Is it possible to get through this cover to cover between now

>>8945018
Maybe.

>>8945018
>>8945018
>Is it possible to get through this cover to cover between now and September?
not if you're here instead of reading

I'd study some more basic "Modern Physics" (i.e. something like the modern physics section of http://a.co/j3A1AhM or even http://a.co/aC3PCcl) before tackling Shankar so you have a solid base to build on conceptually. You'll get more out of it that way. Also, for your first time with QM you'd probably be better off with Griffiths. Shakar is more rigorous, but Griffiths is written to be introductory and is superior for that purpose, in my opinion.

>>8945018
TURN BACK TURN BACK. I used Shankar for my first pass on quantum mechanics, and I hated it. Shankar is frustrating beyond belief. Way too much detail on things that you simply won't understand well unless you have already been thoroughly introduced to the material. Come back to this one for sure after you think you have a good grasp on the overall theory, but use something like Griffiths for a first pass.

>>8945122
>but use something like Griffiths for a first pass.
This.
I love rigorous and dry mathematical textbooks but physics is a fraud so you might as well use Griffiths, which is a very honest book.

>>8945018
I don't know this book, but considering a basic QM lecture lasts like 4 months, it should be possible if you invest enough time. However, you should keep in mind that knowing the math does not mean that you will immediately understand the physics.

>>8945126
>physics is a fraud
This triggers me.

>>8945126 >>8945133
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
>Impostor syndrome (also known as fraud syndrome) is a concept describing high-achieving individuals with a persistent fear of being exposed as a "fraud".

Meme

>>8945018
Keep as a second read through, use Zettili instead. Don't use griffiths except as supplement

>>8945018
Just skip quantum mechanics altogether. "Scientists" still believe in the copenhagen interpretation.

>>8945018
Yes. I made it through in about the same time. Honestly I liked Griffiths and Sakurai more than Shankar. The first chapter of Shankar is very nice if you don't know any of the relevant math and goes through the details of annoying calculations the other books don't bother with. Griffiths discussion of harmonic oscillator, angular momentum, and perturbation theory are top notch. Sakurai discussion of symmetry is extremely important but will take a while to make sense. Basically read all three to learn qm.

>>8945404
Thanks, senpai.

>>8945018
>>8945404
I've had a similar experience but there are a few other books you can use besides griffiths, shankar, and sakurai. Dirac has a fantastic book on qm and so does LL, I'd put weinberg in the mix too, but that's a second course in qm, not a first one. Quantum mechanics and path integrals is also a good book to learn the path int. formulation.

>>8945384
Dear Woit, we know you're still butthurt about Joe's bitchslap, but that doesn't mean you can shitpost on an uzbeki yak-milking forum.

As for OP, >>8945404 says it all. Don't use Shankar as your only intro text.

>>8945644
So if I'm learning from say 3 separate books, should I finish one and move on to another or should I read from all 3 topic by topic?

>>8945697
Don't learn physics like math. Feel free to jump around the book, and jump to other books when necessary. When starting out you should pick a single book like Griffiths and rush your way through half of it. Once you've done this you'll have the basics down and have an idea of what you don't understand. Now you look through the other books as well and fill in your understanding with their explanations. Pick a topic like angular momentum and look through what they all have to say about it. Pick whichever makes sense to you and read that.

Repeat until you've covered every topic. This is the ideal way to learn physics. Since it isn't based off of axioms or even rigorous, the way each book does things can be wildly different, and some are easier to understand than others. It's good to get used to this method now since once you start qft that's literally all you'll be doing. Trying to understand qft from a single book is literally impossible due to just how large it is and how many different ways it can be done.