>>11652328Is that really what they call "modern...?" Both those equations are from just after the first quarter of the 20th century.... I guess they're using modern notation?
Griffiths is definitely the right place to start for quantum mechanics. Then I recommend Sakurai (Modern qm, then Advanced qm) for graduate level material, which may be what you're looking for - a pedagogical book which goes through QM in concrete and crystal clear language. If you're not familiar with PDE's or linear algebra, you might want to freshen up, though most physicists aren't experts and only learn enough to "do" the math - there's no need for proofs.
As for interpretation, questions about implications of equations (why is it necessary to introduce imaginary numbers? [it's not, but it makes things dramatically simpler and I want to say Pauli or someone similar tried out a formulation which didn't make use of i and realized it was a total waste of time]) - that really comes from reading literature. The basics of interpretation are provided in clear language in Griffiths' - trying to interpret beyond discussing predicting outcomes of experiments is still an open quesiton which frequently leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of philosophy.
If you really want to get into "modern" Physics, depending on what you mean you'll need to move onto the Dirac equation which will put you in the 40's, QFT and especially QED, and finally the various theories which supersede QED. You'll need a good understanding of classical mechanics and statistical mechanics, the theory of lie groups and lie algebras, and differentiable manifolds. If you really want to be a big shot, you'll need to study GR as well, and that will let you explore cosmology and black hole physics, if that's what you're into.
But by that point you might as well just apply for grad school. Why are you doing this to yourself anyways?
