3 ms·

Recommending Griffith to study quantum mechanics is just plain wrong. It's inconsistent, have many gaps in the material. There's a book superior in many regards

• BeetleB 8y ago
  While I didn't like her saying that Griffith's is the book, in my experience, there is no the book for QM. Griffiths is good, but should be supplemented with another.
• projectileboy 8y ago
  On the other hand, all of Griffith's works are very approachable - he's a gifted writer, and he seems to have an incredible knack for helping you find the core idea in something. I think all of his books should be the first word on their respective subjects - but not the last word.
• Koshkin 8y ago
  There's an astonishingly large number of books on basic QM (only, perhaps, comparable to the number of books about differential forms :). It is probably because each author feels that something is missing or unclear or outdated in all other books. And this is despite the fact that QM in its fundamental shape has been complete since mid-1920s.