Books on Quantum Mechanics?

manjunaths asks: "I would like to ask the physicists here to recommend some books on Quantum Mechanics. For those of us who have a decent background in calculus and have done some advanced physics (field theory, network theory etc.,). The books must have math as well as theoretical explanation. If it has examples which explain/relate to real world physics that would be really nice."

Comments

No math at all

[fm6]

This one. (Ducks)

Heisenberg ruined it!

[Scaba]

Don't you know that because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the more you read about quantum physics, the less you can actually know about it? Stupid Heisenberg...

Eating Quantum Mechanics

[moc.tfosorcimgllib]

Remember, if you're already fast don't eat a Quantum Mechanic, it will only slow you down.
Ranged weapons are a good way of taking them out

And remember, a box with Schroedinger's cat isn't anything special, just a stupid physics joke =).

Re:Griffiths

[mph]

From my personal fortunes file:

Gauss's law is always true, but it is not always useful.

-- David J. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"
%
[A] potato would explode violently if the cancellation [of electrical
charge] were imperfect by as little as one part in 10^10.

-- David J. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"
%
Under the integral sign, then, you can peel a derivative off one
factor in a product and slap it onto the other one--it'll cost you a
minus sign, and you'll pick up a boundary term.

-- David J. Griffiths, "Introduction to Quantum
Mechanics"
%
[C]anning jars evidently do not obey Laplace's equation.

-- David J. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"
%
I would be delinquent if I failed to mention the archaic nomenclature
for atomic states, because all chemists and most physicists use it
(and the people who make up the Graduate Record Exam *love* this kind
of thing). For reasons known best to nineteenth-century
spectroscopists, l=0 is called "s" (for "sharp"), l=1 is "p"
("principal"), l=2 is "d" (for "diffuse"), and l=3 is "f"
("fundamental"); after that I guess they ran out of imagination,
because the list just continues alphabetically.

-- David J. Griffiths, "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics"
%
Robert Hooke (1635-1703). The equivalent of this force law was
originally announced by Hooke in 1676 in the form of a Latin
cryptogram: CEIIINOSSSTTUV. Hooke later provided a translation: ut
tensio sic vis [the stretch is proportional to the force].

-- Marion & Thornton, "Classical Dynamics of
Particles and Systems"
%

(That last one is a slightly off-topic bonus fortune, demonstrating how the nature of scientific publication has changed over the past few centuries.)