Physics self teaching (curriculum and textbooks)

[mettw]

Hi Almarpa,
I'm in a similar situation to yourself. I have a BSc in physics and after twenty years am now planning on going back and getting a Grad. Dip. So I have been reviewing all of my undergraduate courses.

1) Classical Mechanics: Taylor + Kleppner and Kolenkow + Fowles&Cassiday (this last one for slightly more advanced topics)

I have found Taylor's chattiness a little irritating, but it definitely covers everything clearly.

4) Quantum mechanics: I think I will start with Griffiths, as a gentle introductin to the subject, and then continue with Shankar or Zettili.

Eisberg, R., Resnick, R. "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles", Wiley.

This is an excellent book that covers a lot of topics. The philosophy is also solid Copenhagen, unlike Griffiths which, in the little space given to the philosophy of QM, delivers the sort of ignorant tripe you find in popular science books. The only downside to Eisberg and Resnick is that it doesn't cover Bra-Ket notation which Griffiths does quite well, along with an explanation of Hilbert space etc.. I own both of them, but if I had access to a university library I only would have bought Eisberg and Resnick, simply because of the range of topics covered. Also, beware that Griffiths jumps straight in at the Schroedinger equation while Eisberg and Resnick starts with 4 chapters of foundations and the old quantum theory.

BTW, what maths texts are you looking at? I've just bought whatever the University of NSW, my Alma Mater, recommended.

 

[porcupine137]

I still think that Weinberg would be an awfully tricky place for someone start out learning QFT. I agree with that literature review on that. OTOH, I also think that Zee's QFT is a pretty tricky place to start from as well.

I still think a mix of Srednicki QFT, Schwartz QFT and the Standard Model, Student Friendly QFT, Hatfield QFT,Peskin QFT would be the best start.

The lit review guy doesn't seem to know about any of those books other than the last one. Srednicki's QFT can form a really good basis for a start.
He based it on his teaching QFT at U.C.S.B. I believe.

here is a reddit thread that I just discovered that brings up various books:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1468eu/qft_text_for_selfstudy/

 

[almarpa]

BTW, what maths texts are you looking at? I've just bought whatever the University of NSW, my Alma Mater, recommended.

I am eventually using Mary Boas book as a mathematics resource whenever I need to refresh something that I have forgotten.

Regarding QM, I think I will use Griffiths book, but not from the beginning. I will use a different book to study topics such us blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, and all those QM foundation topics. What I still do not know is what book will I use for that.

Regards.

 

[Shahi]

4) Quantum mechanics.
I have never studied QM, so Griffiths book on QM seems a good option for a introductory course (as I said, Iam really enjoyng his EM book). However, many people warn agaist this book. Other good choices should be Zettili's or Shankar's books, but I am not sure. Your opinion will be really wellcomed to take a decision.

5

Thanks all of you.

Best regards.

Alejandro.

PS: See you in the threads in this forum.

Hi
I think you missed a step, you should consider a good deal of Modern physics course , because without it you couldn't understand why the physics needs to change at the beginning of 20th century

So before any move forward ,, I think it's very necessary to read a Modern physics book , my advice to you is Robert Eisberg : quantum physics of atoms and molecules