Is there something similar for Quantum Mechanics? Both MIT and Harvard use Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," but it seems to emphasize computation and symbol manipulation over physical intuition.
For a compuatational intuition of quantum mechanics, I recomment picking up quantum computation!
Step 1: Pick up Nielsen and Chuang, the standard textbook in the field.
Step 2: Solve the microsoft Q# Quantum Katas, which take you through basic quantum gates all the way up to quantum algorithms.
Step 3: Bedtime read Scott Aaronson's "quantum computing since Democritus" for a great _view_ into the way a researcher in quantum computing thinks about quantum phenomenon, entanglement, and all that.
I _just_ finished a course in college that did this, and I gained a lot from it: A lot of it made me "feel" QM better than the physics courses ever did.
There's [1], also by Sussman, which is "just" about differential forms and related math, and in the summary they refer to QM: "An explanation of the mathematics needed as a foundation for a deep understanding of general relativity or quantum field theory."
Having read through that it's not really directly relevant to quantum physics (at least what I learned in undergrad). It is super applicable to general relativity and electrodynamics though! It's a much shorter book than SICM but I still have yet to understand it through to the end. Tricky stuff, but fun to think about!
There's a book called "Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by R. I. G. Hughes which is split into two parts, the first describing the mathematical structure of QM and the second discussing philosophical interpretations. I haven't read "Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" so I don't know if it has anything in common besides the title, but I love SIQM. It's beautifully explained and approaches the subject from an unusual angle for an introductory book. It does have both these things in common with SICP, which was also co-written by Sussman.
If it was this review, it tells you nothing about the book: https//news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5706631. The Amazon reviews are a lot more informative.
That said, I agree that SIQM and SICP are totally different (again, I haven't read SICM), and I suspect the similar naming is a coincidence. In my mind, they're linked only by the name and and the qualities I mentioned before (they are two of my favourite books). I read SIQM as a physics undergraduate before I ever heard of SICP, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with computers. As a philosophy professor writing about quantum mechanics, I doubt the author was aware of the existence of SICP, let alone that he was attempting to "ride on its coattails" as the linked comment claims.
Regarding the names, SICP and SIQM use the terms "structure" and "interpretation" in very different ways. In SIQM it's structure in the sense of the mathematical structure of the theory (Hilbert spaces, operators, eigenvalues, etc) and interpretation in the sense of philosophical interpretations (eg. the Copenhagen interpretation. The title is therefore a straightforward description of the two separate sections of the book. With SICP I was never really clear on the meaning of the title, particularly the interpretation part: interpretation by a human or a computer, or is it deliberately ambiguous?
There's also a minor, but telling, difference in the titles: SIQM's title actually starts with "The".
What is physical intuition when you deal with quantum mechanics?
Connecting the math with a physical scenario, and highlighting how your intuitions are wrong, to help you develop new ones.
Feynman's Lectures on Physics starts with the 2 slit experiment, then talks about shining light on the holes to see which hole the electron goes through, then making the energy (wavelength) of the light lower (longer) to try to disturb it less.
Or that you shouldn't think of filters as just removing parts of the wave. For example, put unpolarized light through a vertically polarizing filter, then a horizontally polarized one. No light comes out. Then, in between the two, put a filter at 45 degrees. Now, you do get some light coming out of that horizontal filter.
The math tells you this, of course, but if you don't have an intuitive sense of how that maps to the physical world, you can end up e.g. not noticing where there's a mistake in your calculation that would be obvious it you thought about what it means physically.
