*ruins your gpa*

I took optics, too - as an elective. Found it pretty easy.

Wish I could have skipped relativity. I got a fucking C in it... it really brought down my gpa

I actually found the more mathematical, more rigorous aspects of my degree to be easier.

Doesn’t the back cover of that book have a picture of a dead cat

Cs major here, so happy I don't have to take any of these dogshit hard classes and STILL gonna make more money than yall lmao when will stemfags learn

what about QM is hard? its all jsut problems involving plug n chug shit like what is the relativsitc speed of this or what happens under magnetic field of this

this you whores
I've been drinking all night and you're still stupid

>uni level quantum
>plug n chug

CS is an easy field to bleed into. People can have fun in their youth dicking around in research and actually finding more or less legitimate science interesting. Most of us can already write good code too, which I know is more related to software engineering instead of CS but face it the jobs are the same, so we can do that when we finally get bored with the field.

this course just came off as a disguised ode course to me

pde's, but yes, essentially

ODE? Not even PDE? Where did you study if you don't mind me asking?

he must have meant pde...

right pde's would be the proper term but we spent time looking at time independent schrodinger equations as well as hermite polynomials as well as not working in 2 spatial dimensions (unlike my pde course) and all the solutions were easy like odes

i studied it at ubc

>ubc

you must be chinese

ubc has become an utter meme school since the people of bc became pioneers in the science of selling out.

pretty sad really

Wait until you take Gender Studies 201.

kek
umad at all the rich chinese people cheating in your classes?

if you had any understanding of pdes you'd realize it's an easy mistake to make as the entire reason you can easily solve a pde is by being able to separate it into odes

>time independent schrodinger equations
>quantum mechanics
>ubc

baka...

meme comment desu...

baka

thank you for answering my questions

and at the same time reaffirming my belief about corruption at ubc/ bc in general

depressing thread really.

this was in my 3rd year introductory quantum mechanics class
rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/phys410/lct4.pdf

link is also about half way into OP's book

so your course started with spherical coordinates?
that sounds retarded to build a baseline

can i see your first assignment then?
i assume it included this

spherical coordinates are introduced in math courses, starting with 2nd year vector calculus, and again in PDEs. They also came up frequenntly in various other physics courses besides quantum mechanics.

quantum mechanics in 1 or even 2d is not quantum mechanics, but math really

i guess we left legendre and all the other spatial pde problems to e&m and pdes

where are the derivations in all of this? hopefully you actually went into this stuff because this looks super glossed over

>glossed over
>ubc

yup... the math was all in other courses, prerequisites or corequisites.

I didnt go to ubc

its run by bankers and lawyers and has been sold to foreigners

as it was for us bro
they still showed every step

what is in your second quantum course?

i didnt take the 4th year one. it covered the 2nd half of ops book. it wasnt required for my non-honours degree.

But I believe it started bringing in a lot of maxwells equations.

do you have any assignments i can look at from your course?

it might also have brought in some of the statistical mechanics as well

to derive strong and weak nuclear forces

or something

I just got a measly specialization degree though so I cant be sure

no sorry. all my notes and stuff are back at home...

and its been a long time since I graduated.

I never use any of that stuff any more either.

95% of my time is spent trying to tweak other people's code now.

what do you work/tweak code for now?

we had to do some basic coding for stat mech looking at ising models as the temperature went to 0

my intro to quantum course also started with wave packets and born's rule and all that jazz

I had a whole 2nd year computational physics course where we learned how program computers to iterate differential equations,

I had to learn on the job how to iterate partial differential equations.

I was a grad student working in fluid mechanics, now I run a science based consulting business.

>wave packets and born's rule
doesn't really sound familiar, but again its been a long time

my quantum course followed the first half of OPs book to the letter. It was brutal. Many people including Eng phys students flunked out of their programs thanks to that course.

sounds about right except the prof i took it with just scales it up. unsurprisingly one of the only dudes to get close above 90% in his courses is going to mit for grad school.

born's rule is just the formulation of probability based quantum mechanics and the wave packets are so quantum mechanics doesn't break special relativity. i assumed it was from the book but a foreign exchange student i talked to said he hadn't learned it but did learn everything else

actually my career choice kinda sucks because I was always weak when it came to coding/ computer science.

but that seems to be where the world is going so it is what it is I suppose

indeed even the math majors at my uni have to take comp sci classes.

most things are just too intensive or a lot easier to simulate nowadays but that's the way of science i suppose

Apathy of gen eds ruined my GPA

>above 90% in his courses is going to mit for grad school

I'm pretty sure we were on the curve, because the average on the final was like 52%, and half the students didnt fail. The prof decides where the average is gonna be by what questions he puts on the final - they seemed kind of out of left wing iirc.

When I was TA'ing I didnt have a good opinion of courses that asked me to try and tweak the course to try and fit students with unknown prerequisites in arbitrary percentiles. Just teach them the material they should know, let the chips fall where they may, and put them on the curve. As long as the average isn't below 50% and you've got a relatively gaussian distribution you're good.

not the opinion my prof holds as he just makes it hard then scales it up if everyone fails

i'm curious if you think your profs make them that difficult because of some competitive aspect. another foreign exchange student said that's why he didn't like his profs

>profs make them that difficult because of some competitive aspect

I think they're from a different time, and they honestly think we should know the material, and are somewhat dismayed that they're being forced to teach people without the necessary prerequisites.

anyway, I dont mind being given the benefit of the doubt even if it makes the work hard.

When it comes down to it you're really just competing against other students for good grades, so putting everyone on the curve is logical. If everyone gets Bs or everyone gets Ds, then you've got a problem.

How difficult is such a course for someone with extensive knowledge in PDE theory?

interesting. does your university not care about your teaching evaluations? do you go to a prestigious university where all the profs are good researchers?

those two ideas arent mutually exclusive, and in fact one usually comes with the other, ime.

I've seen both extremes. At one end you've got shitty researchers who couldnt care less about their evaluations, and try to cram their students into different percentiles that mimic a bell curve by using arbitrary assignments and systems of grading, and at the other good researchers whose assignments/tests come naturally/easily and are relevant and challenging for the students and produce a nice gaussian distribution in grades with consistently good evalutations.

did you have Fei? In his "advanced" quantum mechanics class we basically just did TDPT/TIPT for an entire term

>thinks only cs majors are hired for software jobs
>doesn't know that over half the jobs go to people without cs degrees
>doesn't see the bubble popping

i got an A+, and that was my textbook.
[spoiler]Cornell by the way[/spoiler]

wait until you sudsy corboidism.

My uni combined electromag and relativity into one general 'fields' course. Actually two courses, an intro and advanced field course. Kind of a nice way to do it honestly.

depends on the professor. i had a professor who surveyed everyones backgrounds then adjusted the class accordingly. then i had professors who didnt give a fuck and failed you if you didnt know graduate level math in an undergrad physics course.

i was always the asshole ruining the curves bc i didnt work in college and had more time to study. the other students hated me

Classical mechanics on 4th year worse than anticipated

I can't wait until the bubble pops. I live in ATL and rent is getting more and more expensive. It's really fucking annoying.

The knowledge in PDE theory is mostly irrelevant unless you're doing research on that, if you're learning it, only on specific courses.
QM is about linear operators and choosing basis, simple diferential equations and perturbation theory for more complicated systems. Only that will cover two books at the level of OP because of different approaches to the subject you have to learn

PDEs are life

Anyone know a better book than Griffiths for a first class in QM?

"The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" by Dirac is a good read from one of the pioneers
The recommended textbook that's pretty common is "Quantum Mechanics" by Mandl if you just want to do it as a subject and have it about as dry as sand
Enjoy

cohen-tannoudji or shankar seem to be the typical choices

first-year Art History ruined my gpa...

rip the dream

>Art History
why would you?

Twas required

What's your main subject?
Being forced to do art history sounds abominable if you're doing stem

QM is actually kind of easy because you don't even have to know what's going on.

Aren't these graduate level books?

Until Pajeet takes your job because they're outsourcing the IT department at every major business.

Cohen-Tannoudji (at least Vol 1) is within the scope of undergrads but it would probably frustrate somebody looking for a basic intro

You don't know until you actually read it.

I'm currently taking that, along with theoretical physics and classical mechanics I.
I think I'm in over my head

QM is taught so horribly. The way its taught needs a complete revamp.

Maybe the point of any classical mechanics class should be to introduce generators and how they relate to quantum mechanics. Maybe they should start with path integrals and use computers to do some computations before deriving the Schrodinger equation.

I'm not sure of a good way. However, I do know that the shit they pull now shouldn't be considered acceptable. I wasted so much time assimilating quantum mechanics.

we used Griffiths and referenced Sakurai in my QM undergrad classes. either way, solid state physics fucked me. E&M UD was harder than QM too.

My uni was stingy af with the physics degrees. I did Classical I & II, SR/Quantum Intro, Waves and Optics, and Statistical Mechanics; but I couldn't even get the minor.

The MIT OCW course is fantastic
youtube.com/watch?v=jANZxzetPaQ

>Only have high school level education
>never took Algebra 2
I don't like math...

Where I come from, it's a constant fight between Griffiths, Sakurai and Zettilli. All three are way too easy tho and bullshit in their own unique ways.

ey come visit me in uris library sometime

pics or it didn't happen

If Quantum I is hard for you then I feel bad for you son

If quantum I is easy for you then you are too easy to please intellectually.

Lets see you crash and burn. Explain Schrodinger's equation in a way that someone out of classical mechanics would accept.

This.

you can't do this either, that's why classical mechanics is a different subject than QM.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>dumb cuck

Nah fr tho that sucks, QM is hard as fuck and if you were taking other classes as well I understand this can be difficult. Good luck brother.

Lol, do you say you can't do it because you don't know how, or because your knowledge of QM/Classical mechanics is so exhaustive you're confident that, if there was a way, you'd know about it?

There's no point in me asking, actually. I know for a fact it's the former.

You don't need to know any Classical Mechanics to succeed in an introductory course to Quantum Mechanics.

This,
Though if you are an idiot like me and don't pay attention in class, quantum hurts more.

Most don't, but it's a very easy field.

Sure, but you certainly won't see the parallels or why quantum mechanics is reasonable - and that's the whole problem. You're taught to accept relationships - somehow time derivatives are related to energy, somehow spacial derivatives are related to momentum - and if you don't have enough knowledge of classical mechanics, you're in the dark.

You can't claim quantum mechanics is easy if, at the end of the day, you don't appreciate the meaning behind half of the theory.

Anyone have recommendations for a textbook that has good problems?

Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Problem_Books_in_QM