>>8114358
Partial differential equations and linear algebra

>>8114358
You are gonna want to be good with vector calc, linear algebra, PDEs, and as well as being familiar with classical mechanics. I would use Griffith's and Shankar in conjunction for your studies. Shankar will be harder but more rewarding while Griffiths is easier but less rewarding. Ignore the trolls that tell you Griffiths is useless, it's not. I hear Townsend also has a good text on quantum. The mathematical foundation will be laid out for you in the texts, with some focusing on Dirac's notation early on. Be prepared to look book at your old PDE and linear books.

While I agree that Griffiths and Shankar is a good way to learn quantum if you're dedicated, McIntrye also goes together pretty nicely with griffiths. They cover the same material but start at different points using different approaches. It can be nice to see both methods to get a total understanding of introductory QM. I used McIntyre in my QM classes in undergrad so I can't speak a lot of griffiths, I've only referred to it for self study.

Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians.

>>8114358
Depends on the class. I had a class that very lightly dipped into is our sophomore year (advanced program with 11 of us, we also did stuff like systems of ODEs and systems biology), but there were no requirements beyond multivariate calculus or vector calculus. If you really want to get into it, get some exposure to PDEs and get really good at other physics stuff, especially E&M.

>>8114358

From John F. Stanton at the University of Texas, who I took for both thermodynamics and quantum chemistry and thoroughly enjoyed.


Textbook?
Many of you are likely to ask about a textbook that you can consult, as there is no required text for the class. While there are many, many books in the library/google books/Dover/etc available, there are a few that I like more than the others. However, the choice of book really depends on you. Here is a list of "good books", comments, and a guess about the "type" of student that will most appreciate them.

Pauling and Wilson (1935):

Probably my favorite book on the subject, and available in Dover. Written in the early days of QM ("old" textbooks are invariably the best), and the mathematics are not that hard. However, there are some lengthy discussions of topics that we will not confront, and the notation that is used is somewhat antiquated in places. Has no practice problems, as befits its era. Probably best for mathematically confident and inclined students.

Noggle (1980s?):

I think this is the best physical chemistry book of the modern age, but there is but one edition (I think) because of the early death of Joseph Noggle. You can probably find it online. Not too easy, not too hard. Probably the best choice of books for most of you.

Atkins (1430s - Present, thousands of editions):

This is something of a standard in physical chemistry. I am not a huge fan of this book (which seems to deteriorate with each successive edition), but many of you have it already and it is "fine" for this course.

Engel and Reid (2010ish):

A "new" and fairly popular book. Has a few "bugs", but it is solid and very modern. I would recommend it to people who are put off by the level of math in Noggle.

>>8114358
>>8114563

Levine (1990ish):

Ira Levine has written a lot of textbooks. His "Physical Chemistry" is - like all of his books - well written and mildly entertaining to read. I once used it as the "required" text, but students found it too difficult. Probably simpler than Noggle, though.

These are all books that address most of the material we will cover in class and do it in a somewhat similar way to how you'll see it in 2.312. There are many other good/charming books, but which are either quite difficult or present things in a completely different way. They might be of interest to some of you, but I wouldn't use them as a universal resource:

Berry, Rice and Ross (1970s-present, a few editions)
Dirac (ca. 1930) "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics"
Landau and LIfshitz (1950s)
Messiah (1950s, I think)

>>8114358
If you don't use Dirac's 'principle of quantum mechanics' you are a brainlet pussy.

t. Dirac scholar

>>8114358
After the regular undergrad math stuff you would take a year long sequence called mathematical methods or something similar. You would take this in the third year with your upper division physics courses. Do not let math get in the way of learning the concepts.

https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physics-Engineering-Comprehensive/dp/0521679710
https://www.amazon.com/Student-Solution-Mathematical-Methods-Engineering/dp/0521679737

grad level
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Mathematical-Methods-Scientists-Engineers/dp/1441931872

>>8114731
I'm not an physics major though. I'm studying EE and have completed the typical second year foundational courses like vector calculus, linear algebra, ODEs and numerical methods. Looking through that book, my knowledge of its contents breaks down after chapter 18.

not op, but is hyperbolic/non-euclidian geometry necessary?