K. Sreeman ReddyThe main purpose of this site is to maintain some academic and non academic things related to me.
https://ksr.onl/
Relativistic quantum mechanics textbooks review<p>In this post, I will review some textbooks on relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM). Most quantum field theory (QFT) books will discuss <em>some</em> RQM in the beginning and why it is not a correct theory and will move on to QFT. Here I will only review those which discuss RQM <em>somewhat</em> completely.<!--more--> RQM is a one-particle theory.<br />
<a href="#best-introductory-books">Best introductory books</a><br />
<a href="#best-advanced-books">Best advanced books</a><br /></p>
<h2 id="best-introductory-books">Best introductory books</h2>
<p>1) Wachter, Armin (2011). <em>Relativistic Quantum Mechanics</em>. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics series. Springer.</p>
<p>This book is organised into 3 chapters with the 1st on spin 0 particles, the 2nd one on spin 1/2 particles and the 3rd one on scattering theory. It is organised very neatly.</p>
<p>2) Greiner, Walter (2000). <em>Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Wave Equations</em> (3rd ed.). Springer.</p>
<p>Greiner has written many books on QM and QFTs. This book is a bridge between his QM and QFT books. Unlike the above book it discusses spins higher than 1/2 also. But for spin 0 and spin 1/2 it discusses slightly less completely than the above book.</p>
<h2 id="best-advanced-books">Best advanced books</h2>
<p>1) Volodimir Simulik (2020). <em>Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory of Arbitrary Spin</em>. Nova Science Publishers.</p>
<p>It discusses higher spin RQM and also QFT. This is a rigorous book. It also presents 26 different derivations of the Dirac equation.</p>
<p>There are other QFT books that also discuss RQM at the beginning like Gauge theories in particle physics by Aitchison and Hey (Vol 1 chapter 3), Lectures on Quantum Field Theory by Ashok Das (up to chapter 4) , Quantum Field Theory by Lewis Ryder (chapter 2), etc.</p>
Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:53:00 +0000
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/10/relativistic-quantum-mechanics-textbooks-review.html
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/10/relativistic-quantum-mechanics-textbooks-review.htmlWarticle and Normatter<p>Whenever a name has different meanings within the same field it unnecessarily introduces confusion. But after some time people generally continue with the improper names since a large amount of literature already present has used it.<!--more--> The word “AC current” in electrical engineering is a very good example of a bad name continued. It literally means alternating current current and is contradictory and redundant.<br />
<a href="#warticle">Warticle</a><br />
<a href="#normatter">Normatter</a><br /></p>
<h2 id="warticle">Warticle</h2>
<p>In 1901, Max Planck explained the observed spectrum of light emitted by a black body by making the assumption that energy of the oscillators, i.e. atoms of the black body that emit radiation, is quantized.</p>
<p>In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, not the energy of radiating atoms. Einstein called them as <strong>light quanta</strong>. In 1926, Gilbert N. Lewis popularized the term <strong>photon</strong> for light quanta.</p>
<p>At this point, light is considered to be both a wave and particle but electrons were still considered to be the classical particles.</p>
<p>In 1924, Louis-Victor de Broglie hypothesised that all things which were considered as particles at that time also had wave nature.</p>
<p>After this, there are neither waves nor particles. All “matter” has both wave properties and particle properties a concept called as wave–particle duality. But physicists have continued using the word particles to describe things like electrons even though they all know that these are not particles. A better name in my opinion is “<strong>warticle</strong>” (a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau">portmanteau</a> of wave and particle). If we mean warticle when we say particle then what word should we use to describe the classical particle? It is better to keep calling the classical particle as particle and rename the new one as warticle.</p>
<h2 id="normatter">Normatter</h2>
<p>Another similar problem is there for the word “matter”.</p>
<ol>
<li>Sometimes it is used to describe anything that contributes to the energy–momentum tensor. According to this definition, antimatter is also matter as it also has positive energy. Dark matter and Dark energy are also matter according to this definition.</li>
<li>Sometimes it is used to describe anything which has nonnegative <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number">baryon number</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number">lepton number</a>. With this definition, some anti matter like postitron is not matter. But bosons with zero charge like the photon, Higgs and Z bosons (also the hypothetical graviton if it really exists) are their own antiwarticles (some people <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/10/10/3607034.htm">like Professor Geoff Taylor</a> argue that the concept of antiwarticles is only for fermions and not for bosons. But I think it makes sense to think of pair production of electron-positron pair from 2 photons as annihilation).</li>
</ol>
<p>I think we should use the 1st definition for matter and we need to rename the 2nd one as “<strong>normatter</strong>” (a portmanteau of normal and matter) as opposed to antimatter since normatter is what we see normally and it contributes 5% to the total energy in the universe unlike antimatter which does not contribute significantly.</p>
<p>But in most cases, it will be obvious what the word means based on the context. So renaming these 2 is not very important but still it would be better if these are renamed.</p>
Mon, 23 Aug 2021 07:33:00 +0000
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/08/warticle-and-normatter.html
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/08/warticle-and-normatter.htmlRelativity textbooks review<p>There are many Special relativity (SR) and General relativity (GR) textbooks, here I will review some of them.<!--more--><br />
<a href="#special-relativity-introductory-books">SR introductory books</a><br />
<a href="#special-relativity-intermediate-advanced-books">SR intermediate-advanced books</a><br />
<a href="#general-relativity-introductory-books">GR introductory books</a><br />
<a href="#general-relativity-intermediate-books">GR intermediate books</a><br />
<a href="#general-relativity-advanced-books">GR advanced books</a><br />
<a href="#historically-influential-books">Historically influential books</a><br />
<a href="#honourable-mentions">Honourable mentions</a></p>
<h2 id="special-relativity-introductory-books">Special relativity introductory books</h2>
<p>1) Griffiths, David (2012). <em>Introduction to Electrodynamics</em> (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-85656-2.</p>
<p>Chapter 12- Electrodynamics and Relativity from this book is a very good introduction to SR. It is short and uses tensors to explain relativistic formulation of electrodynamics.</p>
<p>2) Resnick, Robert (1968). <em>Introduction to Special Relativity</em>. Wiley.</p>
<p>This book discusses very slowly compared to the above one. If you have time you should read it. In the beginning, there is historical stuff that many books won’t discuss. Sadly it doesn’t use tensors to explain relativistic formulation of electrodynamics.</p>
<h2 id="special-relativity-intermediate-advanced-books">Special relativity intermediate-advanced books</h2>
<p>1) Tsamparlis, Michael (2019). <em>Special Relativity An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions</em> (2nd ed.). Springer.</p>
<p>This book contains almost everything related to SR. It is more rigorous compared to the above books.</p>
<p>2) Günther, Helmut; Müller, Volker (2019). <em>The Special Theory of Relativity: Einstein’s World in New Axiomatics</em>. Springer.</p>
<p>It is at a similar level to the book by Tsamparlis.</p>
<h2 id="general-relativity-introductory-books">General relativity introductory books</h2>
<p>1) Carroll, Sean (2003). <em>Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity</em>. ISBN 0-8053-8732-3. Reprinted 2019.</p>
<p>This book is a very good introduction to GR. It has the right mixture of pedagogy and formalism. The last chapter Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in Curved Spacetime discusses things which usual introductory books either leave or discuss just intuitively.</p>
<p>2) Hobson; Efstathiou; Lasenby (2006). <em>General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists</em>. Cambridge University Press.</p>
<p>This book is at a similar level to Carroll’s, but it doesn’t discuss QFT in Curved Spacetime. Instead, the remaining parts are more complete than Carroll’s.</p>
<p>3) Ryder, Lewis (2009). <em>Introduction to General Relativity</em>. Cambridge University Press.</p>
<p>This book is at a similar level to Carroll’s. It is similar in style to Ryder’s QFT book.</p>
<p>4) D’Inverno, Ray (1992). <em>Introducing Einstein’s Relativity</em>. Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>This book is slightly easier and at a lower level than to the above books. Still a good book.</p>
<h2 id="general-relativity-intermediate-books">General relativity intermediate books</h2>
<p>1) Padmanabhan, Thanu (2010). <em>GRAVITATION FOUNDATIONS AND FRONTIERS</em>. Cambridge University Press.</p>
<p>This book is somewhat more complete and rigorous than Carroll’s. It discusses QFT in Curved Spacetime. In the end, there is a chapter on emergent gravity(the author works in this area) which is not found in almost any other textbook. One good thing is this book contains projects at the end of each chapter which will be useful to students.</p>
<p>2) Straumann, Norbert (2012). <em>General Relativity</em> (2nd ed.). Springer.</p>
<p>This is more rigorous than Padmanabhan. It doesn’t discuss QFT in Curved Spacetime.</p>
<p>3) Weinberg, Steven (1972). <em>Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity</em>. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</p>
<p>It is a good book with some problems (not practice problems, which are not there). It doesn’t discuss black holes. Weinberg does not do justice for the geometric approach. Also, the cosmology is outdated.</p>
<h2 id="general-relativity-advanced-books">General relativity advanced books</h2>
<p>1) Wald, Robert (1984). <em>General Relativity</em>.</p>
<p>This book is very rigorous. It discusses QFT in Curved Spacetime. The cosmology part is now outdated. It discusses things like proof of Singularity Theorems which are not covered in most of the above books.</p>
<p>2) Poisson, Eric (2004).<em>A RELATIVIST’S TOOLKIT The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics</em>. Cambridge University Press.</p>
<p>It is a very short textbook so explanations won’t be good. It also doesn’t discuss anything related to cosmology and QFT in Curved Spacetime. It mostly deals with the formulation of GR and Black holes.</p>
<p>3) HAWKING and ELLIS (1973). <em>The large scale structure of space-time</em>. CAMBRIDGE MONOGRAPHS ON MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.</p>
<p>It is slightly more rigorous than Wald. It doesn’t discuss QFT in Curved Spacetime (Hawking and Ellis wrote this before Hawking found the Hawking radiation).</p>
<h2 id="historically-influential-books">Historically influential books</h2>
<p>1) Einstein, Albert (1955). <em>The meaning of relativity: including the relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field</em>. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691080079. OCLC 177301011.</p>
<p>This book is easy to understand and is written by the man who formulated SR & GR.</p>
<p>2) Misner; Thorne and Wheeler(MTW) (1973). <em>Gravitation</em>. W. H. Freeman Princeton University Press.</p>
<p>A very big book. It was a standard textbook some decades back.</p>
<h4 id="honourable-mentions">Honourable mentions</h4>
<p>1) Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan. (1998). <em>The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes</em>. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850370-5.</p>
<p>2) Roger Penrose & Wolfgang Rindler (1987,1988). <em>Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 1 & 2</em>.</p>
Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:11:00 +0000
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/06/relativity-textbooks-review.html
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/06/relativity-textbooks-review.htmlQuantum mechanics textbooks review<p>There are many Quantum mechanics (QM) textbooks, here I will review some of them.<!--more--><br />
<a href="#best-introductory-books">Best introductory books</a><br />
<a href="#best-compact-book">Best compact book</a><br />
<a href="#best-advanced-books">Best advanced books</a><br />
<a href="#historically-influential-books">Historically influential books</a><br />
<a href="#honourable-mentions">Honourable mentions</a></p>
<h2 id="best-introductory-books">Best introductory books</h2>
<p>1) Zettili, Nouredine (2009). <em>Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications</em> (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley. ISBN 978-0470026793.</p>
<p>This is a very good book and is easily understandable. It has nice notations and is very formal. The author likes to write every statement as general as possible (which is usually seen in advanced comprehensive books but not in introductory books). It looks like (based on seeing Stack Exchange recommendations) this book is gaining popularity as an alternative to Griffiths book for UGs. Like Griffiths, it contains a lot of exercises in it and many solved problems.</p>
<p>2) Griffiths, David; Schroeter, Darrell (2018). <em>Introduction to Quantum Mechanics</em> (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.</p>
<p>The most popular introductory QM textbook. Good for intuitive understanding for beginners. You probably already know about this book, so I am not going to discuss much about this.</p>
<p>3) Shankar, Ramamurti (2011). <em>Principles of Quantum Mechanics</em> (2nd ed.). Plenum Press. ISBN 978-0306447907.</p>
<p>This book is fairly rigorous but still feels like a very intuitive pedagogical approach. It is written for grad students unlike the above 2, but it still is very readable for UGs.</p>
<p>4) Sakurai, J. J.; Napolitano, Jim (2017). <em>Modern Quantum Mechanics</em> (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-42241-3.</p>
<p>This book is at a similar level to Shankar. But is somewhat smaller, so the explanations are somewhat shorter. It still is a very good book.</p>
<p><strong>Note</strong>: The last 2 books also discuss introduction to relativistic quantum mechanics.</p>
<h2 id="best-compact-book">Best compact book</h2>
<p>1) Weinberg, Steven (2015). <em>Lectures on quantum mechanics</em> (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press</p>
<p>Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg managed to write a book which is <strong><em>shorter</em></strong> than all the above books (≈ 400 pages) but still is more comprehensive and <strong><em>complete</em></strong> than all the above books. Needless to say, this book is not good for first time introductory reading. Weinberg writes many things as obvious but they won’t be that obvious for us. I read somewhere that the chapter 11 THE QUANTUM THEORY OF RADIATION in this book is very good to read before going to Quantum Field Theory. This book is very similar in style to Weinberg’s 3 volume set “The Quantum Theory of Fields”.</p>
<h2 id="best-advanced-books">Best advanced books</h2>
<p>1) Ballentine, Leslie (1998). <em>Quantum Mechanics A Modern Development</em>. World Scientific.</p>
<p>This is a rigorous book. For example, it has a discussion on Rigged Hilbert Space in the 1st chapter which all the above books have not discussed.</p>
<p>2) Konishi, Kenichi; Paffuti, Giampiero (2009). <em>Quantum Mechanics A New Introduction</em>. Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>It is more complete than Ballentine but less rigorous.</p>
<p>3) Moretti, Valter(2017). <em>Spectral Theory and Quantum Mechanics: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theories, Symmetries and Introduction to the Algebraic Formulation</em>(2nd ed.). Springer.</p>
<p>This is a very rigorous book. If you like to read about axiomatic approach to QM you should read this book.</p>
<p>4) Schiff, Leonard (1968). <em>Quantum Mechanics</em>(3rd ed.). World Scientific.</p>
<p>This book is now somewhat outdated. Of course, QM hasn’t changed much but the way it is taught did change. It is still not a bad book.</p>
<p>5) Messiah, Albert (1958). <em>QUANTUM MECHANICS TWO VOLUMES BOUND AS ONE</em>. World Scientific.</p>
<p>This book is very very long. Outdated similar to Schiff.</p>
<h2 id="historically-influential-books">Historically influential books</h2>
<p>1) Dirac, Paul (1930). <em>The Principles of Quantum Mechanics</em>. Oxford University Press.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principles_of_Quantum_Mechanics">Wikipedia page</a></p>
<p>2) Neumann, Jon Von(1932). <em>Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics</em>. Princeton University Press.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Foundations_of_Quantum_Mechanics">Wikipedia page</a></p>
<h4 id="honourable-mentions">Honourable mentions</h4>
<p>1) Gottfried,Kurt;Yan,Tung-Mow (2003).<em>Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals</em> (2nd ed.). Spriger.</p>
<p>2) Pade,Jochen (2018). <em>Quantum Mechanics for Pedestrians vol 1 & 2</em>. Spriger.</p>
<p>3) Liboff,Richard (2002). <em>Introductory Quantum Mechanics</em> (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-8053-8714-5.</p>
Mon, 07 Jun 2021 06:36:00 +0000
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/06/quantum-mechanics-textbooks-review.html
https://ksr.onl/blog/2021/06/quantum-mechanics-textbooks-review.html