(Part 2) Best quantum theory books according to redditors
We found 375 Reddit comments discussing the best quantum theory books. We ranked the 110 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Here go some resources I like (I might update this list). LdR
Books:
Online lecture notes:
Video series of lectures:
My main hobby is reading textbooks, so I decided to go beyond the scope of the question posed. I took a look at what I have on my shelves in order to recommend particularly good or standard books that I think could characterize large portions of an undergraduate degree and perhaps the beginnings of a graduate degree in the main fields that interest me, plus some personal favorites.
Neuroscience: Theoretical Neuroscience is a good book for the field of that name, though it does require background knowledge in neuroscience (for which, as others mentioned, Kandel's text is excellent, not to mention that it alone can cover the majority of an undergraduate degree in neuroscience if corequisite classes such as biology and chemistry are momentarily ignored) and in differential equations. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory and Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology were used in my classes on cognition and learning/memory and I enjoyed both; though they tend to choose breadth over depth, all references are research papers and thus one can easily choose to go more in depth in any relevant topics by consulting these books' bibliographies.
General chemistry, organic chemistry/synthesis: I liked Linus Pauling's General Chemistry more than whatever my school gave us for general chemistry. I liked this undergraduate organic chemistry book, though I should say that I have little exposure to other organic chemistry books, and I found Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis to be very informative and useful. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to take instrumental/analytical/inorganic/physical chemistry and so have no idea what to recommend there.
Biochemistry: Lehninger is the standard text, though it's rather expensive. I have limited exposure here.
Mathematics: When I was younger (i.e. before having learned calculus), I found the four-volume The World of Mathematics great for introducing me to a lot of new concepts and branches of mathematics and for inspiring interest; I would strongly recommend this collection to anyone interested in mathematics and especially to people considering choosing to major in math as an undergrad. I found the trio of Spivak's Calculus (which Amazon says is now unfortunately out of print), Stewart's Calculus (standard text), and Kline's Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach to be a good combination of rigor, practical application, and physical intuition, respectively, for calculus. My school used Marsden and Hoffman's Elementary Classical Analysis for introductory analysis (which is the field that develops and proves the calculus taught in high school), but I liked Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis (nicknamed "Baby Rudin") better. I haven't worked my way though Munkres' Topology yet, but it's great so far and is often recommended as a standard beginning toplogy text. I haven't found books on differential equations or on linear algebra that I've really liked. I randomly came across Quine's Set Theory and its Logic, which I thought was an excellent introduction to set theory. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica is a very famous text, but I haven't gotten hold of a copy yet. Lang's Algebra is an excellent abstract algebra textbook, though it's rather sophisticated and I've gotten through only a small portion of it as I don't plan on getting a PhD in that subject.
Computer Science: For artificial intelligence and related areas, Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach's text is a standard and good text, and I also liked Introduction to Information Retrieval (which is available online by chapter and entirely). For processor design, I found Computer Organization and Design to be a good introduction. I don't have any recommendations for specific programming languages as I find self-teaching to be most important there, nor do I know of any data structures books that I found to be memorable (not that I've really looked, given the wealth of information online). Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is considered to be a gold standard text for algorithms, but I haven't secured a copy yet.
Physics: For basic undergraduate physics (mechanics, e&m, and a smattering of other subjects), I liked Fundamentals of Physics. I liked Rindler's Essential Relativity and Messiah's Quantum Mechanics much better than whatever books my school used. I appreciated the exposition and style of Rindler's text. I understand that some of the later chapters of Messiah's text are now obsolete, but the rest of the book is good enough for you to not need to reference many other books. I have little exposure to books on other areas of physics and am sure that there are many others in this subreddit that can give excellent recommendations.
Other: I liked Early Theories of the Universe to be good light historical reading. I also think that everyone should read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
I personally quite like Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's works, Why Does E=mc^2 and The Quantum Universe which talk about relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. I found these very accessible when I was doing my A-Levels (which I think is the equivalent of American High School) and they require absolutely no knowledge of maths.
If you're more interested in Grand Unified Theories (which I assume is what you're thinking of when you talk about two forces being the same force) then the only thing that comes to mind is The Elegant Universe which I've never read personally but I have heard very good things about it. It's about String Theory which is one possible
GUTtheory of everything (not quite the same as a GUT, see the reply) but does cover a few other areas as well.Another book which I've heard good things about, but again haven't read myself, is In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat which has more of a focus on quantum mechanics.
Personally I would read both of Cox and Forshaw's stuff first because they are both very short so won't take long to get through. Then you can move on to one of the others, which are both a bit longer.
If you ask nicely on /r/physics or something similar they might also be able to suggest other things you would like.
Edit: There might be a Feynman Lecture or two that interests you as well but bear in mind that these are aimed at undergrads.
Edit2: I also just did a quick google search of
site:reddit.com/r/physics bookswhich threw up some pretty good results.Edit3: String theory n'est pas un GUT, pardon my french.
Anything by Feynmann are great reads. For upper division instrumental analysis, spectroscopy, and quantum I wholly recommend QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman et al. It describes all the concepts in the book in layman's terms in a brilliant narrative of chemistry. I recommend it to anyone that wants to learn about the strangeness of physics and chemistry. It is easy to digest.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, although pricey helped me survive physics (I have the paperbacks). It seems you can read the entirety online at that site.
If you choose to do a lot of organic chemistry laboratory work then Advanced Practical Organic Chemistry is a really great resource. It covers just about everything you need to know to be very competent and safe in the lab. I found a used copy of the second edition that has served me well. I don't know what has been updated in the third edition.
I agree with /u/lmo2th Pauling has written albeit old but definitive books on chemistry. Although it can be very difficult to read and knowledge of differential equations is required, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Chemistry by Linus Pauling et al. was the most succinct book on the nitty gritty math of QM I found.
I recently graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry, it was difficult, but I loved every minute I spent in the lab doing research and can't imagine doing anything else. Edit: QED and Feynmann Lectures are great reads for lower division classes. Save the second two for if you decide on chemistry.
In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin is a very readable physics and quantum physics history sketch. Might be slightly dated now, although I can't think of anything directly contradicted by recent work. Then again, I'm not actually a physicist :)
The Quark and the Jaguar is quite a bit more complicated, but still quite accessible to the layperson and has a lot of interesting stuff.
Slightly less sciency, more maths/logic/computation is Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
A Guinea Pig's History of Biology is pretty much what the title says, although there's an awful lot about fruit-flies too. Quite a good review of the history of biological experimentation, especially genetics.
H2O: A Biography of Water from a previous editor of Nature, covers water across a variety of fields. The second half of the book is mostly a rant about cold fusion and homoeopathy though, from what I recall, but the first half makes up for it.
Most general-audience things by Richard Feynman are well worth the read. He's got some great physics lectures, and his autobiography (Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman?) is fun, but more for the anecdotes than the science.
Those are off the top of my head. If its something in a particular field, I might have some other ideas I'm currently forgetting.
+1 for Taylor. I haaaaated the Thornton and Marion text. Taylor's book really helped me connect all the concepts that were floating untethered in my brain.
When you get to quantum, get this text as a supplement if it's not what your professor uses. It's so well and humorously written, that I read the unassigned chapters for fun.
YouTube was another valuable resource for me. If I still didn't understand something after finishing a problem with my professor, I would find a similar problem worked out on YouTube. More often than not, it really helped everything sink in more clearly.
Most of my upper level professors made us write solutions in complete sentences with every step explained. I highly recommend this if it's not already required of you. It improved my ability to recall information later and my understanding of the problems. One professor always complained how students would come back to him with their graded assignment and say "Well, you know what I meant." His response was, "No, actually. I don't know what you mean. The burden of expressing what you mean lies with you, the author of the assignment, not me." That really stuck with me and made me a much better student/scientist in several ways.
Good luck!
Edit: forgot to add that I found a pdf of Taylor's text online for free. If you have trouble finding it, let me know. I'll see if I can find the link.
I think you can explain even a very complex subject like quantum physics if you really understand the material. Here is one amazing book that explains quantum physics in a easy to grasp way. It actually uses cartoons and illustrations almost exclusively. This book has won large number of awards. http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Quantum-Theory-Sciences-Discovery/dp/1840468505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266133288&sr=1-1#reader_1840468505
>How do you excite the electron field?
You dump energy into it. When you excite the electron field, you're creating an electron, any process that creates an electron is exciting the electron field.
>"when you excite it you get an electron": you mean that you "take an electron out" the electron field?
Electrons are excitations of the electron field, you aren't taking them out of anywhere. When you throw a rock in a lake and get waves, are you taking waves out of the lake?
>Is quantum field theory the branch of physics that explains this stuff?
Yes
>Any article or text or book where I can read about it at a beginner level (but including the maths if possible)?
The math behind QFT is fairly complex, most texts don't show the actual math, unless it's an actual qft textbook. If that doesn't deter you, Student friendly quantum field theory is a great book, but unless you have a high level of mathematical/physics knowledge, it'll be difficult. At a minimum, you need calculus, differential equations, special relativity and understanding of the Schrödinger equation to make it through the first few chapters.
Quantum Mechanics (2 Volumes in 1) [Paperback]
Albert Messiah (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-2-Volumes-1/dp/0486409244/
There are so many misconceptions about this, including in the responses here! Before explaining, I need to provide an important disclaimer about this question.
"What is observing?" is not a strictly scientific question. Other examples of this type of question are the philosophical discussion of material substance, or the philosophical discussion of whether or not scientific empiricism is "true". All of these questions are asking about how to interpret a scientific result. This means that that the answer is at least partially a philosophical one and as a consequence is, at least partially, unproveable. But that doesn't mean we can't distinguish between good and bad interpretations! Typically we argue that a good interpretation is one that satisfies Occam's Razor. One that doesn't inherently hold contradictions, and one that is simple compared to others.
Now that we know the stakes, let me try to explain the results, and how I've come to interpret them. I think the proper way to address the issue is to begin by explaining some poor choices of vernacular behind this section of physics.
For starters, quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are not competing descriptions of the universe, they are simply poorly named categorizations. Better names would be classical phenomena and quantum phenomena; this frames their competitiveness (or lack-there-of) more appropriately.
Second, observation is not terribly important, and a much better phrase for understanding the quantum phenomenon of probabilistic states is with the phrase information isolation. A great textbook that takes this perspective and is a very enlightening read is Benjamin Schumacher's Quantum Processes Systems, and Information.
Ok, we get it it, so what's this other interpretation?
Information isolation is a property that a system can have. An excellent example of this is the Schrodinger's Cat experiment. The system (decaying atom, poison, cat, scientist) is constructed in such a way that the scientist is informationally isolated from the other components in the system. Until the scientist interacts with the other components of the system and BREAKS this information isolation -- which may or may not result in their reading/interpretting the results, the state inside the box is unknown.
Let's be clear then: state collapse is not a universal event, it is an event relative to the informationally isolated component (scientist in this case) from the other informationally-correlated components (decaying atom, poison, cat). This particular collapse occurs when the scientist's observable universe contains the information required to deduce what happened inside the box. What happened inside the box is still a fixed thing, regardless of when that information isolation is broken, at least as far as the informationally-correlated components are concerned.
Many of you might be asking, "NuneShelping, this doesn't seem weird at all, it just seems obvious." and you're right, it is. Don't give in to the hype/mysticism that ignorance has created in this subject. Also, read the book I suggested, it's good.
that's what happened to me in the april exam. i drastically improved my score by completing multiple chapters out of schaum's 3000 physics problems and completely forgoing practicing with the previous exams. if you plan on taking the exam again, consider that strategy (note there is also a schaum's guide to quantum mechanics)
That is, Albert Messiah of course:)
[CLASSIFIED]...But you couldn't even begin to comprehend what I can do.......could it be in the ream of self learned genii ..https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/1118460820
To understand a software system, you read the sourcecode. To understand quantum mechanics, you need to study the math. The most accessible way to an understanding of classical mechanics for a software developer is probably Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics. You need to know classical mechanics first so you understand what quantum mechanics is correcting. You've got to start with Newton before you try Einstein or Heisenberg.
There is a book with the name Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but it doesn't look like it's written for programmers like the other S&I books are.
If an alternate opinion is worth something, as someone who has constantly had problems with quantum, I dislike Griffiths QM and would recommend the text by Townsend instead.
Townsend.
I think it's a very approachable book that you can read through
http://www.amazon.com/A-Modern-Approach-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/1891389130
Do you know which fields of physics are you interested in?
If Quantum Information/Quantum Computation sounds interesting, I would look at this book. I used it when I first learned about the topic. It doesn't assume much advanced math, just basic matrix/vector multiplications will suffice.
There's a reason the book doesn't assume much prior knowledge. It has two parts, Quantum Information and Quantum Computation. Roughly speaking the former is physics and the latter is computer science. And usually physicists don't know much about computer science and computer scientists don't know much about physics.
There's also another book, "Q for Quantum", published very recently by Terry Rudolph. I haven't read the book myself (I plan to), but from what he described in an email it might be something you're looking for:
> I have finally finished a book, "Q is for Quantum", that teaches the fundamentals of quantum theory to people who start off knowing only basic arithmetic.
> I have successfully used this method in outreach with students as young as 12, but of course it is much easier when you can have a proper back-and-forth dialogue. In practice it is late-stage high school students I am most passionate about reaching with this book - I believe quantum theory can (and should) be taught quantitatively in high school, not 2 years into an undergraduate physics degree! In fact I would be delighted if the 3rd and 4th year students entering my undergraduate lecture courses already understood as much quantum theory as covered in the book.
Have fun!
Get this book.
Also, this book seems good. Granted I knew QFT by the time I started reading that book.
QFT is hard. Obtaining an thorough understanding it is probably the hardest thing I've ever accomplished in my life. To be honest, nothing that can be understood via words or verbal explanations will lead you to understanding QFT. You HAVE to work through the math. The words which we use to describe "virtual particle" fail the concept so miserably that we might as well not try (in my opinion).
If Griffith's is the furthest you'll go in QM and an UG book is the furthest you'll go in CM, you'll have a rough task ahead of you. Luckily, Klauber is EXTREMELY thorough and walks you through everything.
"Introducing Quantum Theory" by McEvoy and Zarate is a decent overview of quantum, with lots of graphics.
Stay away from Michio Kaku. He's a hack.
PHYSICS!
I kid, I kid
Feynman is one of a kind really, i have never really found someone who is like him murry
Murry Gell-Mann is good though
The Feynman Lectures will do the job, can be pretty expensive but you can just look at the online version here.
One book that deals with classical through modern physics is Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Serway & Jewett. To (re)learn intro physics, really any similar book will do, and you can always get help from online resources, of which there are many.
A good text for Modern Physics on its own is Kenneth Krane's Modern Physics. It has a lot of problems (few physics textbooks don't, and you won't learn physics easily without them) but it has none of the other superfluous things you mention.
As far as math goes, maybe try using Khan Academy or a similar resource up through precalculus. As far as calculus is concerned, I can recommend Stewart's Essential Calculus as a pretty comprehensive textbook which covers a pretty wide area. I can also highly recommend Paul's Online Math Notes to help you learn algebra through calculus and differential equations.
The two best resources I have found for teaching physics are Motion Mountain and my old high school physics textbook, The Dancing Wu Li Masters.
Yeah, that second one sounds a bit odd, but it's basically everything going from motion to particle physics explained by a journalist fact-checking with a bunch of physicists. Well worth a read from the library, but probably a good second resource after you've gotten a grounding on the basics.
My favorite general introduction to quantum mechanics is Introducting Quantum Theory. It breaks out the personalities of the key players at Solvay. Did I mention it's done with comics?
I applaud your initiative and interest in wanting to learn more about QM. The advice I'll offer is based on your "having no physics background" and only pre-calculus math. That's ok, what matters more is the desire and application to learn more. I suggest that you initially stick with popular, layperson, conceptual materials and study them diligently and then keep going onto more in-depth materials.
I cannot in good faith recommend a single book about QM. I am going to offer a variety of materials (books, articles, videos) etc that I am either familiar with myself or others whose opinions I respect have recommended, and that I believe are at an appropriate level for you. From this and the other recommendations you receive, you'll probably find that you'll develop a feel for materials that are best for you. Also, for other book ideas, I highly suggest that you go to a local library and browse through the physics section and you'll probably find some books that appeal most to you.
The ideas below are in no particular order and you can pick and choose as you see fit:
For a preparatory short Scientific American article with some important to understand history and a lookahead to the future read 100 Years of Quantum Mysteries
Several people on reddit have highly recommended this LookingGlassUniverse video series on QM
For an easily accessible popular-level intro book, I've liked and many others have recommended How to Teach Physics to Your Dog by Chad Orzel.
I highly recommend a chapter from Sean Carroll's book From Eternity to Here on QM that he makes freely available on his website here. The book is not specifically about QM but this chapter is excellent and Sean Carroll is a clear, witty, and highly respected science communicator. This chapter has good material on the quantum wave function, the Schrödinger equation, and quantum indeterminacy.
Many have recommended the book by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw titled The Quantum Universe. I thought chapters 2 and 3 of this book were very well done but was not as keen on the later chapters. Maybe you could find a copy at a library and see what you think.
There are also some excellent materials online. One series of lecture materials I think is very good is 21st Century Science that is at the University of Oregon website. It's an excellent self-contained series of lectures and does not require math skills. It's includes more than just QM, which I recommend that you include in your study.
A nice article: 10 Quantum Truths About Our Universe
The article What is the Physics of Nothing on the energy of the quantum vacuum or zero-point energy.
Article: How does Quantum Mechanics Allow the Sun to Shine
The following are materials I wouldn't recommend to start with, but they're really good and deserve consideration:
This wouldn't be complete without a reference to the great Richard Feynman's lecture series. Part III is specifically on Quantum Mechanics. This is a classic textbook that has been used in many high schools and colleges over the years. I don't recommend starting with this, but I include it in case it might interest you.
Another reference that I wouldn't start with but feel it's good to include it in this listing is The Quantum Physics Sequence
I like this article by theoretical physicist Matt Strasler: Quantum Fluctuations and Their Energy
If you want a conceptual look at quantum field theory, particle physicist Matthew Buckley has a good article on this that is part of a longer series on particle physics. Knowing about quantum fields is important subject matter.
Unless you want to learn isolated bits and pieces, I'd recommend reading a book or watching a course.
I've been reading Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum. There's also online lectures that go with it. So far it's been useful; filling knowledge holes and whatnot.
I also recommend reading Euclid, Ptolemy, Tusi, Copernicus and Kepler if you want to see how a sincere attempt at modeling natural phenomena looked before physics per se. They're pretty accessible if you read them in that order (e.g. Ptolemy directly references Euclid's theorems and Kepler attempts a lot of comparisons of the pre-existing theories). Also, if not for them, there would be no Newton, Lagrange, Laplace et al (which are also worth reading, of course).
Also, this book is surprisingly deep in the sense of what you said i.e. "the path that physicists followed in order to get to the big ideas". I got a lot out of it (namely about the old quantum theory).
"[RedGamut], are you a dad?" No, I reply to the seven year old boy. "You'd make a great dad." (When I was a counselor at a Golf Academy for kids)
Haha.. I remember as a joke, I would read them a bedtime story from The Dancing Wu Li Masters and they actually really enjoyed it and wouldn't let me stop reading it to them. :)
Susskind's Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum is a good, informal place to start. I'd read it before tackling Griffiths or Sakurai. For a quick brush-up on the math, you could try Shankar's Basic Training in Mathematics: A Fitness Program for Science Students, but the basics of calculus, diff eq, abstract & linear algebra will get you started.
I think this is a fine place for the post, but you might also try /r/AskPhysics.
A good question is, how much time do you want to spend doing this? While anybody can learn math/physics deeply, it does take time. If you see this as being a Sunday hobby, you may want to stick with books that are aimed at a popular audience. Examples:
Books by Michiu Kaku and Brian Greene purportedly explain a lot of current bleeding-edge theory in simple terms. Popular interpretations of abstract mathematics are a little harder to come by. If you're interested in mathematics as a subject all to itself, you might start with Gowers' book Mathematics: a Very Short Introduction.
If you want to invest somewhat more time, I recommend you check out Lenny Susskind's "Theoretical Minimum" lecture series here. He's written an associated book on classical mechanics, and another on quantum mechanics. These lectures and books are directed towards self-leaners who have a mildly quantitative background, but have never studied physics deeply. However, I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with calculus first.
The stuff in the "Theoretical Minimum" series might seem boring compared with the material aimed at popular audiences, but it's necessary background if you want to dig into those topics at a higher level. If you learn it, you'll be able to understand a much wider selection of sources on other fields of physics.
Best of luck finding something you like! You can always post back here if you're having trouble.
I am using Conquering the Physics GRE as an overview, but I really enjoy anything from David Morin and David J. Griffiths for the level of questions and explanations (and in-book/online solutions manuals that go a long way towards showing you how to think like a physicist). But my "library" for preparing for the physics GRE is:
CM: Morin, Problems and Solutions in Introductory Mechanics and Introduction to Classical Mechanics
Gregory, Classical Mechanics for extra explanations and problems
EM: Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics 3e
QM: Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 3e
Thermo/Stat.Mech: Schroeder, An Introduction to Thermal Physics
Kittel and Kroemer, Thermal Physics
Waves: Morin, on his website are ten chapters to what appears to be a Waves book in the making
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/
Atomic, Lab Methods: Conquering the Physics GRE and any online resources I can find.
​
If you email Case Western, they send a link to some amazing flash cards!
Quantum
Easy: Zettili, Comprehensive reference: Cohen-Tannoudji
or if you want more foundational books
Easy: Schumacher and Westmoreland, Comprehensive: Ballentine
My n=1 sample size of someone who recently took the PGRE:
I've found, doing the PGREs, that the '86, '92, '96, and '01 test to be harder then the '08 test. The '13 felt somewhere between them, but closer to the '08 test. The ones in the "Conquering" I felt were closer to the earlier physics tests, but in a more abstract ways over heavy calculations. I recently took the test (just yesterday) and felt difficulty was actually easier then expected, but then again I did every test multiple times in addition to reading the book (easier then expected doesn't mean easy btw. It means I felt prepared).
I would say, this being my subjective interpretation, that easiest to hardest would be
(easiest) 08 -> 13 -> 01 -> 96 -> 86 -> 92 (hardest - seriously, anyone who took the 92 test for reals, how did you survive?!)
I would suggest doing them in chronological order, and if you can do them repeatedly, do them again but randomize the questions across the exams (something like 1986 01, 2001 02, 1996 03, etc.). As for the CTPG, I did those once each, but if you can sneak in more then one pass on them you'll be in a good position.
One thing I did was, instead of trying to duplicate the testing conditions exactly I just did them whenever I could as often as I could, trying to fill in gaps of my knowledge. I felt building up my confidence was more useful then solving problems quickly, because knowing the material would give me speed. That worked, and I finished with a little time to spare to review some problems. Again, sample size of 1 here that hasn't gotten his exam score back so if there are better studying tips I wont be insulted at disregarding me.
One thing that helped, weirdly, is Quantum Mechanics for Dummies (BnN carries it too). I got it because about 2 months out I realized that going through my old QM text books was not going to happen, but this one actually filled in a lot of the major details quickly. Instead of trying to build QM from the ground up, this is more of a quick review and assumes you already know the subject and made the QM portion so much easier. It's not a popular science book, more of a review book for those that are already familiar with the subject.
Don't know if you have this but this website has several exams with solutions, and links to the 01 exam with solutions. And here are the solutions to the '13 exam.
And finally: good luck. You've got 40 days which is actually quit a lot of time. Don't squander it, but don't over tax yourself - that can be just as detrimental.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-2nd-Edition/dp/0131118927
Just flipping through the first pages should make it obvious how much previous knowledge is required just to begin understanding quantum mechanics.
Maybe this one is better: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steve-Holzner/dp/1118460820/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408628463&sr=1-1&keywords=quantum+mechanics+for+dummies
I just went through the first chapter in the dummies book, it's not much better.
These videos are incredible.
Extremely clear undergraduate quantum text which emphasis on quantum information.
With a little google-fu you can find the book in pdf format.
As for modern physics texts any of these should be fine but I have only glanced at them: Thornton and Rex, Krane, Bernstein, Fishbane, and Gasiorowicz
I read through Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics and it is really good if you want a lot of conceptual discussion of special relativity, not as much mathematics involved but honestly the math doesn't get too gnarly in SR anyways so conceptual might be the better approach to the topic. Unfortunately it only goes over SR, and not any of the other modern topics.
The best:
Introducing Quantum Theory
For a concise introduction to the concepts without all the jargon I’d recommend “Q is for Quantum” by Terry Rudolph. It doesn’t assume university-level maths like most of others, and yet it gets to explain most of the fundamental aspects without getting tangled in technicalities. For a tester of his style you can check his inaugural lecture on YouTube!
https://www.amazon.com/Q-Quantum-Terry-Rudolph/dp/0999063502
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGZDhQoR9E
This was the book I used for my two semesters of quantum. Its really well written and has good problems at the end of chapter, I can pm you the solutions if you want. I guess this book is special since it starts with the spin approach instead of the more conventional wave approach at first.
>What did he do that makes him so important?
Well, that's what he did - he's famous for being a communicator and popularizer of science, through his books, tv shows, etc. He's good at it, and science needs those folks as well.
He's not famous for his research. He's only got 13 peer-reviewed papers, which isn't that much in that period of time (a PhD thesis would typically be 4-5). None of them are famously significant either. That doesn't mean he's a bad scientist by any means - there are only so many hours in the day, he's got a family and a life, so obviously you wouldn't expect much time to be left over for research between the TV shows, books, public appearances and administrative duties for the Hayden planetarium. But strictly in terms of research, any Nobel laureate would be a more important scientist within their field.
There are great scientists who are also great popularizers: Feynman, Einstein, Hawking, Bohr. But there are equally great ones who are relatively obscure since they never wrote any popular-scientific stuff. Dirac, for instance. Or Gell-Mann, who tried but didn't have much success.
It's hardly surprising; ordinary people don't read research papers, and wouldn't have the background knowledge to gauge their importance anyway. So what else would they have to judge them on, other than how often they're seen and mentioned?
I agree with the above, hyperphysics is great to get started, if you're interested in a bit more breadth wikipedia is an okay source, can be scary for beginners, but there is some good stuff there. If you're looking to delve a little deeper into one topic, my quantum mechanics textbook was great: amazon. In terms of math, you should be good with integrals and ready to have your brain blown.
There are lots of options out, any idea what topics you're interested in, what sounds cool, etc.?
A relatively new book (McIntyre, 2012) that my university used to teach upper-division quantum mechanics this year actually starts with the Stern-Gerlach.
It was actually really well-received, and I liked it a lot. It introduces Stern-Gerlach and Dirac notation immediately (four pages in and you're already using bra-ket notation to talk about Stern-Gerlach).
I recommend it highly.
If you're truly starting from scratch, I recommend Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters. It's old (published in 1979), but it provides an excellent layman's overview of modern Physics right up to that point so that you can get a foundation to build on with more recent publications. Here's a review/description of it:
> a book that manages to explain relativity and a lot more without resorting to a single bit of mathematics (except for asking you to grasp the not-too-onerous concept that the velocity of light, a constant 186,000 miles per second, is a product of its frequency and wavelength). After all, Mr. Zukav writes, "The fact is that physics is not mathematics. Physics, in essence, is simple wonder at the way things are and a divine (some call it compulsive) interest in how that is so. Mathematics is the tool of physics, stripped of mathematics, physics becomes pure enchantment."
There really is not much Math in that text. It's all theory, and explains the core concepts and terms you'll see referenced and repeated in newer books.
The Hartree-Fock method builds molecular orbitals for a given molecule out of atomic orbitals of a given basis set. Depending on how much calculus you know, this project may be difficult, as it is more appropriate for a 3rd year university student. If you're still interested though, these two books and ppt should help:
linus pauling
Attila Szabo
An Introduction to Quantum Chemistry
Another idea you guys could look into is researching the chemistry of semiconductors in computer chips, how semiconductors work, and possibly look into the future of quantum computing (if there is one).
Sorry to take so long to get back to you.
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0674843924 - an excellent book. Might take a bit more math than you've got, but it provides a very concrete experimental side to these ideas.
I agree. He's more of a philosopher than a scientist, at least when it comes to his positions on science and God (he's written a textbook on quantum mechanics that is claimed to be sound, probably because it lacks his philosophical stuff).
I'm basing my views on the "documentary" (more like a hagiography) of Goswami streaming on Netflix. In the entire program, he only makes reference to one experiment where two people in separate rooms start mirroring each other's brain activity when they meditate (if I remember it right). The paucity of evidence for his arguments aside, even this one experiment seemed anything but conclusive.
Perhaps instead of rebuttals, you can try to shift your friends focus for looking for Goswami's evidence? Maybe make your friend see that we need to see experiments and data confirming his theories, rather than his philosophical arguments?
Edit: clarity
Real answers for real high school student interesting in the conventional path to a conventional first course in quantum physics. Much of this advice applies more to the American school system, as that's where I was educated.
You're right, the first job is to get to calculus. Khan Academy is a good place for that! It's a bit messy, but just follow the knowledge web they have set up until you get to the topic of limits, which is the front door to introductory calculus. Along the way you'll also learn algebra and geometry. As soon as you can and as soon as you're ready for it, try and take a proper calculus class in your school. If you're in the United States, try to take AP Calculus.
If possible, take a physics class at your high school. If it's a reasonably big school, they'll have an algebra-based physics class and may even offer a college-level physics course that uses calculus (if you're in the United States, this will be called AP Physics C). Take this as soon as possible! If it's not offered, you may be able to take the equivalent course at a nearby college before you leave high school.
If you've done all of this right, you should know how to calculate things called derivatives and integrals, manipulate things called sequences and series, and understand the the basic rules of mechanics (force, momentum, energy, etc) and the electric and magnetic fields phrased in terms of calculus. In the language of most American universities, you now know Physics I & II and Calculus I & II.
Physics-wise, the usual next step is to take a course on waves, vibrations, and oscillations (see this table or contents) and / or a survey course on modern physics (see this standard text).
Math-wise, the next step is to take classes usually called
The simplest way to do this is just to take these courses in a college or university, but there are also great online resources. I can personally endorse MIT OCW and Paul's Online Notes. Many schools also offer surveys of applied math at this level (with names like "mathematical physics" or "mathematical methods") that cover the basics of partial differential equations, fourier series, and more linear algebra / multivariable calculus / ODEs. See this book by Boas for a good idea of the content.
Once you know all of that, you're ready to ready a real textbook on quantum physics. Some of the usual standards for a physicists' first course are the books by Griffiths or Shankar.
Edited for link formatting
TL;DR To go the physicist route, learn the following through school if you can swing it, but independent learning is possible and good resources exist online:
Then these three in any order:
Then this, if you're going the usual physicist route:
On the physics side, you should take
and then one or both of
Schaum's Outline Series? There's a quantum physics I believe. I have some of the old math ones--they're awesome.
edit: here's a quantum mechanics one: http://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Quantum-Mechanics-Second/dp/0071623582/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259858848&sr=8-3
I'm in the same position as you (more or less).
Try the "For Dummies" series. Inexpensive, and leads you by the hands:
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/0470381884/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330718781&sr=1-1
If you want to read some great books on astrophysics and quantum physics, I recommend the books written by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw: Universal and The Quantum Universe
They are brilliant books and deliberately shy away from using any complex mathematics, explaining in detail all of the maths that is used.
Merzbacher
http://instrumentation.tamu.edu/~ting/other/QM_Merzbacher.pdf
Messiah
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-2-Volumes-1/dp/0486409244/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Momentum is the value that the momentum operator gives you. It will be related to the time evolution of the field, as you would expect for a quantity classically related to velocity. In coherent states, which are mixtures of states in any bases that are sufficiently localized in space, the classical limit is recovered.
Spin is the result of another operator, but what it gives you is the angular momentum of an electron. Everybody agrees on this. No physicist thinks it's actually spinning because they're not dense and have enough imagination to know a vector quantity can exist all on its own. Here are two experts that agree on this definition - I know this because all the experts agree on the definition, because they're all working with the exact same mathematical model.
This is literally first year stuff, as in actual first years taking physics classes in college will learn it. Occasionally, they will delay it to their second year - I suppose that was my ego at play.
Quantum Physics for Dummies
Problem solved.
I cant believe there is a quantum physics for dummies i don't think you could ever dumb it down far enough for me to understand. Find one of dr michio kaku's shows on science channel they make it a little bit easier to understand let him watch it and then google any questions he has and try your best to make sense of it to him. Michio Kaku is always going on about parallel universes, string theory etc.
Nobel laureate in one field?? Did you miss the bit about the other Nobel prize?
Francis Crick called him the father of molecular biology: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-01/local/me-13101_1_crick
.
Textbooks written:
General Chemistry
The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics with Applications to Chemistry
.
Vitamin C vindication:
The trouble with most vitamin C studies is usually too small a dose. Also the oral vs intravenous thing. You know animals produce grams and grams per day, humans have a genetic deficit. This is my favourite article to explain: http://www.hearttechnology.com/1992-v07n01-p005.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/gofindyourowndamnlinks/2009/02/18/vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-b/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/linus-pauling-vindicated-researchers-claim-rda-for-vitamin-c-is-flawed-71172707.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/aug/05/cancer.medicalresearch
http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2008/4/newly-discovered-benefits-of-vitamin-c/Page-01
.
Heart disease is scurvy:
http://nutritionreview.org/2013/04/collagen-connection/
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/heart_book.pdf
.
Also, here's an interesting read on nukes (remember that peace prize?) and free radicals (that other one was in chemistry): http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/6/optimize-your-internal-defenses-against-radiation-exposure/Page-02
.
I hope this helps! My personal random-guy-on-the-internet recommendation is several hundred milligrams a few times a day, preferably away from food, increasing dosage during illness.