Re: [Phys-l] qm texts other than Copenhagen

["Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

I rather liked Ballentine's book and actually taught a course using it once.  I wish it wasn't out of print.  It has a very interesting take on the standard graduate QM course.


_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D 
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu 
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Karim Diff
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:04 AM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] qm texts other than Copenhagen
>
> It's been a while since I've read but I remember a book by Leslie
> Ballentine
> (Quantum Mechanics) that went through the standard treatment but also
> discussed extensively the issue of interpretation. The book was
> published in
> 1989 so its treatment is more recent than Bohm's.
>
> Karim Diff
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Joseph Bellina
> <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>wrote:
>
> > If you are interested in how it is that the Copenhagen interpretation
> > is dominant, you might want to read Quantum Dialogue by Mara Beller,
> > published by Chicago.
> >
> > joe
> >
> > Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
> > Professor of Physics
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:23 AM, William Maddox wrote:
> >
> > > From: WC Maddox
> > >
> > > Those interested in the issue of determinism in QM may want to read
> > > this
> > > article:
> > >
> > > Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?
> > >
> > > American Journal of Physics -- February 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 2,
> > > pp.
> > > 143-146
> > >
> > > Discusses a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like
> > > deterministic^ interpretation of the Schrödinger equation is
> proposed
> > > before the Born^ probabilistic interpretation and argue that in
> such a
> > > context the^ Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have
> not
> > > achieved great popularity^ among physicists.
> > >
> > >
> > > End Message
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/24/2010 10:34 PM, John Denker wrote:
> > > > The current thinking among experts on the subject is that
> > > > Thoreau got it right:  that which interprets least interprets
> > > > best.  The equations of motion get the right answer, and do
> > > > not really require interpretation.
> > > >
> > > > 2) If the real objective is to "preserve determinism" then
> > > > the whole game is not worth playing.  The field has progressed
> > > > since the 1950s.  There is absolutely no chance that a hidden
> > > > variable theory of the sort Bohm was talking about could be
> > > > correct.  John Bell and Alain Aspect have had something to
> > > > say about it.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Forum for Physics Educators
> > > > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > > > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Forum for Physics Educators
> > > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l