/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7036432]

how into quantum physics?
anon retard here and all of this shit seems so abstract

[Anonymous No.7036441]

>>7036432
Learn math then:
Eisberg & Resnick's Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles
Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
Shankar's Principals of Quantum Mechanics
Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics

[Anonymous No.7036444]

Before understanding QM mathematically, you should understand it conceptually. Reading about the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is a good start.

[Anonymous No.7036459]

maybe something from popular science?

[Anonymous No.7036493]

The fabrics of the Cosmos by Brian Greene is awesome

[Anonymous No.7036496]

>>7036444
Understand it mathematically and forget you know about conceptualization

[Anonymous No.7036498]

>>7036444
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.7036502]

>>7036498
I'm fairly certain he just samefags these threads and probably created this one. Every thread that turns into a shitstorm some "other" poster is replying to him accepting his advice.

[Anonymous No.7037942]

>>7036444
What math is needed?

[Anonymous No.7037948]

>>7036444

There is no conceptual understanding of QM. It is all just mathematics. Fuck off troll.

10/10

OP, burn through a linear algebra book first.

[Anonymous No.7037968]

>>7037942
If you want to go deeper, literally all of it. For a babby intro QM course it should be sufficient though if you have the basics of functional analysis, spectral theory, Lie groups/algebras and their representations and solution theory of PDE.

>>7037948
The formalism of QM was developed on the basis of a conceptual model. Without the concept in mind, the math doesn't mean anything. A scientists is more than a number cruncher. Any computer can do that. Developing mathematical models of nature is a creative act and needs to be understood on a level deeper than only memorizing the formal results. If you want to be a pop sci fan, that's fine, but then please refrain from posting misleading advice for an OP who might want to _study_ science.

[Anonymous No.7038046]

>>7037968
>If you want to go deeper, literally all of it.

OP don't listen to this faggot. For understanding the basics (particle in a box, rigid rotor, quantum harmonic oscillator) you can get by with just Gen Physics and Calc II.

The key to QM is boundary conditions. If you understand what that means, you can conceptually understand the bare essentials of QM (ie, energy is quantized because it must satisfy boundary conditions).

If you want to go beyond that you're going to need to know some Lin Alg, Vector Algebra/Calculus, and Analysis as well as some E&M and maybe a tiny bit of chemistry. Knowing all of that will get you pretty far in "classical" QM

[Anonymous No.7038056]

>>7038046
I challenge you to derive the Feynman-Kac formula, using only calc 2 and linear algebra. Have you ever even taken a QM class?

[Anonymous No.7038065]

>>7038056
>derive the Feynman-Kac formula
That is completely unrelated to understanding quantum mechanics.

>Have you ever even taken a QM class?
Have you? You seem to have no idea how it is taught.

[Anonymous No.7038066]

>>7038065
>That is completely unrelated to understanding quantum mechanics.

There you heard it, guys. The Feynman path integral formalism is completely unrelated to quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.7038075]

>>7038066
>understanding quantum mechanics
>quantum mechanics
>same thing
a high school calc class could make basic qm easy to understand.
sure, you may not be able to do shit, but at least you get what others are doing.

[Anonymous No.7038078]

>>7038075
Don't respond to him.

You can do a lot without even knowing the phrase "path integral".

[Anonymous No.7038085]

>>7038075
Explain Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to a high school calc student with no knowledge of representation theory. You can't and you won't. It is more than obvious now that you have no formal education of QM at all. No, your pop sci youtube videos are not equivalent to university courses.

[Anonymous No.7038093]

>>7036444
MODS please fucking ban this guy already

[Anonymous No.7038096]

>>7038093
What is your problem? Why do you hate QM so much?

[Anonymous No.7038097]

>>7038096
go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.7038100]

>>7038096
Because some autist is making it seem like it's this amazing high level theoretical field when in reality the basic concepts are something a 5 year old can understand.

>inb4 really? you think you can explain spinors to someone who doesn't even know group theory??

[Anonymous No.7038107]

>>7038096
>QM
nobodies actually talking about QM here

[Anonymous No.7038119]

>>7038100
Are you saying the math requirements listed in >>7037968 are high? Then you've clearly never studied QM. It's insane what really high math they use in high-energy particle physics. And no, you cannot explain that to a kid. Neither can you study QM with only calc and linear algebra. Stop spreading lies and misinformation. It's fine to watch pop sci youtube videos as long as you don't pretend they are equivalent to formal education.

[Anonymous No.7038127]

>>7038119
kek all physics is child's play next to biology

[Anonymous No.7038155]

>>7037948
>There is no conceptual understanding of QM. It is all just mathematics.
I think what we need to fix QM education is to start people off with a thorough grounding in quantum phenomena, so they can form an intuitive sense of the kinds of things that happen because of quantization.

Similarly, before we teach people standard undergrad math, they should have a very good idea of what it's for. I mean like a whole course on the applicability of math, to give you a roadmap of what to study and why, so you're not just taking courses because they're requirements or prerequisites. I remember, when I started my first linear algebra course, I had a very hard time motivating myself because they just dove into the mechanics of it, with only a brief, vague hand-waving explanation of what it was good for. So you're learning to do these operations with no context for why they matter.

[Anonymous No.7038226]

>>7038155
I guess what I'm saying is that natural, effective learning starts in the middle and works its way out.

When you teach kids about animals, you don't start with "this is a chihuahua", "this is a clydesdale", or with an explanation of how living things are grouped into domains, kingdoms, phylums, etc., or with a course in organic chemistry, or with darwinian evolution. You start with "this is a dog", "this is a horse", "that's a bird". For arithmetic, you don't start with set theory or the difference between natural numbers and real numbers, but with "this is one cookie", "here are three balls". You begin with the things that are easiest to comprehend, not the things that are the most fundamental or simplest in an abstract sense, and progressively work toward more difficult things, using the easier things for context.

There's a tendency in formal education to skip building a context for knowledge, to start at the most abstract level and work toward specifics, simply because it's easiest for the educators to organize.

I find that the majority of students, after ten years of out of school, don't retain the skills they are certified to have learned, particularly in mathematics and hard sciences, and would have to work about as hard to pass their courses again as they did the first time through, because they were never able to put those skills in context and understand how to really use them. They just grind their way forward, playing the game the school lays out for them, passing tests on material they won't be able to cope with in their later life.

I'd say that most people with college degrees, by the age of 40, actually would not be able to get their degrees again if you took them away and sent them back to school, because they're not coming straight out of high school and no longer have the energy and flexibility of youth.

[Anonymous No.7038250]

>>7036432
Quantum physics is essentially a complex set of probabilities arising from observational data. Current understanding is that there is no underlying, simple, elegant explanation. It is complicated and messy. (Many have tried to reconcile this with a hidden variable theory, but even Einstein admitted defeat in this regard.)

The basics are thus:
All things in the universe occur in specific quantities. This includes times, distances, amounts of energy and matter.

The earliest demonstration of quantization resulting in randomization is illustrated by the double slit experiment. Diffraction patterns observed from continuous light sources being the same as those from single photon light sources seem to suggest a wave/particle duality that would imply a single photon passing through both slits before the wave collapses.

Something about the Copenhagen interpretation and Spekken's toy model