What do you think is the best textbook on quantum mechanics?
>>8086108
undergrad or grad?
>>8086119
both
>>8086108
Shankar
>>8086108
I hate Griffiths so much. All three of his textbooks are shit and I experienced them first hand to conclude that.
Now, Shankar was how I learned principles of quantum mechanics a way I appreciated. Then after, Sakurai sliced the cake.
>>8086142
Why does /sci/ hate Griffiths so much? It's a good book to use when a concept is not understood too well from another text. I like Shankar and Sakurai as well but Griffiths ain't bad for an intro course or as supplement to Shankar
>>8086108
>Virgin exposure
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles by Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick
>First book after seeing a bit in Physics 3
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David J. Griffiths
A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John S. Townsend
>Post first exposure in undergrad
Quantum Mechanics by Cohen-Tannoudji
Principles of Quantum Mechanics by Shankar
>Required reading
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics by P. A. M. Dirac
>Philosophy and Concepts
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy by Bell
Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods by Asher Peres
Quantum Theory by David Bohm
>Graduate
A Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. III: Quantum Mechanics - Non-Relativistic Theory by Landau and Lifshitz
Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai
Advanced Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai
>QFT
An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder
The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I & II by Weinberg
>>8086142
I just finished undergrad QM course using Griffiths. I wasn't crazy about his E&M book but really appreciated the manner in which he developed the idea of quantum
>> Heres SE
>> Lets go blindly solve it for a bunch of potentials
>> Lets get some expectation values, coefficients, and whatnot
>> You don't know why we are doing any of this
>> Next chapter, formalism, this is why all of that worked
>> Holyshitmindfuckingblown
Nonetheless I have yet to open another QM book and I frequently read about Griffiths being shat on. I guess ill find out taking graduate level in the fall.
>>8086151
Griffiths can explain things quite ideally and to a level I appreciate for introductory exposure. I can agree on that.
But, I do not appreciate the way he teaches by letting the reader figure out the more important meaty parts for themselves. I can appreciate that kind of learning style If I had more than a semester to look at the materials and dig into the questions to find the important results, but a lot of students do not have that much time to dedicate to such a feat.
Griffiths also makes his problem sets extremely difficult when reading and looking off of his examples. I also found it at times where I did not have enough information to really do problems in certain sections. An example can be that fucking spin chapter in QM.
Try judging the book if you did not have the solution manual for electro or quantum. I'd be impossible at times to do problems.
So I am taking an Quantum Mechanics 1 in the fall and the book they're using is Griffiths, should I read another book as supplement? I've had a tiny exposure to QM through my Modern physics class and stellar Astronomy class, but not much.
>>8086235
>those eyes
Jesus Christ is she an alien?
I want to see that when she grows up
>>8086612
Shankar is hands-down the best first QM book out there. The only people who complain about it are idiots who slept during Linear Algebra and thought they could get away with being able to do QM without a solid foundation in it (LA).
