/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2974214]

Hi /lit/
It has suddendly occured to me that I need to 'understand' ( as in, have a somewhat clear picture of) Quantum Mechanics. Do any of you know of a good book explaining it in laymans term, not using to much math? An article or something else is great too.
I know that I should be crucified just asking for this, but maybe some of you can see through the bloodred hatred against a humanist taking on science, and actually just help me.

I'm not searching for entry-entry-level, like popularscience og something like that, but more of the kind that takes its readers serious, but leaves out the complex math.

Thank you!

[Anonymous No.2974215]

>>2974214
>I want to understand quantum physics, but without any of the math

[Anonymous No.2974224]

>>2974214
it was my understanding that Dr. Hawking was still the standard in this area. perhaps you've heard of a little volume by the name of A Brief History Of Time, OP?

[Anonymous No.2974227]

>>2974224
Yes but I've also heard that Hawkings is more or less been proven wrong on most accounts since then. Maybe that doesn't matter in the case of a brief history of time?

>>2974215
I'm pretty sure it's possible. If you note that I wrote that I don't expect to understand it completely, but just to get a coherent picture of the idea.

[Anonymous No.2974230]

>>2974214
Quantum mechanics IS math. You cannot understand it without math. Because the math is what makes sense in the quantum world. Everything to do with uncertainty, and counterfactual definiteness or whatever weird results you hear about are just metaphysical attempts to grasp what is shown to us through the math, they are "interpretations" and there are many competing ones but they're not empirically meaningful, just ways of interpreting. Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, and I'm sorry but it simply cannot be understood but through the math.

[Anonymous No.2974232]

>>2974227
>I'm pretty sure it's possible. If you note that I wrote that I don't expect to understand it completely, but just to get a coherent picture of the idea.
its not, its really not.

[Anonymous No.2974239]

>>2974227
>Yes but I've also heard that Hawkings is more or less been proven wrong on most accounts since then.

No, not at all. A Brief history of time is exactly that. It's a history of physics, including our understanding of time, space, matter and the various laws that have come and gone from Galileo to modern string theorists. There is nothing ambiguous in it at all. It will start you off with a basic understanding of light, background radiation, the Doppler shift, gravity, and take you all the way to the anti-quarks. If you get the illustrated version you will no trouble understanding anything.

What you are referring to regarding 'been proven wrong' is Hawkings theory's on creation, included in his most recent book. He claims that no matter was needed in the creation of the universe, just gravity. It is this theory which is hotly debated.

[Anonymous No.2974242]

As soon as you take out the math, it becomes pop science. Thus, it is pop science that you are looking for.

[Anonymous No.2974245]

mathS, it has an 's' at the end. you Americans and your bastardisation of my language.

[Anonymous No.2974246]

>>2974245
What does "bastardisation" mean?

[Anonymous No.2974247]

>>2974214
Anyone saying it IS math is bullshitting, they've maybe been impressed by some equations written on a board somewhere. The best general introduction I've read are Open University course books, they're undergrad level written for people with no previous experience. They go through a very large amount of history and theory in a very clear and concise manner. Beyond that, have a listen to some of the science In Our Time programmes, and you could try The Teaching Company lectures too. People I know who've really "got" it read things like the Quantum Dot and In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, those who really didn't read things contrasting Chaos Theory with Quantum theory. There are some good books that contrast them well, but it just seems to confuse a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.2974250]

>>2974246
He means bastardization.

[Anonymous No.2974254]

>>2974250

lol no

[Anonymous No.2974255]

>>2974250
Fucking Oxford Dons. Is everything sacred forevermore?

[Anonymous No.2974257]

>>2974247
Oh, I'm not bullshitting. You simply quantum mechanics very much is math. And you cannot have understanding of it but through math. All pop-science books can offer are interpretations, and those are no more quantum mechanics than the healing power of crystals is materials science.

[Anonymous No.2974260]

>>2974254
>>2974255

Sulphur:

"The Royal Society of Chemistry ‘decided’ that ‘to avoid confusion’ all UK textbooks and examination papers should henceforth adopt what is thought of in the UK to be an American spelling, Sulfur."

[Anonymous No.2974261]

>>2974255

> implying lamenting the decline of standards is a bad thing
> implying oxford dons all study English
> implying all oxford dons are English
> implying they're even called dons
> implying
>implying
> implying

[Anonymous No.2974262]

>>2974257
If you knew anything of worth in QM, you'd know it is famous for relying on mathematically unsound concepts like renormalisation. It's like people who think fluid mechanics is all maths, you really couldn't be further from the truth.

[Anonymous No.2974263]

But, guys, common, I can't learn maths at that level, I'm already halfway through my masters degree.

Wat do? half the math I know i can't remember.
Damn

[Anonymous No.2974264]

>>2974261
The -ize thing is part of what's called "Oxford spelling".

[Anonymous No.2974267]

>>2974262
You are confused. The point is not the method it is derived, it is the results which must be understood mathematically.

[Anonymous No.2974266]

>>2974214

"Good luck."

[Anonymous No.2974270]

>>2974267
>it is the results which must be understood mathematically.
1. This is just another interpretation of QM
2. Not at all, which is why one spends a lot of time considering how to possibly harm cats in different ways. One must always consider the their results in some form of context, mathematics is more about building up an argument or particular model/part of a model.

[Anonymous No.2974275]

>>2974270
>1. This is just another interpretation of QM
No its not.
>2. Not at all, which is why one spends a lot of time considering how to possibly harm cats in different ways. One must always consider the their results in some form of context, mathematics is more about building up an argument or particular model/part of a model.
One doesn't need to, one can be inclined to, however what science requires is only testable prediction, everything else window dressing and metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.2974312]

>>2974275
"QM is nothing more than mathematics" is an interpretation, albeit a poor and ill-educated one.
>however what science requires is only testable prediction
You can't get that with mathematics alone. It also isn't the case.

[Anonymous No.2974317]

>>2974312
>"QM is nothing more than mathematics" is an interpretation, albeit a poor and ill-educated one.
It is not an interpretation, because it does not interpret. The mathematical models are necessary, it simply does not posit other factors which are unsubstantiated and unnecessary.
>You can't get that with mathematics alone.
Of course not, the point however is you cannot get it without mathematics
>It also isn't the case.
But it is.

[Anonymous No.2974342]

>>2974317
>It is not an interpretation, because it does not interpret.
You might want to read before you post: the interpretation is made by the one who interprets, not the other way round. You have a view of what QM is, that is your interpretation, simple as.
>The mathematical models are necessary
Not really. Even if they were, they're still built upon things like analogies (like up and down spin on an electron), the models go a lot further than just mathematics.
>But it is.
It isn't. Much of QM revolves around work that comes from untestable thought experiments.

[Anonymous No.2974364]

>>2974214

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosophy-Revolution-Modern-Science/dp/1573926949

[Anonymous No.2974366]

>>2974342
>You might want to read before you post: the interpretation is made by the one who interprets, not the other way round. You have a view of what QM is, that is your interpretation, simple as.
That is not what a QM interpretation is, nor is it what I said. Quantum mechanics cannot be divorced from the math, and this is not an interpretation.
>Not really. Even if they were, they're still built upon things like analogies (like up and down spin on an electron), the models go a lot further than just mathematics.
Without the mathematical models you're just playing a guessing game. They are necessary to make rigorous predictions, ie to be science. It doesn't matter what they're built from.
>It isn't. Much of QM revolves around work that comes from untestable thought experiments.
If it is untestable it is neither science nor QM

[Anonymous No.2974380]

>>>/sci/5050515

[Anonymous No.2974388]

>>2974366
>Without the mathematical models you're just playing a guessing game.
With or without them we are playing a "guessing game". The rhetorical framework around QM is more complicated than "just maths", and where maths is used one is simply making a particular kind of analogy to a particular kind of system. You don't NEED maths to make analogies though.

As far as interpretation and what science and QM is, I don't really care about a view privvy only to some guy on the internet.

[Anonymous No.2974397]

>>2974388
>As far as interpretation and what science and QM is, I don't really care about a view privvy only to some guy on the internet.
How terribly tedious your life must be that you've dedicated such time to attempting to refute something you don't care about.

[Anonymous No.2974402]

>>2974397
I'm replying in between checking the stock market and watching KoTH, I'll tell ya hwat. Your ideas about QM and science just ain't right. They're asinine. So I kicked your ass.

[Anonymous No.2974403]

>>2974388
>You don't NEED maths to make analogies though.

The analogies however don't matter, only that there are concrete numerical predictions. I don't care how you get the, your dog could tell you the formula for an analytic solution of the 3 body problem in a syphilitic fever dream. The only thing that matters is that predictions it makes are valid. I am not claiming that QM follows some magic perfect consistent derivation from mathematical axiomatic grounds a priori. Only that it is a set of mathematical assertions and relations which are used to make testable predictions. Trying to escape those assertions and predictions and talk of it in metaphysical terms is neither productive, valid, nor is it QM.

[Anonymous No.2974404]

>>2974402
My ideas? I know this is /lit/, but you do realize there is more than one person on the internet. I'm just mocking you for spending time on something you claim to care nothing about.

[Anonymous No.2974423]

>>2974403
>The only thing that matters is that predictions it makes are valid
Really isn't. Your argument is now something like"Only mathematics gives us the tools to make valid predictions", and this is not the case. It can help to clarify certain ideas about how we're thinking about something, and this can help form certain standards (like accuracy. We can have a benchmark like a mathematical description of what is "good" or "reasonable" accuracy, the thing it is describing is not itself mathematical, nor is the idea of accuracy itself necessarily mathematical). You may be able to use mathematics to put together what a "valid prediction" looks like, but it's only one description made with one way of building a description.

[Anonymous No.2974426]

>>2974404
I was hoping there'd be more thought to their argument than things like "I think anything that isn't mathematical in QM isn't QM". It's disappointing, but it's not like I come on here to be productive, so I can take it.

[Anonymous No.2974696]

Modern Physics by Tipler