglingphysicist.com/2013/12/12/if-susan-can-learn-physics-so-can-you/

>>76

If anyone thinks these are bad recommendations please feel free to chip in, I haven't read all of what I recommend and right now I'm desperately studying for a chem final sup so yea, take what you will from that.

Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Dirac:

Old but it's really solid with great explanations, the source of bra-ket notation and it's written really well.

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths:

Apparently this is the definitive guide to QM for most undergrad courses, I've only read the introduction and a bit of the next chapter but again the explanations seem good so far.

Feynman Lectures volume III:

I haven't read or started this yet but everything this man writes and says tend to be pretty damn good, available free online too.

If you're studying chem and trying to understand the strange way the chemists treat the subject(like voodoo most of the time); When you find a good reference please let me know. E&R, H&S and all other physichem books I have read are completely vague and non helpful.

If anyone thinks these are bad recommendations please feel free to chip in, I haven't read all of what I recommend and right now I'm desperately studying for a chem final sup so yea, take what you will from that.

Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Dirac:

Old but it's really solid with great explanations, the source of bra-ket notation and it's written really well.

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths:

Apparently this is the definitive guide to QM for most undergrad courses, I've only read the introduction and a bit of the next chapter but again the explanations seem good so far.

Feynman Lectures volume III:

I haven't read or started this yet but everything this man writes and says tend to be pretty damn good, available free online too.

If you're studying chem and trying to understand the strange way the chemists treat the subject(like voodoo most of the time); When you find a good reference please let me know. E&R, H&S and all other physichem books I have read are completely vague and non helpful.

File: 1486145848991.png (6.47 KB, 163x185, Bloch_Sphere.jpg)

What is the way to study and completely understand quantum physics? I've a bachelor degree in maths and wan to study quantum computing, but know nothing about physics. Do I really need to study classical mechanics and all that stuff?

>>88

Edmund Landau's Differential and Integral Calculus is a very good reference book if there's any proof you don't understand because it's full of proofs and only proofs. It has no exercises at all.

>>88

Edmund Landau's Differential and Integral Calculus is a very good reference book if there's any proof you don't understand because it's full of proofs and only proofs. It has no exercises at all.

>>795

I've done a bachelor in physics and maths and still don't feel like I really understand quantum physics; I understood at 2nd year level then it turned into a clusterfuck when I later had a bad lecturer.

Even for a basic treatment I think you definitely need first year of uni level of classical mechanics, EM, etc. A lot of concepts are at least analogous to classical mechanics, and looking at systems, e.g. typically an atom with charged particles, other forces like EM are still present and dictate behaviour. Quantum mechanics isn't a separate entity itself but looks at how other forces behave at the quantum scale, so you need to have general physics knowledge.

I've done a bachelor in physics and maths and still don't feel like I really understand quantum physics; I understood at 2nd year level then it turned into a clusterfuck when I later had a bad lecturer.

Even for a basic treatment I think you definitely need first year of uni level of classical mechanics, EM, etc. A lot of concepts are at least analogous to classical mechanics, and looking at systems, e.g. typically an atom with charged particles, other forces like EM are still present and dictate behaviour. Quantum mechanics isn't a separate entity itself but looks at how other forces behave at the quantum scale, so you need to have general physics knowledge.

File: 1486192648668.png (319.54 KB, 133x200, TheTaoofPhysics.jpg)

File: 1486195790503.png (19.07 MB, 200x200, Introduction_to_Quantum_Mechanics_2nd_edition_David_J._Griffiths (1).pdf)

griffiths is decent, and you can supplement with Lifschitz.

>>795

No, but you might get confused about the repeated use of the word 'symmetry'. Relativity and EM come back fairly strong once you start dealing with hyperfine splitting, but it's nothing you can't just read up on when need arises. Matrix mechanics is really a joy once you figure it out, saves you from pages of calculus and algebra a lot of the time.

No, but you might get confused about the repeated use of the word 'symmetry'. Relativity and EM come back fairly strong once you start dealing with hyperfine splitting, but it's nothing you can't just read up on when need arises. Matrix mechanics is really a joy once you figure it out, saves you from pages of calculus and algebra a lot of the time.

File: 1486204890236.png (33.23 KB, 172x200, keep-calm-it-s-only-further-physical-chemistry.png)

>>692

>If you're studying chem and trying to understand the strange way the chemists treat the subject(like voodoo most of the time); When you find a good reference please let me know.

My uni uses Atkins' Physical Chemistry (also a general physical chemistry book, not so deep in QM) and Fayer's Elements of Quantum Mechanics(hard to find online, tell me if you succeeded). I don't know if they are actually good enough. I heard the Atkins' is

Physics dept. gives more precise teaching. Chemists are generally cheap when it comes to anything physics-related, with double the amount of hand-waving and shortcuts. As you said, vague.

Honestly, one should just read Griffiths. There are also solution manual and errata available online.

Then if one is interested in how chemists use QM (in that voodoo-esque way), one could focus on books about spectroscopy, reaction mechanics(MO-theory) and computational chemistry, where the main actual uses are. These areas are somewhat essential if you want to understand modern chemistry research. Of course you also need other advanced mathematical soykaf like symmetry theory.

There are mainly two ways the chemist approach seems to be voodoo:

1) the chemist knows jacksoykaf about QM and therefore gives incoherent information. Often bad at maths and majors in something easy where one does not need QM.

2) Actually knows so much real quantum chemistry that even a physics student finds it hard to follow because you really don't go that deeply into chemical applications in physics books. This type is way more rare, majors probably in physical chemistry and is generally a wizard. Still secretly wishes to understand more physics.

>If you're studying chem and trying to understand the strange way the chemists treat the subject(like voodoo most of the time); When you find a good reference please let me know.

My uni uses Atkins' Physical Chemistry (also a general physical chemistry book, not so deep in QM) and Fayer's Elements of Quantum Mechanics(hard to find online, tell me if you succeeded). I don't know if they are actually good enough. I heard the Atkins' is

Physics dept. gives more precise teaching. Chemists are generally cheap when it comes to anything physics-related, with double the amount of hand-waving and shortcuts. As you said, vague.

Honestly, one should just read Griffiths. There are also solution manual and errata available online.

Then if one is interested in how chemists use QM (in that voodoo-esque way), one could focus on books about spectroscopy, reaction mechanics(MO-theory) and computational chemistry, where the main actual uses are. These areas are somewhat essential if you want to understand modern chemistry research. Of course you also need other advanced mathematical soykaf like symmetry theory.

There are mainly two ways the chemist approach seems to be voodoo:

1) the chemist knows jacksoykaf about QM and therefore gives incoherent information. Often bad at maths and majors in something easy where one does not need QM.

2) Actually knows so much real quantum chemistry that even a physics student finds it hard to follow because you really don't go that deeply into chemical applications in physics books. This type is way more rare, majors probably in physical chemistry and is generally a wizard. Still secretly wishes to understand more physics.

Rebumping this thread with a request for some books on theoretic physics as a whole, rather than the focus on quantum physics.

Like OP, I'm looking for a broad introduction to the layman. All I know is some basic Classical Mechanics (high school stuff). I already know basic calculus and how to handle vectors (though I don't know any vector calulus).

Thanks a lot

Like OP, I'm looking for a broad introduction to the layman. All I know is some basic Classical Mechanics (high school stuff). I already know basic calculus and how to handle vectors (though I don't know any vector calulus).

Thanks a lot