作者graddivcurl (为所应为)
看板Physics
标题Re: [问题] 量子物理的봊时间: Wed Jul 12 19:30:21 2006
※ 引述《Linderman (我要努力力争上游)》之铭言:
: 建议你先修近物或是看近物的书推荐Eisberg的书或是Beiser的书
: Eisberg的书超赞,写很多历史方面的东西尤其Eisberg的黑体辐射写的很好
Eisberg & Resnick's text on "Quantum Physics" was used popularly as a
textbook for a junior course on QM at many universities many years
ago. It is a very good
text for a person who wants to learn quantum physics for the first time.
However, it only deals with the old quantum theory (1900-1924), Schrodinger's
wave mechanics, and an introduction to molecules, solids, and elementary
particles. Its drawback is that it only
emphasizes the PDE approach to solving QM problem, ignoring other formalisms
of quantum mechanics. Thus, in order to get a more general, complete idea
of what QM is really about, it is better to use the second textbook on QM
(such as Griffiths' text, Liboff's text, Ohanian's text, or Gasiorowicz's text) to
supplement Eisberg & Resnick's text for one-year course on QM at the undergrad
level.
: 再看Griffiths和Gasiorowicz的书,这二本都写的很好,Griffiths矩阵力学方面提很少
The new features for Gasiorowicz's third edition are:
(1) the addition of a new chapter on " entanglement and its implications"
(2) the inclusion of a new topic on "a three-level system"
(3) the inclusion of Web supplements (where are free) (in PDF format)
on many special topics .e.g., Einstein's derivation for
Planck distribution law.
(4) the expansion of the discussion on the general QM structure
And others. Its strength lies in covering almost everything in about 480
pages, ranging from the old quantum theoty to Radiation theory & Collision
theory. It is a good text for brushing up your knowledge in QM, not a good
textbook for learning QM for the first time.
: 然後进阶的就是Shankar,Sakurai或是Merzbacher的量子力学了,
There are many other excellent texts on QM at this level (the first-year
grad level). To name a few, they include Schiff's text, Baym's text,
Messiah's text, and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji et al's text.
There are also many excellent texts on QM written by Nobel laureates,
including Fermi's text, Feynman's text, Pauling & Wilson's text, Schwinger's
text, Heisenberg's text, and Dirac's text. These texts savor of the authors'
idiosyncrasy. They can serve as outstanding references that
complement current texts on QM.
By the way, there is an old book, written by H.S. Green, which exclusively
deals with matrix mechanics. It is hard to find it now, but it might be
available at an old university's library. Also, the book titled
" quantum mechanics in simple matrix form" (by Thomas Jordan) is an
interesting text on QM. Chapter 22 of this text gives a unique way to
approach the hydrogen problem.
If one wants to use Feynman's path integral approach to solving the hydrogen
atom, he/she may want to refer to this following valuable text:
" Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, & Polymer Physics, &
Financial Markets" by Hagen Kleinert. After going through this text,
he/she will find that dealing with the problem is not easy at all.
As to "the factorization method", Ohanian's text is probably the best text to
refer to. It deals with the operator method not only to the harmonic
oscillator but also to many other problems including the hydrogen atom!
QM is a deep & broad subject, so the aforementioned texts just touch its
surface. There is plenty of literature (texts & papers) for readers
to explore, read & digest further.
########################################################################
" The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."
--- Thosmas H. Huxley
########################################################################
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.162.58.101
1F:推 Linderman:推^^ 07/12 20:02
2F:推 Linderman:这篇文章真实在是太棒了,果然这里的高手都是很低调的>_< 07/12 20:13
3F:→ Linderman:如果我装小丑可以把你们这些人都引出来我也是很乐意的XD 07/12 20:14
4F:推 jjsakurai:QM是一辈子都越学越不懂的科目 07/12 21:47
5F:推 Linderman:推费曼也说如果一个人说他真正懂量力,他一定是骗子XD 07/12 23:18
6F:推 AlvinC:推~ 07/12 23:27
7F:推 bethe:Dirac是骗子....XD 07/12 23:34
8F:推 Wolfram:XD 07/12 23:52
9F:推 Linderman:这个还是想要解释一下,以免被太多不是学物理的人误解 07/13 20:49
10F:→ Linderman:我猜他也是认同爱因斯坦的观点吧,量子力学是很不完善的 07/13 20:50
11F:→ Linderman:量力背後也许还有一个最底层的图像没有被了解或是找到吧 07/13 20:51
12F:→ Linderman:老实说我是对量物的书都很不满意啦,太多数学漏洞可以问 07/13 20:52
13F:→ Linderman:问几个比较熟老师他也不知如何回答,包括懂实变数泛函的 07/13 20:53
14F:→ Linderman:改天再把当年的疑惑一一整理出来请教各位吧 07/13 20:55