getting started with Quantum Mechanics??

>>8294518
To start it's mostly linear algebra and real analysis (I don't know American college memes).
Once you get into QFT you'll need complex analysis.

>>8294518
>Basic calculus
>Some simple linear algebra
>Some basic vector calculus

That's pretty much all you need, at a graduate level you'll probably need a bit more LA.

>>8294553
>real analysis
>QM
Nigga, wat?

>>8294518
banach space.

>>8294553
If I know functorial quantum field theory via category theory, what do I need to move on to other quantum field theories? I know lots of algebraic topology and algebraic geometry.

>>8294518
>How much maths do I need to start quantum mechanics? Lets assume I have essentials such as calc 1 and 2 only.
nothing desu. just dive into a physics book and read up on the stuff you dont get. most books introduce the needed math anyway.

>>8294562
>>real analysis
>>QM
>Nigga, wat?
Analysis of functions of a real variable. As in, you know, how wavefunctions are a function of space.

Why are we getting about 5 QM threads a day

>>8294601
any books in particular you would recommend?

>>8294605
Completely unnecessary.

Diffy Q
Linear Algebra
Some real analysis

One thing you will also need that isn't math is a solid understand standing of EM

Calculus 1 and trigonometry

>>8294640
Nigger what? You understand the difference between complex functions of a real variable and complex functions of a complex variable right?

>>8294636
Not that guy but:
>Grenier "Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction"
>Griffiths "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics"
This is a pretty standard text for a first course used all over the world, a lot of autists on /sci/ don't like it for various reasons. Personally I find their criticisms lacking a sound basis, and most of the world's physics departments agree with me. Not to say it doesn't have some problems, the chapters on time dependent perturbation theory and scattering are both pretty terrible. But over all it's descent as an introduction.
>Townsend "A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics"
I've only recently read this book (and then only part of it) but I think I prefer it to the other two. It starts with a discussion of the Stern-Gerlach experiment and then uses that to immediately explore the Dirac notation, before talking about matrix mechanics. Wave mechanics doesn't get mentioned until chapter 6. And has an introduction to the path integral approach. Certainly nonstandard, but I think it might be much better than the standard approach taken by, say, Griffiths.
>Ballentine: "Quantum mechanics: A Modern development"
Similar to the above but a much more in depth and "rigorous" approach.

>>8294664
We are thinking of the same subject right? As in Real Analysis, the theory of functions of a real variable, as in Rudin and the like? Because if it is: then yes, its completely irrelevant to even a detailed study of QM. It might come in handy if you want to study some the ancillary subjects to QM, but otherwise completely unnecessary.

>>8294729
>As in Real Analysis, the theory of functions of a real variable, as in Rudin and the like? Because if it is: then yes, its completely irrelevant to even a detailed study of QM.

Topkek. You need to be well versed in Real Analysis, at the level papa rudin, to properly do functional analysis. And you need to be well versed in functional analysis, to properly do quantum mechanics.

>>8294794
Wrong.
When you start qm, you're solving linear wave equations.

You don't do 3+ particles, you don't do outside forces.
Even then, you solve numerically and spend most of your time learning shortcuts.

>>8294805
I didn't say to solve intro level QM problems, I said to properly learn QM. i.e. The full theory.

That involves Hilbert Spaces, Probability Measures (and therefore Lebesgue Integration), Operator theory(a lot of Spectral theory), etc.

>>8294794
>And you need to be well versed in functional analysis, to properly do quantum mechanics.

Spoken like a true undergrad. You really don't need functional analysis, seriously check out any book from undergraduate to graduate, not a single one will have a chapter dedicated to functional analysis. That's because all the pathological case that arise I'm the study of infinite vector spaces are assumed to not appear in physics. Because of that you can pretty much just fall back on standard linear algebra. Hell even at the level of QFT you'll only ever be using the functional derivative. Even rigours mathematical physics texts don't cover functional analysis. You certainly could learn it, and you might get a deeper understanding (I really doubt it, though) but you could be diverting your time away from something that could be much more useful (group theory comes to mind). Please stop anon, you clearly have no clue.

>>8294833
That's not what the thread is about.

>>8294839
You clearly don't even know how much you don't know.

>>8294873
That's funny because I was thinking the same thing about you.

>>8294876
Please describe to me how you would quantize a general classical mechanical system.

>>8294876
>>8294839
Literally how the fuck are you gonna do even some basic study case like the fine structure of the hydrogen atom without functional analysis?