Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,548 answers , 19,352 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
409 active unimported users
More ...

Learn algebra and interpretation of QM

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
57 views

I have a good undergrad knowledge of quantum mechanics, and I'm interesting in reading up more about interpretation and in particular things related to how QM emerges algebrically from some reasonable real world assumptions. However I want to avoid the meticulous maths style and rather read something more meant for physicists (where rigorous proofs arent needed and things are well-behaved ;) ) I.e. I'd prefer more intuitive resources as opposed to the rigorous texts.

Can you recommend some reading to get started?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Gerenuk
asked Sep 5, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Gerenuk (20 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Jul 16, 2014 by dimension10

3 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

An excellent book which does more or less what you ask for is Asher Peres' "Quantum theory:concepts and methods". It starts from the Stern-Gerlach experiments and logical reasoning to develop the basic principles of quantum mechanics. From there, it develops the necessary algebra.

Another interesting book for an approach of the conceptual side of quantum mechanics is "Quantum Paradoxes" by Aharonov and Rohrlich. But to fully appreciate this one, I think you will need to go through a standard curriculum first.

Then, there is "Quantum computation and Quantum Information" by Nielsen and Chuang, which is meant as an introduction to the ideas of QM as applied to information theory for people with an informatics background mostly. So it also starts from an algebraic and conceptual approach.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Raskolnikov
answered Sep 6, 2011 by Raskolnikov (260 points) [ no revision ]
NB: Errata for the Aharonov/Rohrlich textbook can be found here.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Glen The Udderboat
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Anthony Sudbery, Quantum Mechanics.... is an excellent text which emphasises the theory and interpretation rather than the drill problems...in fact he is a mathematician and quantum information theorist and this book is not so useful for someone who needs to bone up on their perturbation theory and get ready for QED, it focuses on what it sounds like you are especially interested in.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user joseph f. johnson
answered Dec 1, 2011 by joseph f. johnson (420 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

For matrix mechanics (mixed with a bit of schrodinger), see the NPTEL Lectures.

For path integrals, see Feynman, Hibbs (and Styer) Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals.
This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

answered Aug 24, 2013 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
+1 It's worth mentioning that the Feynman and Hibbs you refer to is the version "emended" by Styer and put into print since 2005 (as opposed to the original, which is out of print). See amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Path-Integrals-Emended/dp/… PS: I'd never seen "emend" in English before today!: the OED tells me that it is seldom used, it is the middle English root emenden of the more modern amend and, if used, always means to amend a scholarly work as opposed to simply change a general work. So it's Prof. Styer being pedantic!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-30 15:58 (UCT), posted by SE-user WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...