Quantum Books: Ballentine or Shankar?

  • Thread starter maverick_starstrider
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Shankar
In summary, the conversation discusses a person's interest in studying quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. They are seeking advice on which book to use as a reference, Ballentine's or Shankar's. However, it is suggested that since they already have a strong background in quantum, their time would be better spent studying QFT. It is recommended to start with Zee's book and then move on to other books for further understanding. The conversation also mentions the importance of learning classical field theory and suggests online lectures as a resource.
  • #1
maverick_starstrider
1,119
6
Hi,

I have a pretty strong background in quantum and I've already gone through sakurai using shankar as a reference for courses and such. However, this summer, I want to go through a comprehensive quantum book cover to cover in preparation for going through Zee's QFT book. Which do people think would be a better book, Ballentine's of Shankar's? Ballentine seems to put a stronger emphasis on the math but Shankar has a chapter on the Dirac equation and coherent state path integrals (i'm interested in QFT in regards to mostly condensed but not exclusively).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Actually, since you already know QM pretty well, I think your time is better spent already reading some QFT. Sakurai+Shankar gives you a strong enough background.

QFT can be a daunting subject, so studying some of it from another book (or not) in the summer will prepare you better than reviewing QM.

To answer your question: I think Shankar doesn't really add much to Sakurai. Ballentine has a lot of material and perspectives you won't get from Sakurai.
 
  • #3
I'm just going to repeat what Landau said:

If you've gone through sakurai, and your goal is QFT, then simply start with Zee and don't bother with Ballentine or Shankar. Start with Zee right now, and move on to a different QFT book later on, like Ryder, Tong's lecture notes, or Peskin and Schroeder if you want to torture yourself. If you really want to prepare yourself before starting with QFT: learn classical field theory (e.g. the book by Landau Lifgarbagez).

Furthermore: don't try to cover everything that is being treated in Zee. The later chapters are great to read, but in the end you will not learn to calculate stuff using Zee. Zee's book tries to cover a lot of different topics, and he does a great job doing so. But you will need to go through those nasty calculations. Stick to the first four chapters or so, and then re-learn that stuff from another book.

You can also try these online lectures: http://pirsa.org/index.php?p=speaker&name=David_Tong
 

Related to Quantum Books: Ballentine or Shankar?

1. What is the difference between Ballentine and Shankar's quantum books?

Both Ballentine and Shankar's quantum books offer comprehensive coverage of quantum mechanics. However, Ballentine's book is known for its clear and intuitive explanations, while Shankar's book is more mathematically rigorous.

2. Which book is better for beginners in quantum mechanics?

Ballentine's book is generally considered more accessible for beginners, as it prioritizes conceptual understanding over mathematical formalism. However, Shankar's book can also be a good resource for beginners who are comfortable with math.

3. Is one book more up-to-date than the other?

Both Ballentine and Shankar have published multiple editions of their quantum books, with the latest editions incorporating recent developments in the field. Therefore, both books are considered up-to-date and relevant.

4. Are there any notable differences in the content covered by Ballentine and Shankar?

While both books cover the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, Shankar's book also includes sections on advanced topics such as quantum field theory and relativistic quantum mechanics. Ballentine's book, on the other hand, has a stronger focus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

5. Which book would be more useful for research purposes?

This ultimately depends on the specific research topic and the researcher's preferences. Shankar's book may be more useful for research in theoretical and mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics, while Ballentine's book may be more relevant for research on the interpretation and applications of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
661
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top