Jim Baggott

Apart from a very few places where the author has constructed a misleading sentence (and one such figure), this is simply superb.

The dedications is "To myself, aged 18" and in the preface the author says that this is the book that he wishes he had had when he first studied QM. I wish I'd had it too; it would have changed my life.

(Mind you, the way that QM *should* be taught would render this book unnecessary. But the sad fact is that, certainly in the 1970s, and, I believe, even today, QM is essentially taught in the same way that it was historically developed, which is bordering on malfeasance on the part of the teachers.)… (mer)

Outstanding.

For anyone with decent maths (e.g. university entry level, I guess) – basic differential calculus, basic vector calculus (e.g. grad, Laplacian), good algebra (i.e. equation munging) – and some physics, this is by far the best introductory book to quantum theory I've read. It's also a delightful and entertaining read. The chapter on Dirac's derivation of the relativistic wave equation is astonishing – even if you know the QED punchline. I also liked how the prologue put classical physics in context and introduced the Hamiltonian.

Baggott dedicates the book: To myself, aged 18, when I took my first class in quantum mechanics. And he's nailed it. I would have giveb my right arm for this book when I began to teach myself quantum theory – albeit armed with a maths degree, which is a enormous help with this topic.

Not a gripe, more a suggestion: Baggott, quite rightly, doesn't derive Maxwell's equations and instead points to Melia's, Electrodynamics. I think Griffiths's, Introduction to Electrodynamics, is more appropriate at this (and my) level.… (mer)

Baggott fascinatingly reviews and agonizes over the most prominent interpretations of quantum mechanics (IQMs). He doesn't use the term "psi-epistemic", but if he did he would equate it to "anti-realist" (and similarly equate "psi-ontic" to "realist"). I'm not at all sure this is fair, since people like Carlo Rovelli and David Mermin (no fools they) have thoroughly and persuasively argued that their IQMs (the relational and the QBist, respectively) do *not* fail to respect realism just because their role for wavefunctions is abstract rather than physical. But I have no quarrel with Baggott's negative attitudes toward the many-worlds IQM and IQMs that bring in human consciousness.… (mer)