4 ms·
The cat book again! It seems everyone recommends Griffiths. I finally gave in and my copy should be arriving in a couple weeks. I've looked through the Feynman
by tux3 3y ago
The cat book again! It seems everyone recommends Griffiths. I finally gave in and my copy should be arriving in a couple weeks.
I've looked through the Feynman lectures a bit, and although it's very nice for a free resource, it doesn't seem to be used very much at all in curriculums.
- whimsicalism 3y agoFeynman is not sufficient as a physics textbook. Afaik the main games in town are Griffiths, Townsend, and Sakurai if you are a tryhard iirc I prefer Sakurai & Townsends treatment over Griffiths but I might be misremembering e: oh yes, i think griffiths intentionally avoids dirac notation which imo screws you later on down the line
- bleepthrowaway 3y agoGriffiths absolutely uses dirac notation. Weinberg’s excellent (but not widely used!) quantum mechanics textbook does not, and being proficient in Weinberg’s text would not hinder anyone.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI think it just focuses heavily on wave mechanics and gets to dirac rather late i like townsend because it’s like baby sakurai
- bleepthrowaway 3y agoChapter 3 is Dirac formalism and its used for the remaining 9 chapters. edit: I also like Sakurai, but I actually kind of like Weinberg’s non-dirac textbook better (I’ve only read the first edition)
- 3abiton 3y agoSo in terms of accessibility, Weinberg < Griffiths < Sakurai?