/sci/ - Science & Math

everything is waves in an ocean of reality.. several oceans overlap... what you see is the top of the waves it looks like it disappears, but it really didn't...


/done

Watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?" on Youtube.

>>5395213
>>5395216
thanks for the advice of a 12 year old.

Try reading "an introduction to quantum mechanics" by David J Griffiths. That's what I've been doing. But make sure you're familiar with probability and differential equations before you read it.

Introduction to QM, Griffiths

Truly excellent, the standard at most universities.

Go to the science section of you library and pick up a book on modern physics.

I did this in High School. The name 'Quantum Mechanics' sounds daunting but it's not that difficult if you really think about it.

Also it will fuck your mind

No one "understands" quantum mechanics, anyone who says they do is lying.

>>5395261

>The name 'Quantum Mechanics' sounds daunting but it's not that difficult if you really think about it.

Lol'd hard.

You start with calculus, when you know how differential equations work, pick up Griffith's book. That will get you far enough.

Study classical mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics etc and then go on to quantum meachnics.

Feynman Lectures should give you a good red line.

>>5395207
Read "Quantum Mechanics" by Cohen-Tannoudji

T
H
A
N
K
S

E
V
E
R
Y
O
N
E
!
^_^

>>5395261

i tend to agree with this
its pretty sad how people are such basic and pretentious attention whores that they feel the need to horde anything they think makes them special. how particles behave isnt that big of a fucking deal

>>5395207
I was trying to learn it last summer before school started. I didn't get to far into it, but, you must have a pre-requesit in Differential calculus (like solving schrodinger equations) , and probability (Example solving BRA KET 's).
Probably the easiest book found was "Quantum mechanics for dummies" But even then it's quite a complex topic.

It's a might big topic, but I'm actually gonna try and get back into it after I read my discrete math book this winter.

I started with atomic orbitals at school. If you're into chemistry, it can help you a lot.

>>5395339
YOU'RE THE ATOMIC ORBITAL!

>>5395321
Lol yeh I know rite, somtimes particools (XD) are waves or particles, and when a human observes them they become a particle.
lol whats an integral

>>5395328
>BRA KETS
FUCK I STILL DON'T GET THESE.

Math requirements:
- Calculus (all courses)
- Differential Equations (Know how to solve basic ODE's, become a little be familiar with PDE's)
- Linear Algebra (Know about linear transformations, functions, and matrix equations)
- Statistics (know about probability and probability density functions)

Physics:
- Classics mechanics (have a good understanding on what force, work, energy, and oscillating waves are)
- Electricity and magnetism (speaks for itself)
- Introduction to quantum mechanics (obersive how energy is conserved in a quantum mechanics system)
- Learn about Dirac Notation

If you really want to know about quantum mechanics KNOW those topics, then pic up a more advanced book.

>>5395344

waves are a particles inability to cease to exist maaan. there is no particle wave duality faggot

>>5395350
Well, it is part of probability that deals with hilbert space.

Say you had 2 dice. And you made a matrix table for it. What are the possible outcomes?

7. So the most probable number is 7.
The Bra|c|ket notation in this case would be
<Die 1|Die 2>
and since the most common number is 7 then it'd look like this
<Die 1|7|Die 2>

I think this was what my teacher was trying saying to me. It's just a notation for a matrix table. The most common odds are dependent on what the BRA KET's are.

>>5395375
Correct me if I'm worng

>>5395321

my god what a sexy book
where did you find such a treasure?

>>5395376
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG!

>>5395375
Yeah, I think afterwards he was saying something like

It's all about finding that god damn electron, This is because the electron acts like a wave, but it's so random that it has a probability of being somewhere.

And then there was some way he proved the Heisenberg uncertanty principle from it... iunno, this also might help.

>>5395395
oops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude

First Learn:
Vector Calculus
Linear Algebra
Ordinary Differential Equations
Probability Theory (Both Continuous and Discrete)
Partial Differential Equations
Complex Variables
Real Analysis
Abstract Algebra (Group Theory, Group Representation Theory, Lie Algebra)
Functional Analysis/Hilbert Spaces/Measure Theory
Calculus of Variations
Basic Intro Physics Mechanics/E&M/Thermodynamics/Optics/Relativity
Lagrangian Mechanics and Hamiltonian Mechanics

Then you're ready for QM

All you need is calculus and a bit of linear algebra. Then read a good book on the subject, not Griffiths since that is quite shitty. Good books are those by Shankar (fairly easy), Sakurai (more advanced) and Ballentine (more advanced, good for concepts). Another book that is probably good but that I havent looked at is a fairly new one by Weinberg.

I want to understand quantum mechanics. I'm really good with concepts but I'm not that good at math. Can anyone summarize QM in layman's terms?

>>5395405
sore anybody can do it like that

but how can i learn quantum mechanics without so much math, because I hate to do math. I rather do this the smart and efficient way, and not get bogged down into to much math.

>>5395452
That's not how it works, son

>"bad at math"
>bad at thinking

>>5395458
>hate to do math

Then forget about physics and find some other edgy topic

>>5395458
Then go watch youtube videos. You'll never understand QM that way anyway

>>5395460
Einstein sucked at math! and he invented relativity!
This proves that you dont really need so much math as long as you have a good imagination

plus math is just super boring and destroys my creativity

if he did it so can I!

>>5395472
2/10

>>5395472
Oh so you're trolling

>>5395472
>>5395473

specifically this part:
>plus math is just super boring and destroys my creativity

destroyed your credibility

the more you troll, the better you'll get!

>>5395472
>Einstein sucked at math!
Say WHAT?

>>5395472
Einsteins 2 heros
-Newton
-Maxwell

Both heavy mathematicians.

>>5395475
im not trolling

1+1=2 thats it, there is nothing creative about it. its just so boring.

I think its better i dont study math, because then i dont get trapped in the no creativity box like most scientists. I can find solutions out of the box like einstein

but physics is math...But math is physics...

>>5395476
yes its true he just had the lower professors do the math for him, he just came up with the ideas,

Einstein actually failed highschool so he was bored in math class just like me. it proved that you dont really need math for theoretical physics

>>5395485

>>5395477

>newton
but newton was a fraud
his fame piggybacked almost entirely off christaan hyguens

einstein probably should have been gassed

>>5395480
>confuses basic arithmetic for actual mathematics
>implying 1+1=2 always

>>5395485
[citation needed]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

>>5395492
>racism in my /sci/

/pol/----------->
reddit-------->

Get your ignorant ass out of here boy!

>>5395485
>Einstein actually failed highschool
This is a complete myth that dumb people spread to make them feel better about themselves. Einstein excelled at math as a child. He taught himself differential and integral calculus by 15.

>>5395490
there is not much else to math, just a bunch of equations and numbers

quamtu, ,echanids is really cool because of liek the double slit experiment that is still a mystery. while in math evertyhing has a simple solution

>>5395498
no, its the mathmaticians what are constantly trying to make themselves feel good by inventing uses for math.

Math is totally pointless to study. I dont need someone in a lab coat to tell me that 1+1=2 thats just common sense.

>>5395502
>in math evertyhing has a simple solution

I hope you're trolling.

>>5395505
>I dont need someone in a lab coat to tell me that 1+1=2 thats just common sense.
>common sense.

nope

>>5395505

>>5395505
IKR?? when i first heard of schrodingers equations i was like wtf?? this is so useless i thought everyone already knew abt this

>>5395505
>math
>lab coat

Yeah, that chalk dust is really dangerous to get on your skin.

>>5395505
>implying math isn't founded upon intuition

>>5395505
>1+1=2
That's wrong boy, 1+i is ok though.

make me a sandwitch and shut the fuck up

By the way this is payback for when all you cunts where "trolling" biologists!

For a basic intro (the type most physics undergrads get in their second or third year and chemistry/biochemistry undergrads get in their third or fourth year), you really only need a year of calculus and classical mechanics. You'll need to do a few partial derivatives (which will take all of five seconds to learn if you have already mastered single-variable differential calculus) and you'll need some very rudimentary ability in solving differential equations. Most comprehensive physics textbooks (or physical chemistry textbooks) will contain a very suitable introduction to the subject.

Speaking from personal experience I can only recommend the following books:
*Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Giancolli (Not a huge fan of the book(s) overall, as it's too wordy. On the bright side, you can get only the third volume of the book for a fraction of the price of the full book and it will have all the relevant stuff)
*Molecular Quantum Mechanics by Atkins (it's a physical chemistry book, but it is still excellent)
*Physical Chemistry: A Molecular Approach by McQuarrie (I wouldn't recommend buying the book if you're not focused more on being a physical chemist than a physcist, but the book is still fantastic)
*Sears and Zemansky's University Physics by Young et. al. (Currently in it's 13th edition, this one is pretty much the gold standard for physics textbooks --and deservedly so-- it's used by MIT and most of the top schools. Grab the second volume if you want to get it in parts to save money)

>>5395537 >By the way this is payback for when all you cunts where "trolling" biologists!

this thread was great, math is so obvious, so epik, Thanks for opening my eyes xD

>back to reddit please ;)

>>5395544

I'm preety sure he is saying he wasn't serious.

/lit/ and /sci/ value their hurr durr intellect so much that it's so easy to rustle the jimmies out of them

>>5395473
>>5395475

I revise my score to 4/10 because your sheer persistence has managed to fool a new crop of tards

>>5395482
>math is physics

no, physics isn't math either. we just describe relations in physics in the language of math.

nobody knows what the fuck physics really "is", and I don't mean that in an edgy or popsci way.

Quantum mechanics is pretty simple when given in analogy with vectors.

First what is a vector. Can you write a vector on paper?
The best you can do is describe it relative to other vectors.
We define the i j and k vectors and use those. But you are just describing vectors using these other vectors. Can you write down exactly what the i j or k vectors are though? No they are abstract.

This is the same with a "state" in QM. Don't try to understand or write down the state itself because that is abstract, all we can do is (as with vectors) write them in terms of other states.
Thankfully these "unit" states are easily understood.

For example if we use "unit" states like spin up and spin down you can think of these as i and j unit vectors.
Now a state in QM might have a component along the spin up direction and a component along spin down. Which is written something like:
A |up> + B |down>
Where |up> and |down> are like our unit vectors. Then A and B are the components.

In QM we say its a superposition of both, but that does NOT mean it is both!
For example with Schrodinger's cat it is in a state which is NEITHER alive NOR dead, it is in a different state which can simply be represented by both.

>>5395207
"A brief history of time"
/thread

>>5395632
So that's how the states are represented. Notice there is no uncertainty, states are definite and DETERMINISTIC. They evolve in a completely predictable way governed by the schrodinger equation.

The robability comes from observation and is given by the coefficients A and B in the example.
Where |A|^2 is the probability that after observing it the particle will collapse into the state
|up>
same with B and |down>

>>5395646
The missing peice of the big picture is operators.
I can go on if someone is actually reading what I've written

>>5395472
10/10
I lol'd.
Nothing like a good ironic shitpost in /sci.

>>5395321

shit motherfucker is that the 1945 2nd edition "campy cover"
how did you-