I have a good undergrad knowledge of quantum mechanics, and I'm interesting in reading up more about interpretation and in particular things related to how QM emerges algebraically from some reasonable real world assumptions. However I want to avoid the meticulous maths style and rather read something more meant for physicists (where rigorous proofs aren't needed and things are well-behaved ;) ) I.e. I'd prefer more intuitive resources as opposed to the rigorous texts.

Can you recommend some reading to get started?


An excellent book which does more or less what you ask for is Asher Peres' "Quantum theory:concepts and methods". It starts from the Stern-Gerlach experiments and logical reasoning to develop the basic principles of quantum mechanics. From there, it develops the necessary algebra.

Another interesting book for an approach of the conceptual side of quantum mechanics is "Quantum Paradoxes" by Aharonov and Rohrlich. But to fully appreciate this one, I think you will need to go through a standard curriculum first.

Then, there is "Quantum computation and Quantum Information" by Nielsen and Chuang, which is meant as an introduction to the ideas of QM as applied to information theory for people with an informatics background mostly. So it also starts from an algebraic and conceptual approach.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ NB: Errata for the Aharonov/Rohrlich textbook can be found here. $\endgroup$ – Řídící Mar 29 '13 at 11:04

Anthony Sudbery, Quantum Mechanics.... is an excellent text which emphasises the theory and interpretation rather than the drill problems...in fact he is a mathematician and quantum information theorist and this book is not so useful for someone who needs to bone up on their perturbation theory and get ready for QED, it focuses on what it sounds like you are especially interested in.


For matrix mechanics (mixed with a bit of schrodinger), see the NPTEL Lectures.

For path integrals, see Feynman, Hibbs (and Styer) Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ +1 It's worth mentioning that the Feynman and Hibbs you refer to is the version "emended" by Styer and put into print since 2005 (as opposed to the original, which is out of print). See amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Path-Integrals-Emended/dp/… PS: I'd never seen "emend" in English before today!: the OED tells me that it is seldom used, it is the middle English root emenden of the more modern amend and, if used, always means to amend a scholarly work as opposed to simply change a general work. So it's Prof. Styer being pedantic! $\endgroup$ – Selene Routley Jan 15 '14 at 3:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.