Best way to learn QM

[Anonymous No.6644412]

What's the best way to go about go about learning QM (assume graduate level math knowledge)

In university they just started by giving us the Schrodinger equation out of the blue, and every other text I've seen seems to do the same. Is there a book or lecture notes that builds up from case studies and classical theory to avoid this?

[Anonymous No.6644442]

https://archive.org/stream/introductiontoqu031712mbp#page/n3/mode/2up
pauling p good

[Anonymous No.6644454]

Try reading, In search of schrodingers cat. Its a history of how quantum mechanics came to exist and whats it implications are.
Only downside is its very maths so might not be extremely useful but still worth a look.

[Anonymous No.6644476]

>>6644412
Just work through a series of practical questions about macroscopic effects quantum effects:

How do half-silver mirrors work? Why do oil slicks on the road produce a rainbow?
Why are street lights that weird yellow colour? What's a laser?
How does a microwave heat your food? Why can't you heat pure HF in a microwave?
How does an atomic clock work?

Done well, that'll get you to at least a non-specialist's undergrad level

[Anonymous No.6644482]

>>6644476
u wot m8

[Anonymous No.6644488]

>>6644476
I mean, I want to learn the classical theory that lead up to the development of QM before studying QM.

It just felt wrong in university that we were studying QM before a single lecture on EM. Maybe this is a trait of physics education in mathematics departments.

[Anonymous No.6644531]

>>6644488
It's only by white-washing history that we convince students that there was a prevailing theory of EM prior to Einstein's treatment of the photoelectric effect. The establishment went back and forth on the wave/particle question again and again and again in the 200 years before 1905, and they were'nt about to stop just because Maxwell finally managed to neatly summarize everyone's math.

The models of EM which are relevant to Quantum developed in step with it. There's no "lead up".

[Anonymous No.6644558]

>>6644531
I just want to really understand how the Schrodinger equation (or the Maxwell equations for EM) was arrived at.

I'm far more interested in the development of all this stuff than the final results.

[Anonymous No.6644583]

http://www.amazon.com/History-Physics-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0802707513/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405384860&sr=1-1&keywords=history+of++physics

Maybe I'll just read this for now for an overview then go back to the bits I want to focus on later.

[Anonymous No.6644602]

http://www.amazon.com/History-Mechanics-Dover-Books-Physics-ebook/dp/B00A73FCVC/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405385168&sr=1-8&keywords=history+of+physics

Or this

[Anonymous No.6644608]

>>6644558
Very broadly:
Between the time of Newton and Plank, physicists, mathematicians and engineers argue about the nature of light. Occasionally there are cash prises offered. Froma historical perspective, Young makes the strongest case for waves.
Plank proposed a solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe specifying a precise model of quantization. Particles go back on the table.
Einstein uses the quantized model to solve the problem of the photoelectric effect.
De Broglie turns around and asks why, if waves can have momentum and be particle-like, particles cant's have wavelength?
Bohr predicts the spectrum of hydrogen treating electrons as waves,
Debye wonders casually if electrons shouldn't follow some sort of general wave equation.
Shrodinger soon provides one.

[Anonymous No.6644649]

The way you were taught is strange to me, I had a whole quantum course that led up to the schrodinger equation at the end. And I did at least some EM first, gauss' law etc. The course I mention used
>Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles [Robert Eisberg, Robert Resnick]
so maybe check that out; there are PDFs online

[Medical_Physicist !!ST92PtcX00D No.6644870]

>>6644558
Schrodinger famously never really told anyone how he came up with his equation. It would seem that he predominately constructed it to satisfy three important criteria:

1) The de Broglie hypothesis;

2) Conservation of energy;

3) Classical wave propagation.

[Anonymous No.6645440]

Heres the introductory course I took:
http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys580/fa2013/

Here the texts:
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Fundamentals-Graduate-Contemporary/dp/0387220232

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Quantum-Mechanics-Revised-Edition/dp/0201539292


Pretty good job. I don't know any credible intro qm class that would start like OP describes.

[Anonymous No.6645452]

>>6644412
I would start with Introduction to QM (which is basically just a linear algebra book with a different notation and boundary conditions set by the physics) and then an Introduction to Spectroscopy, which is a bit more of an engineering approach as to how one applies that linear algebra to actual physical systems, ie approximative methods compared to measured results.

Then it should make a lot of sense, and you can move into more advanced areas of the field.

[Anonymous No.6645539]

⇒assume graduate level math knowledge
There are several good intros to QM from a slightly more rigorous mathematical perspective, e.g.
Takhtajan - Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians
Folland - Quantum Field Theory: A Tourist Guide for Mathematicians
Hall - Quantum Theory for Mathematicians

⇒giving us the Schrodinger equation out of the blue
A derivation of the Schrödinger equation in the style of pic related can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610121v1
or by literally google searching "derivation of Schrödinger equation".

[Anonymous No.6645549]

best way to learn electromagnetism?

im going to be doing an introductionary course on it, i would imagine maxwell equations would be a big deal?