Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 20:44:36 UTC No. 16171290

It's pretty good. Supplement with Sakurai, maybe Zettili once you get comfortable with the concepts and the math.

You should never just rely on one textbook.

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 20:46:26 UTC No. 16171295

>>16171290
>You should never just rely on one textbook.
Sure, if you're only studying one subject that is. It's impossible to read multiple books on the same subject when you also have to study other subjects.

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 22:12:07 UTC No. 16171406

>omg, my brain, it feels so big!!!
>its full of so much schizo kike jargon and fancy basedence polysyllables
>oh no
>i can't hold it in any longer
>i'm…
>i'm gonna…
>i'm gonna QUANTUUUUUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 23:51:50 UTC No. 16171492

>>16171288
it's a great introduction, but in the end you don't really do QM properly in a modern sense

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 00:08:29 UTC No. 16171507

>>16171492
What do you mean? Is there any undergraduate level book that does QM in a modern sense then?

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 01:03:36 UTC No. 16171555

>>16171288
Do Sakurai supplemented with Cohen

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 01:08:31 UTC No. 16171557

>>16171288
It's good to learn the basics in a simplified way but you need to complement with actual rigor. It's basically teach through example and statements instead of building up from knowledge and derivation

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 02:34:25 UTC No. 16171637

>>16171288
Why are you asking about quantum mechanics when you're a struggling to maintain aC + in calc 1 and think it's the hardest thing ever?

Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 11:27:41 UTC No. 16172116

it just suck and is too hard for no reason. take zettili

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 00:18:25 UTC No. 16173066

I liked Liboff back when, especially the way it builds to solving the hydrogen atom. It seems to have been superseded in its niche by Griffiths. I don't really like Griffiths' E&M book but everyone else does. Goswami is very well written and organized and is underrated.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 00:20:59 UTC No. 16173070

>>16171288
I thought quantum mechanics could not be explained with simple human terms since it's a phenomena that transcends the corporeal world

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 13:28:55 UTC No. 16173877

>>16173066
>don't really like Griffiths' E&M book
Why not?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:16:37 UTC No. 16174094

>>16173070
Stop reading popsci rubbish

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:54:06 UTC No. 16174141

>>16172116
It's better than Mandl at least

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:36:24 UTC No. 16174181

>>16173066
>I don't really like Griffiths' E&M book
I really love that book

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:43:19 UTC No. 16174308

Picasso/Bes/Basdevant/Nolting

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:45:40 UTC No. 16174312

>>16171288
kitty

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:56:17 UTC No. 16174327

>>16171288
What exactly is quantum mechanics compared to particle and nuclear physics? Where does it fit?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:58:27 UTC No. 16174332

>>16174327
There's a lot of overlap between QM and both nuclear and particle physics. They're studies of specific aspects of physics which exist within the QM framework.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:03:08 UTC No. 16174338

>>16174332
So what exactly is QM a study of if it comprises the disciplines I just listed off

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:41:06 UTC No. 16174384

>>16174332
There's no quantum mechanics in nuclear physics, only in particle physics.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:46:21 UTC No. 16174391

>>16174384
QM encompasses all physics, including nuclear physics. Nuclear decay is a QM phenomena.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:56:38 UTC No. 16174400

>>16174391
No, it doesn't. The fact that quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible for instance is one of the major problems of physics currently.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:58:37 UTC No. 16174404

>>16174400
>The fact that quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible
For now

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:27:49 UTC No. 16174448

>>16174400
That had nothing to do with nuclear physics

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 04:49:52 UTC No. 16174996

>>16171288
This >>16171492 is correct. It's a nice intro book, but you're only getting through the surface. People recommend Sakurai, which I won't contest. But my recommendation is Shankar, which I felt was fairly digestible. I'd say Shankar is a great 2nd book, while Griffiths is a good 1st. You def might be able to do both at the same time if you compare chapters.