Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum

This is an extremely difficult book to review. Though a layman in this field, fortunately, I have researched quantum mechanics and read enough books over the last few years on the subject to do a reasonably informed job of covering the salient points:
1) I have no doubt the author feels he has attempted to construct this book in a manner that can be understood fairly easily by many. Not to be insulting to anyone, but this book is definitely not for the novice.
2) Even with some background in quantum theory, there are many portions of the dialog that went way over my head, as I suspect, it will for many.
3) If you are an average reader interested in quantum physics, I have found several other books that cover this suject in a more readily understandable way. I suggest Machio Kaku or Bernard Haisch.
4) If you are a science student - college level or above, this book could be very insightful and of value for you.

So why Four Stars??? While the ultimate value of this book will be determined by each individual reader, it is critically important that a more widespread understanding of the scientific importance of quantum mechanics is shared by a larger audience. This book contributes to that cause and contains valuable information.

This book presents quantum mechanics from an extremely formal and mathematical point of view. The historic experiments and issues that led to the development of quantum mechanics are largely ignored. Without that history, it would seem to be be difficult, if not impossible, for the new learner to understand the motivation for the developments of quantum mechanics, or for the view of nature and physics that it introduced. Such a presentation also gives the impression (probably unintentional by the authors) that physics is a very theoretical subject with not very important experiments somewhere in the background. The opposite is in fact the case.
I would recommend this book only to those who already know quantum mechanics at an intermediate (beginning grad school) level and who might benefit from a more theoretical, abstract, and much more formal approach than is in most introductory to intermediate textbooks. For that audience it I think it could be successful. But I don’t see how a new learner would appreciate or understand quantum mechanics from this text. In the prologue the authors state that ”You don’t need to be a physicist to take this journey...” I think it would help a lot if you already were.

If we were to be completely honest with ourselves, we would admit that quantum weirdness has been at the center of physics at least since the Einstein - Bohr debates at the turn of the century, debates about the true nature of the atom.

The fact that even then experiments had confirmed resoundingly that this weirdness is indeed a fundamental part of our reality, and that as a consequence, quantum weirdness should have been made a formal part of the “Standard Model” many decades ago, says more about the sociology and psychology of the pedagogy of physics than it does about Quantum Physics (QP), or quantum weirdness itself.

Having watched volume I of Dr. Suskind’s book on U-tube, I bought this book only to read as a follow-up, fully expecting to be fed the normal reset menu diet that tacks QP on as an appendage, the caboose as it were, to the tail end of the “Standard Model.”

However, I was pleasantly surprised that that is not exactly the case here. This is a wholesale formal full-body remake of the “Standard Model” from the ground up — that is, from its most fundamental axioms on up —and beautifully done too.

Here, QP is finally being given its proper place in the pedagogy of physics, as its axioms are incorporated seamlessly into the front end instead of at the tail end of the “Standard Model.”

Even so, seeing is believing. Because of the fundamental weirdness of QP, the idea that its axioms might serve adequately as the “foundation stone” for the “Standard Model,” at first, and on its face, seemed quaint if not completely risky — even to me.

But once the authors got down to business, and worked their way through the basic axioms of physics up the chain of logic using as desiderata the experimental results of quantum weirdness, the revised model was no longer quaint, or just plausible, but now seemed both necessary, and arguably, even sufficient.

Just to see all of the quantum weirdness explained in a formal way, is alone worth the price of the book. Seeing it seamlessly incorporated into the “Standard Model” for me was a complete surprise and is therefore an unforgettable bonus.

If it has not been done already, I predict that Dr. Suskind’s foray into this rather implausible project, will become the new foundation of the “Standard Model.” Five stars

Fascinating! As a behavioral neuroscientist, I would like to warmly thank Pr Susskind for providing - at last - the non-physicists with a serious glimpse at what quantum mechanics is all about. I feel that everyone deserves to have access to the theoretical rudiments of quantum mechanics. We are much too big to directly experience the quantum world! It is thus a unique human experience to see how we, humans, have been progressively able to build a powerful mathematical framework that helps us to overcome our inherent physical infirmity and successfully jump over the quantum gap.

Along with reading this book, I also watched Prof. Susskind's lectures, which are available on the web. Anyone with some background in linear algebra will have no problem with the math in the book or the lectures. What is difficult is connecting the ideas and mathematics to something in the real world.

Reading this book I felt like I was studying theoretical math, that somehow, tangentially, applied to the real world of electrons and particles. This left me with the feeling that something was missing. Quantum mechanics was not born from theoretical physics, in the way string theory was. Quantum mechanics was a reaction to real experiments and problems in explaining these experiments. Yet there is nothing in this book that ties the quantum theory to its history and reality. Even when the experiments were described, I didn't understand how to tie them to the mathematics.

Learning theory without anything real to relate it to made it hard for me to hang on to this material. I read the chapters and I think that I understand the math that is presented. But it's all abstract theory without flesh. Yet quantum mechanics is a critical part of the real world. Quantum mechanics helps explain why the transistors in an integrated circuit can only be made so small before they leak charge and become useless from noise. Quantum coherence appears to be an important part of the function of chlorophyll, the molecule on which most life on earth depends, either directly or indirectly. All of chemistry involves quantum mechanics (of electron probability shells). Quantum mechanics is not just an abstract theory, but a critical part of the world around us. But you'd never know it from reading this book.

This book is poorly written and uses a large amount of technical jargon. The technical jargon would not be an issue if the jargon were defined, but the author fails to define new words on multiple occasions. Additionally, the author uses personal pronouns and passive voice, which confuses the subject matter.

If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, look no further. Make no mistake, however; this is not a "pop science" book on quantum mechanics because this book contains problems for the reader to do. Like the former volume of The Theoretical Minimum series did for classical mechanics, this is perhaps one of the best books a physics autodidact (who also knows a bit of calculus) can read to get a good, albeit somewhat technical, grasp on quantum mechanics. The chapter on entanglement alone is probably worth the price of the book as it clearly explains what it is and sheds light on the famous EPR experiment, all without any apologies to (or nary a mention of) mysticism. This is hard core science writing at its very best. Bravo!

Friendly and yet thorough and rigorous i.e. a pure challenge.

It's advisable to study the book in parallel to the video series (same title), as both are nicely interconnected.

With one exception though : the harmonic oscillator is very well treated in the book but is not part of that video series.

In fact, you'll find it in Susskind's other video series "Modern Physics : Quantum Mechanics".

An interesting route in Susskind's on-line courses would be :

1. Classical Mechanics
2. Quantum Mechanics
3. Special Relativity
4 General Relativity

Note that the three first on-line courses are backed by wonderful books... The latest being "Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory", published in september 2017.

Somewhere around chapter 6 I followed the exercise and did my first quantum mechanics calculation, and it felt great. In fact, the first time I tried going through it, I felt that I had messed up. The book had made me familiar enough with the subject that I could FEEL my mistake. Sure enough, I had used the wrong eigenvalues. I went through a second time and the result made a lot more sense.

I will never be a professional physicist, but quantum weirdness comes up in the most interesting conversations, so learning enough of the math to talk about the basics with people (or call people on their BS) really appealed to me. Also, Black Hole War made me a big fan of Susskind.

This is a very readable intro to the mathematics of QM by an excellent instructor.
However, I challenge anyone, including Prof Susskind, to understand the new Chinese quantum radar based on this book.

This is the second part of Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum" series, tackling the world of quantum mechanics. I like the writing style and anecdotes. The book starts gently but picks up quickly, leaving a casual reader behind. The concepts are difficult. The authors make them easier to understand, but by no means easy. It is a serious book covering a serious subject... seriously. Everyone who perseveres through the whole book will take away something; few readers will grasp everything - at least the first time through it.

I really recommend publishing Advanced Quantum Mechanics too. This book strongly encouraged me studying Quantum Mechanics further and I study the advanced course on the web to find the more you study further the more this course get interesting. I hope someday all the courses are published and translated in Japanese.

Although this book claims to be written as an introduction to the subject, the fundamentals are explained poorly. Dirac's notation and his own personal vernacular in particular were unclear. Dirac's notation, matrices and the bits of linear algebra were told to you, not explained in any way. Youtube videos have done better. Even having a sizable background in quantum physics things were left out or not explained that should have been. If not for my prior knowledge, I doubt I could've read it. There are better alternatives for self teaching.

A gem of a book for serious non professional physicists who is trying to learn and understand QM on their own.
I also believe any QM student will benefit from this book as key concepts are discussed in a very understandable manner.
I would reccommend anyone thinking of buying this book to first view Prof Susskind's ten 2 hour lectures on Quantum Mech M that are on the Stanford site.
The material is written around those lectures and it is not like most typical classroom QM approach and is focused on conceptual understanding and just the right amount of mathematics to explain the central ideas.
It would also be beneficial to have some background on classical physics ie Hamitonians etc before embarking on this book. This is covered in a previous book -The Theorectical Minimum which is also based on his continuing education lectures for non professional physicists.
The mathematics prerequiste are modest -- the level where most engineering students can handle.

Taken with the lectures from Stanford ,this book makes complete sense and altough thin in more difficult examples, it is thick in conceptual content. If you dont view the lectures, this book structure may seem kind of odd for a typical QM book.
Thank you Prof Susskind and Mr Friedman for taking the time to write this incredible book.

Professor Susskind illustrates the process that has occurred in physics over the last 200 years. It was early in the 19th Century that physics departments in Germany started hiring mathematicians to teach the more mathematical aspects of physics, such as Newtonian mechanics and Eulerian rotations. These guys were hired as 'ordinary' professors, while the real professors focused on experimental physics because physics is an empirical science. It is how nature behaves, not how we think idealizations behave. Nature surprises us, our minds only confirm our assumptions. Mathematics never explains; only summarizes. For further discussions on this key link between Math and physics, see my review of "Infinitesimal".

This process grew steadily, so by 1900 an increasing number of new students entering physics were expected to be competent in mathematics. Today, almost ALL students studying physics for an undergraduate degree are recruited from the small pool of high-school students who are very capable of learning 'tough' mathematics, even those who wish to pursue an experimental career. There are now more professors of theoretical physics than experimentalists, possibly because they only need a salary and not a huge budget for mega machines. This has resulted in the effective hijacking of physics (or were they 'cuckoos'?). Physics has now become so theoretical that no real progress is occurring today, except for its more theological aspects, such as the origin of the universe or what might be happening in the centre of a so-called 'Black Hole'. As a result, we now have a plethora of theoretical objects to choose from: strings, quarks, Higgs bosons, etc. with a Standard Model of over 61 'unique' objects (so-called 'elementary particles'), most of which have NOT been observed but only inferred as possibilities from ambiguous experiments. This is the restoration of medieval scholasticism (see Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" ).

This sorry state reached its zenith in 1925/26 when the mathematical physicists of that era invented the mathematical theory known as quantum mechanics (QM). This theory has only been able to extend (mathematically) the visualizable models of the atom first proposed by Bohr and Sommerfeld in the previous 15 years. The extensions were minor, such as the mysterious two-state property of the electron proposed by Pauli and given the misleading name "spin". The proponents of QM, encouraged by the ambitious Heisenberg, tried to force their own interpretation of this mathematics on the physics community; it is referred to as the "Copenhagen Interpretation". A quick Google search on 'interpretations of QM' will show that there are now at least a dozen alternatives because the Copenhagen model fails to relate back to a meaningful understanding of the world. This problem has puzzled physicists ever since the Solvay Conference of 1927 when Einstein challenged Bohr directly. Contrary to the perceived group-think that Einstein retired 'defeated' from this encounter more and more non-mathematical physicists express their despair over this situation (see "The Quantum Ten" by Sheilla Jones to see the confusion arising at that time). For an impenetrable discussion of the current "understanding" of QM, challenge yourself by trying to read Bernard d'Espagnat's "On Physics & Philosophy". Mathematics, like philosophy can easily fall into the trap of over abstraction - a process that certain cultural groups excel at. The danger with this approach is that it soon leaves reality behind and you never know when.

Now we have another book from one of the leaders of the current hijacking gang who pretends that the reader of his book will be able to start doing physics just from learning his mathematics. Wrong, they will learn a smattering of Linear Algebra and will have no idea what is really going on. They will not learn about electrons, they will remain ignorant of the significance of 'spin', they will learn nothing about the history of physics etc. because mathematicians view physics as a branch of applied math - a timeless subject that can be taught like geometry. Yes, they will be able (eventually, perhaps) to join the decreasing circle of theoretical physicists, who are still congratulating themselves while they pretend to do physics but this is NOT what physics is about. Physics (or Natural Philosophy) is its history, how a series of splendid experiments have shown us how nature really behaves; not a set of thought-experiments that confirm what we first thought of, nor of isolated ideal systems that can be described by simple, linear mathematics.

What is never said is that theoretical physics since Newton, has only "solved" two real world problems with mathematics. It is not a coincidence that both of these are the two-body problem of astronomy and the hydrogen atom. These comparable systems consist of only two isolated objects that spend all their time interacting with one another, so their dynamics can be reduced to a one variable problem defined by a single parameter: the infamous 't' for "time". Newton's solution was 'good enough' to calculate the observed periods, while the atomic problem can calculate the difference in energy levels between two long-term average "states" (whose significance lies at the heart of the mystery of QM). Embarrassingly, neither solution extends to even three continuously interacting objects. The astronomical hurdle persuaded Newton to give up physics and still remains an unsolved challenge today (the infamous "3-body problem"). The comparable atomic problem has great difficulties just simply "curve-fitting" the helium atom with its two electrons, whose mutual interactions are ignored - as they are in all the other, more complex atoms that have been falsely claimed to have been explained by QM in the periodic table. There has been a major Confidence Trick running through physics for a long time, both classically and at the atomic level.

So, if your aim is to study mathematics while being paid as a physicist this may well be the book for you to start with but don't fall into the trap that you think that you are really doing physics; if that is your goal then polish up your intuition and experimental skills; meanwhile read a lot of books about the evolution of the experimental history of physics - this is the only way to (slowly) gain a real understanding of nature.

However, if you want to try to understand quantum mechanics you should read the first 8 chapters of David Bohm's "Quantum Theory" - tough, but worth the effort.

The large number of enthusiastic reviews makes my point - too many readers today are competent in mathematics to read these many books that claim to explain quantum mechanics. So, they can follow along with the math and already believe that mathematics is the magic spell that "explains" the world - RUBBISH, math is a summary (using timeless rules) of what is essentially a time-driven world.
Where does Susskind explain WHY the mathematics of waves is appropriate to the particle known as the electron? What we are building here are more technocrats, who can crank the math handle without knowing why.

If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, look no further. Make no mistake, however; this is not a "pop science" book on quantum mechanics because this book contains problems for the reader to do. Like the former volume of The Theoretical Minimum series did for classical mechanics, this is perhaps one of the best books a physics autodidact (who also knows a bit of calculus) can read to get a good, albeit somewhat technical, grasp on quantum mechanics. The chapter on entanglement alone is probably worth the price of the book as it clearly explains what it is and sheds light on the famous EPR experiment, all without any apologies to (or nary a mention of) mysticism. This is hard core science writing at its very best. Bravo!

When I studied physics as a freshman in college, we had some calculus but not much in the way of linear algebra. Therefore, quantum was taught using wave functions and simple partial differential equations which were generally solved by separating variables (factoring). I asked my professor if he thought of an electron as a particle or as a solution to a differential equation and he told me to start thinking of it as a solution. End of physics for me (I actually very much liked this professor - I just thought the subject was too untethered to reality compared to my high school experience).

Now, two times through this book and one time through the lectures on line and back to my college math books to bone up on Hermite polynomials and ladder operators, I finally think I get some of this.

When I say I get it, I can now start with a problem and work out the answer without looking back at the text or at the video.

This is abstract but ultimately it is not hard. I have read the other two "minimum" books and they are really harder but somehow easier to understand. But when I try to work through those problems, I have much more math to get through.

Anyone who wants to get some insight into quantum should wok through the book, paper and pencil in hand. You will be rewarded.