Reddit mentions of Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development

Griffiths > Eisberg > Sakurai > Zee > Peskin

Peres and Ballentine offer a more quantum information oriented approach, read em after Griffiths.

Shankar before Sakurai, after Griffiths.



In that order. Your best bet though, is to find the appropriate section in the nearest university library, spend a day or two looking at books and choose whatever looks most interesting/accessible. Be warned, it seems that everyone and their cat has a book published on quantum mechanics with funky diagrams on the cover these days. A lot of them are legitimate, but make little to no effort to ensure your understanding or pose creative problems.

Maybe Ballentine is what you are looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-A-Modern-Development/dp/9810241054

Edit: actually, one of my favourite resources is Landau & Lifshitz, Vol. 3. Very dense with information.

Slowly working through this book which gets recommended often in this subreddit. So far, it's shaping up to be everything I could want from a QM textbook! (details on what I mean by that if anyone's interested)

I'm also trying to learn a bit of compsci (specifically, algorithms and data structures), because it's something I'll almost certainly need to know at some point.

Quantum

Easy: Zettili, Comprehensive reference: Cohen-Tannoudji

or if you want more foundational books

Easy: Schumacher and Westmoreland, Comprehensive: Ballentine

> Leslie Ballentine's book
these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Development-Leslie-Ballentine/dp/9810241054

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Linear-Algebra-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/048663518X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542818674&sr=1-1&keywords=linear+algebra+Halmos

For what it's worth, I thought the first 3 (or maybe 4) chapters were pretty decent for an introduction to QM. It was mainly after perturbation theory where it got less good. Lucky for me, the professor who taught the second semester QM used the book mostly for the problems and supplementary reading.

I also have nothing against leaving things as problems in general, but feel that Griffiths takes it too far, the Stark effect problem being the main example that has stuck with me. Ultimately, some things are just too important to gloss over by leaving as a problem to the reader. A good instructor would certainly cover something like the Stark effect, but then it would be nice to have some text on it, too.

As for other books, Shankar is good, as is Bransden and Joachain's book. My all time favorite is this one by Ballentine. It is supposed to be a graduate level text, but I think it is very good in general, especially for undergrads who have already taken an introductory QM course. I used it extensively as a supplementary text in graduate QM and would have used it as an undergrad had I known of it then.