It was my undergraduate textbook. It is certainly thorough, but other than that, I’m not sure I can strongly recommend it. (The typography is painful).
I think starting with Quantum Computation and Quantum Information and hence discrete systems might be a better way to start, and then later expand to systems with continuous degrees of freedom.
The typesetting of the equations in particular. There were several things that hampered the readability for me—like using a period for the dot product, rather than a raised dot. I expect a full stop to mean the equation has ended. Exponents are set too big. Integral signs are set upright, rather than slanted (conversely the “d”s in them are italicized, when they should be viewed as an operator, and hence upright). Large braces for case expansion of definitions are 6 straight lines, rather than smooth curves. The operator version of 1 is an ugly outline. The angle brackets used for bras and kets are ugly (though at least distinct from the less than and greater than signs).
I’m not being entirely fair: these are really nits. On the other hand, these and other things actually made it harder for me to use the book. And it’s not an easy book to start with.
I understand that Claude Cohen-Tannoudji et al.’s two-volume Quantum Mechanics is supposed to be exceptional, albeit expensive, time consuming to work through fully, and targeted at post-graduates rather than beginners. (Another disclaimer: I have not used the textbook myself.) Cohen-Tannoudji got the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work with...lasers!
It was my undergraduate textbook. It is certainly thorough, but other than that, I’m not sure I can strongly recommend it. (The typography is painful).
I think starting with Quantum Computation and Quantum Information and hence discrete systems might be a better way to start, and then later expand to systems with continuous degrees of freedom.
I’m confused: “typography”? The font on the Amazon “LOOK INSIDE” seems perfectly legible to me.
The typesetting of the equations in particular. There were several things that hampered the readability for me—like using a period for the dot product, rather than a raised dot. I expect a full stop to mean the equation has ended. Exponents are set too big. Integral signs are set upright, rather than slanted (conversely the “d”s in them are italicized, when they should be viewed as an operator, and hence upright). Large braces for case expansion of definitions are 6 straight lines, rather than smooth curves. The operator version of 1 is an ugly outline. The angle brackets used for bras and kets are ugly (though at least distinct from the less than and greater than signs).
I’m not being entirely fair: these are really nits. On the other hand, these and other things actually made it harder for me to use the book. And it’s not an easy book to start with.
Thanks for the elaboration. I’ll bear that in mind if I have a chance to pick up a copy.