作者graddivcurl (為所應為)
看板Physics
標題Re: [問題] 量子物理的봊時間: Wed Jul 12 19:30:21 2006
※ 引述《Linderman (我要努力力爭上游)》之銘言:
: 建議你先修近物或是看近物的書推薦Eisberg的書或是Beiser的書
: Eisberg的書超讚,寫很多歷史方面的東西尤其Eisberg的黑體輻射寫的很好
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的書,這二本都寫的很好,Griffiths矩陣力學方面提很少
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.
: 然後進階的就是Shankar,Sakurai或是Merzbacher的量子力學了,
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
########################################################################
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.162.58.101
1F:推 Linderman:推^^ 07/12 20:02
2F:推 Linderman:這篇文章真實在是太棒了,果然這裡的高手都是很低調的>_< 07/12 20:13
3F:→ Linderman:如果我裝小丑可以把你們這些人都引出來我也是很樂意的XD 07/12 20:14
4F:推 jjsakurai:QM是一輩子都越學越不懂的科目 07/12 21:47
5F:推 Linderman:推費曼也說如果一個人說他真正懂量力,他一定是騙子XD 07/12 23:18
6F:推 AlvinC:推~ 07/12 23:27
7F:推 bethe:Dirac是騙子....XD 07/12 23:34
8F:推 Wolfram:XD 07/12 23:52
9F:推 Linderman:這個還是想要解釋一下,以免被太多不是學物理的人誤解 07/13 20:49
10F:→ Linderman:我猜他也是認同愛因斯坦的觀點吧,量子力學是很不完善的 07/13 20:50
11F:→ Linderman:量力背後也許還有一個最底層的圖像沒有被了解或是找到吧 07/13 20:51
12F:→ Linderman:老實說我是對量物的書都很不滿意啦,太多數學漏洞可以問 07/13 20:52
13F:→ Linderman:問幾個比較熟老師他也不知如何回答,包括懂實變數泛函的 07/13 20:53
14F:→ Linderman:改天再把當年的疑惑一一整理出來請教各位吧 07/13 20:55