Physics GRE Discussion Forums

As i am preparing for the november test, i am doing QM from Griffith's, but there are many intriguing footnotes he has written which he suggests a student should see from arfken or tannoudji etc. but having a limited time (i also have to do the engg course work) i am not able to study them. Although i am able to answer the questions of PGRE level, but i feel really bad, since i feel there are many gaps in my understanding. will i be able to take UG QM during my grad course work without getting overly burdened??

Those books you mentioned are grad textbooks, during your graduate QM you would be expected to be learning the stuff that Griffiths is only mentioning in passing. If Griffiths thought the material should be in a undergrad course in QM, he would have included it in the book.

blackcat007 wrote:i feel really bad

Wow if you think you feel bad reading Griffiths THINK HOW THIS POOR CAT FEELS

@nathan: hmm yes that sounds logical enough. thanks

@meowful: heheh that was really nice..

blackcat007 wrote:As i am preparing for the november test, i am doing QM from Griffith's, but there are many intriguing footnotes he has written which he suggests a student should see from arfken or tannoudji etc. but having a limited time (i also have to do the engg course work) i am not able to study them. Although i am able to answer the questions of PGRE level, but i feel really bad, since i feel there are many gaps in my understanding. will i be able to take UG QM during my grad course work without getting overly burdened??

Well, I think that most people don't recall in depth their undergraduate knowledge by studying for PGRE. This has probably to do with the fact that you simply circle an answer and nothing more; it does not matter if you thought correctly or not, since everything written on the scratch paper is not graded, isn't it? I feel also that I have some gaps to fill ... . However, the hard study for qualifying exams may be a last opportunity for sb to review and eliminate the gaps they have in undergraduate topics. Griffiths' book is very readable but I have the sense that some things are not explained very well and this is reflected in his style of writing. For instance, while reading his book on electrodynamics from the beginning, the whole presentation of the theory was smooth enough until reaching the chapter on dielectric materials. This chapter is not well written in my opinion. I have read better presentations of this topic. The same is true with his presentation of radiation reaction and Abraham-Lorentz formula ... his style of writing starts becoming blur again. Anyway. I advise you should try hard and seach enough before finding what are the most appropriate books for your "qualifying study". One criterion is to choose the book that you feel can better eliminate most of your gaps about a topic. This procedure requires a lot of time. (This is what I do the last few weeks!). Finally, as far as quantum mechanics qualifying is concerned, the book: "Quantum mechanics" of Nouredine Zettili is -in my opinion- a highly useful "tool", at least for those who want a concise description of theory with emphasis on the solution of problems! As for the theory of QM, I haven't yet discovered the perfect book for me (one reason is that I am highly requiring reader!!!), but I made a list with books I intend to browse into, in my university's library. As you see, this is ultimately a "nice" (not with the common meaning) procedure.

Physics_auth