How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics?

File: 21 KB, 460x259, EE_AppliedQuantumMechanics_EE222.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 09:26:58 2017 No.9337077 [Reply] [Original]

How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 09:28:52 2017 No.9337081 >>9337077 its ok, i guess

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 09:45:18 2017 No.9337107 >>9337077 It's a fucking buzzword.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:05:13 2017 No.9337141 >>9337077 >How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics? not science or math

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:05:41 2017 No.9337142 >>9337141 What is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:06:12 2017 No.9337143 >>9337142 >What is it? wishful thinking

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:40:33 2017 No.9337174 >>9337077 Im triggered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:43:30 2017 No.9337175 >>9337077 50% good 50% bad desu

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:48:49 2017 No.9337180 aroused

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:58:21 2017 No.9337192 I don't know until I take a look

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 10:58:39 2017 No.9337193 So what exactly is a "measurement"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:00:55 2017 No.9337195 >>9337143 >>9337141 >most successful theory in the history of physics >not science >wishful thinking Your uneducated is showing. That said, pilot wave theory is the only true view of the quantum world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:34:12 2017 No.9337264 >>9337195 It's Saturday, i.e. the teenyboppers are here being retarded. Just eat popcorn and laugh at them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 11:37:36 2017 No.9337271 >>9337077 Quantum mechanics is alright. Its main shortfall is that it's introduced too non-rigorously and houses some of the worst notations due to physicists lacking even a modicum of intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 12:56:43 2017 No.9337452 >>9337077 Idk. There are pros and cons at the same time. I'll be sure when I check it out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:04:48 2017 No.9337469 >>9337195 didn't Bell's theorem show that pilot wave and any other local hidden variable models make incomplete predictions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:19:51 2017 No.9337512 >>9337077 Le quirky weirdness amirite reddit xD

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 13:59:06 2017 No.9337607 >>9337077 Why don't you go discuss your feelings somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:21:00 2017 No.9337660 >>9337469 Nope. John Bell himself was actually a fan of pilot wave theory. Google it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:23:52 2017 No.9337668 >>9337469 Bells theorem says LOCAL hidden variables cannot explain quantum mechanics. Pilot wave theory is most frequently explained using non-local hidden variables. This is an important distinction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:35:31 2017 No.9337709 >>9337668 Oh, cool. Any books on pilot wave you'd recommend?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:38:44 2017 No.9337719 >>9337660 >>9337668 http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XI Why is popsci so obsessed with pilot wave?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:34:19 2017 No.9337858 >>9337719 All popsci I have seen presents the Copenhagen interpretation, or similar. They could not make the undead cat meme without it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:36:15 2017 No.9337862 It makes people mad because it’s unintuitive. Personally, it creeps me out. It makes me feel like our world is artificial.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:40:26 2017 No.9337877

>>9337077
Honestly it's what made me get really into physics.
During my engineering studies I disliked classical physics and was exclusively motivated by the math courses.
But then I discovered QM and its sweet, sweet hamiltonian formalism (yes it also exists in classical mechs, no we didn't see it in engi school) and I just went head first.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:43:36 2017 No.9337884

>>9337858
All the failures on visual media that i've seen, present QM as MWI or pilot wave. Apart from cat meme, nobody bothers with Copenhagen because they can't wrap their heads around it, but accepting imaginary fairies is apparently easier... Fucking normies should gtfo of physics altogether, especially theoretical physics. Talented kids that have potential will seek it out without "help" from these morons and why the fuck would normies care to know about how our universe works? They're happy doing their own thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:54:52 2017 No.9337908 >>9337719 Dead link

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:55:06 2017 No.9337909 File: 140 KB, 500x500, test (7).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337077 [math]\|\text{feelings}\rangle = c_1\|\text{good}\rangle + c_2\|\text{bad}\rangle[/math]

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:59:30 2017 No.9337920

>>9337077
Feel? It feels wrong.

The theory works and is technically correct, but it doesn't seem to have the beautiful simplicity seen in long proved concepts (e.g. classical mechanics).

It's like with the geocentric solar system, where one needed complex elliptical orbits to make it work.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:04:17 2017 No.9337934

>>9337908
Summa summarum misunderstanding of probability and stochastic processes, magic fairies and all that jazz. Requires preferential time frame, results in stationary atoms having stationary electrons (experiment says otherwise), requires unverifiable and thus unfalsifiable objects, doesn't yield QFT, it is underdetermined, many other points.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:06:26 2017 No.9337939 >>9337920 This QM feel like a "quick fix"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:08:03 2017 No.9337945 >>9337077 best intro to QM self-teaching books?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:12:36 2017 No.9337951 >>9337945 >i'm a fan of old-style teaching methods P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics >i'm not a fan of old-style teaching methods R. Shankar, Principles of quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:18:09 2017 No.9337959 >>9337951 Shankar isn't really intro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:18:59 2017 No.9337962 >>9337945 the Cohen-Tannoudji is great but maybe it's my french bias

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:19:32 2017 No.9337963 File: 40 KB, 332x499, 5178Pm1sScL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337951 While I don't know what you mean by the old-style vs not-old-style, I have pic related and I find it very helpful.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:29:29 2017 No.9337989

>>9337945
>I took calculus based Physics 1&2 but it ended before modern physics
Eisberg & Resnick - Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles
>I took the whole intro physics sequence for physics and engineering majors and saw a tiny amount of wave mechanics
Griffiths - Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
>I took an honors physics sequence or took a modern physics course using books like Eisberg & Resnick
Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics
>I primarily care about Quantum Mechanics only as it relates to quantum computing or I want it done with a strong quantum computing flavor
Schumacher and Westmoreland - Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information
>I'm poor and want a cheap Dover book
David Bohm - Quantum Theory

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:29:53 2017 No.9337991 >>9337959 >>9337951 yeah this, Shankar would be better for your second rodeo with QM maybe Griffith's intro to QM?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:33:38 2017 No.9338007

>>9337959
Are you from US of A? If Shankar isn't intro, i don't know what is. Shankar is pretty much the easiest book that isn't trash. Maybe Davydov is easier, depends on how much math you know.
>>9337963
That's what i recommended him. Old style tends to be concise and build intuition really fast, new style is spoon-feeding and i don't really like it myself, but understand that some people learn better when they are spoon-fed.
>>9337989
>>9337991
>Griffith instead of Shankar
What the hell are they teaching you in US of A?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:38:04 2017 No.9338020 >>9338007 >What the hell are they teaching you in US of A? not in the USA, but at my university Shankar would not be suited to the first quantum course, but is used in the second. maybe I just go to a brainlet university, I don't know.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:38:44 2017 No.9338024

>>9338007
Many courses usually give you some sort of "modern physics" which covers different phenomenons that give you an insight into why QM came to be. It also covers a bit if relativity to justify different postualates. I actually had shankar as my first book, but it's because I already so thag shit in other courses, but
>>9337945
was asking for an intro self teaching book you massive, insecure, faggot. Also Griffiths is perfectly fine.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:44:00 2017 No.9338035

>>9338020
We were taught from Shankar in first semester. Which yuropoor are you from and do you attend a good university in your region?
>>9338024
Shankar is great intro book, i learned from it without prior knowledge. Griffiths is a good book for engineers, not for someone who's presumably interested in physics. I wasted 70 yuropoors on that garbage because so many people recommended it here. Do your bank account a favor and don't get Griffiths if you want an intro QM book.
Oh i almost forgot. You massive, insecure faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:45:43 2017 No.9338039 >>9338035 Manchester, UK conclude from that what you like

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:46:37 2017 No.9338040 it's cool. my undergrad didn't offer enough qm so i switched to math.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:51:38 2017 No.9338058

>>9338039
Hey that's a pretty good uni, i'm kind of disappointed. I'm from Moscow State University and the soviet method is still full in power here at physics department, but friends who went to other yuropoor countries were mostly taught from Shankar too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:52:54 2017 No.9338060 >>9337077 I like it. I also don't like it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:53:16 2017 No.9338061 >>9337920 >putting QM on the same level of crankery as epicycles Asking for simple solutions to complex problems is too greedy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:55:31 2017 No.9338068 >>9338035 >Actually buying books That's your own fault retard. And again, it is for someone who is self teaching, not somone actually covering a course.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:01:16 2017 No.9338081

>>9338068
What's the difference? I've learned math throughout highschool from undergrad books, what makes a book good for self-teaching? Vaguely covering less material as is the case with Griffith vs Shankar? Stating the obvious? Spoon-feeding the reader absolutely every detail, leaving no intellectual work for him? Easy exercises? Tell me.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:02:37 2017 No.9338084

>>9337934
Clearly you, and the person who wrote that now dead link, have a poor understanding of pilot wave theory. The only real problem with it is spin measurements. All other predictions of other QM interpretations, and pilot wave are nearly identical, except for the wave/particle duality problems. The spin measurements are more likely due to our species as whole misunderstanding spin and/or how to measure it in my opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:08:03 2017 No.9338103 File: 19 KB, 400x400, 1487461456631.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337920 Except that the mathematical underpinnings of QM with [math]\mathbb{C}^*[/math]-algebras is very beautiful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:08:47 2017 No.9338104 >>9338084 So the non-local dynamics of pilot wave pose no problem according to you?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:11:44 2017 No.9338112

>>9338081
The fact that people who are self taught generally aren't as exposed to different ideas in physics that are crucial to properly understand what you are given. Shankar doesn't cover a lot of shit necessary to understand the motivation of the postulates of QM. You should cover some wave mechanics, electromagneticism and other subjects so that the postulates don't seem so arbitrary. If he was a physics studentz yea then no problem, but if he's looking for self-teaching books it's better to first cover different poblems that classical mechanics brought to then show why different postulates work. Also, if he has no backround in analytical mechanics, there are many things that will go over his head.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:18:40 2017 No.9338123

>>9338112
Oh, i see you didn't read Shankar. If that's what defines a book that is good for self-teaching, Shankar is the perfect candidate- it not only goes through the mathematics, but also covers some classical mechanics, there's a whole chapter on the motivation of QM postulates, etc. Of course they're covered quickly, but in great enough detail for the reader to not miss anything that would prevent intuition to form.
I suggest you read the book, you'll change your opinion on what a good introduction for self-teaching QM is :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:19:09 2017 No.9338127 >>9338084 Streater converted his website into an entire book about what he calls dead ends in physics. He has overall a closed-off way of thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:23:57 2017 No.9338137 File: 208 KB, 5000x5000, 1505119089788[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw every QM book consist of 3-4 extremely interesting chapters followed by a series of infuriatingly dull and insightful special cases coverages

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:26:35 2017 No.9338142 Meme science that has produced nothing of value in nearly 100 years now. Just stuck with classical mechanics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:26:50 2017 No.9338144 >>9338123 It covers a review that's perfectly fine FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WERE EXPOSED TO THOSE IDEAS.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:27:59 2017 No.9338147
File: 191 KB, 472x708, test (13).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338127
So you think you know better than someone who has formalized one of the most successful physical theories in existence in sound rigorous mathematical ground?
I'm actually howling right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:28:07 2017 No.9338148 >>9338127 Closed-off way of thinking for not accepting as a better option an interpretation that explicitly requires non-locality, but just decides to ignore it because well it doesn't help us anyway?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:29:46 2017 No.9338152 >>9338142 you are extremely persistent >>9338137 chapter 1. the mathematcs (stopped reading) chapter 2. solving the wave equation in various potentials chapter 3. spherical symmetry to solve the hydrogen atom blah blah blah

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:33:13 2017 No.9338161 >>9338152 I think the worst in that regard was the Greiner book on QED. One horribly obtuse intro chapter and then hundreds of pages of special scattering cases.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:37:36 2017 No.9338170

>>9338144
Shankar's "review" is basically taking-off from high-school physics and going on with the goal of QM. How is that worse than Griffiths? Not enough images? Doesn't waste time with trivialities you already know from high-school?
If your objection was that he doesn't cover enough linear algebra, then ok, that's a valid point. But physics? He builds on high-school physics, not something you see for your first time in university.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:38:49 2017 No.9338177 >>9337989 thanks dawg!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:40:25 2017 No.9338182 >>9338161 Didn't read it but I can believe it. What are they putting that stuff in textbooks for? I feel like a book could start with QM, introduce SR and then teach start on QFT in like 5 chapters but I haven't seen it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:43:02 2017 No.9338190 >>9338170 I will put a sharpie in my pooper If you cn show me any high school (besided obviously maybe some high school for truly gifted kids) that covers analytical mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:48:56 2017 No.9338215 >>9337989 >Schumacher and Westmoreland - Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information If you're interested in data transfer, is this helpful?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:51:16 2017 No.9338219

>>9338190
I thought it was pretty standard to cover it in high-school, no? As far as i know, most yuropoor high-schools allow you to take a class where this is covered. We covered both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations in seminar on physics, which was a class for students who wanted to study physics at university.
It was covered in last year, in parallel with differential equations in calculus (in seminar on mathematics).
We used old soviet books in these classes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:51:46 2017 No.9338223 >>9338215 nvm may have found the answer myself from an amazon review >it goes deeply into the notions of information and information transfer

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:52:09 2017 No.9338224 >>9337077 I really can't tell you my "position" on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:58:16 2017 No.9338240 >>9338219 I can't find a single example on the internet where that is true.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:33:23 2017 No.9338316

>>9338240
Well i was surprised that you didn't cover these in high-school so i went to look for some curriculum of yuropoor countries. No luck either. I can't comment on average high-schools in Russia since i went to a really good one (though i wouldn't say it's specifically for gifted children), but for what it's worth
http://pms.ru/fizika/117.html
is my curriculum for my physics. I will contact my friends who went to other yuropoor universities and try to get some links for you, but i'm conviced it's covered because looking at university curriculum of some average country, https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?do=predmet&kod=NOFY027 they take Shankar as introductory book too so they surely cover this before university.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:39:25 2017 No.9338326 >>9337077 Quantum Mechanics is the reddit of science.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:39:59 2017 No.9338327

>>9338316
Again, shankar as an introductory book in uni is perfectly fine because you should cover analytical mechanics in your classical mechanics course in the same way you shouldn't take calc but analysis. I know mutts don't cover that shit so it's popular to have courses where you need to cover that shir, but my point was thorwards somone who didn't cover that. I'm pretty skeptical on your claim about highschool. I was exposed to some of that formalism in HS, but I wouldn't consider it a proper exposition, rather a layman's way to view another formulation of mechanics. Solving variational problems and PDE in hs is a strech even the easy ones.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:47:58 2017 No.9338334
File: 85 KB, 200x201, D7CFA757-F60F-4820-8453-1DFDEB724480-196-0000000803A687F3_tmp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338326
>has valuable input and is the best place to go on every subject.

true, although there is stupid in both of them ( see cringeanarchy and string """"theory""""

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:02:02 2017 No.9338355

>>9338327
According to their program, they take it in parallel to classical mechanics *and* mathematical analysis, so they surely aren't exposed to them in more than layman's terms.
As for the extent to which we went, it wasn't anything overly advanced, but we did cover a lot of what was taught at first year in university, like wave equations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:03:27 2017 No.9338360 >>9338147 >>9338148 Actually I was referring to the other parts of his book, where he dismisses various other theories he doesn't like. His comments on the pilot wave are quite reasonable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:06:20 2017 No.9338365 "My favorite textbook is better than your favorite textbook because I'm smarter than you." ...the (94,372nd) thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:11:01 2017 No.9338370 >>9338360 He presents solid arguments as to why he dismisses them. He's far from closed-off way of thinking (see the good ideas portion, where he defends some unusual approaches).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:13:16 2017 No.9338377 >>9337077 >How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics? I feel very strongly both ways. I guess you could call it a kind of superposition. [rim shot]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:26:46 2017 No.9338398 >>9338355 But I do believe you covered analytical mechanics thoroughly in uni. Maybe laymans was a bad word, but there's a clear difference between what you are exposed in highschool and rigorous program.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:45:37 2017 No.9338447

>>9338398
Of course, the question is do you need rigorous treatment of analytical mechanics to gain insight into QM? I don't think so, especially in Shankar's case. He approaches QM in a way that all you really need is to have some intuition in analytical mechanics, which i think is what high-school treatment of the subject gives you.
Now if you have no idea that something like Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics even exists, then i think even Griffiths is too much for such a person and he should rather go through Halliday, Resnick. If he at least knows that it exists, Landau's book on mechanics is a very good read and alternatively Feynman's lectures.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:17:27 2017 No.9338546 >>9338104 >>9338148 Non-locality in general, reguardless of what quantum interpretation you ascribe to, is still a fairly strange and unexplained phenomenon. Why does pilot wave theory change that in any way?

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:22:31 2017 No.9338560
File: 1.25 MB, 857x2352, hags_theorem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338546
>Non-locality in general, reguardless of what quantum interpretation you ascribe to, is still a fairly strange and unexplained phenomenon.
It isn't. Microcausality can be formalized rigorously with von Neumann algebras, which implies locality of observables. In fact this is one of the Wightman axioms of QFT; you wouldn't have had any problems with if you knew the mathematics behind it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:23:10 2017 No.9338564 >>9337077 Fuzzy, confused and erected

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:26:45 2017 No.9338577 >>9338560 You can make anything work out in math. Math doesnt have to have any basis in reality. Tell me exactly what is happening using words or you don’t understand it either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:28:10 2017 No.9338582 File: 57 KB, 520x390, die.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9338577 Absolutely abhorrent argument. You'd say the same thing about gravity if you don't understand calculus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:32:05 2017 No.9338586 File: 138 KB, 480x360, E69809B3-3DB2-47AE-8676-EB6BB0308F2B.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9338582

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:33:10 2017 No.9338590 >>9338582 Calculus doesnt explain gravity either. It describes its effects nicely but it doesnt tell you anything about what is going on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:33:20 2017 No.9338591 >>9338586 Einstein was a stupid jew and quoting him shows how much of a good little goy you are. He didn't understand jack shit about the Riemannian geometry (in fact he didn't even develop it) that goes into GR.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:35:41 2017 No.9338599 >>9338591 why would you think it's acceptable to post disgusting racist shit on a science forum?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:36:45 2017 No.9338601 File: 22 KB, 540x404, 1488099882979.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9338599 You're right I'm sorry that was out of line.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:37:36 2017 No.9338605 >>9338591 Not me. >>9338590 This is me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:38:11 2017 No.9338607 >>9338605 Thanks for the clarification but you can stop shifting goalposts now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:48:46 2017 No.9338630 >>9338060 Pretty witty

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:54:17 2017 No.9338639 >>9338224 Nice

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 20:56:21 2017 No.9338641
File: 33 KB, 386x499, 51Hn7gOF8VL._SX384_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337077

I've studied a lot of quantum chemistry but only forayed a little bit into the physics side of things. I love quantum chemistry though, both theory and practice.

Pic Related is a pretty good book. I find it cool how we've been able to reconcile the fundamental limit of observation implied by the Heisenberg principle with a system that's actually enhanced our ability to explain observations about chemical structure. It seems like the Heisenberg principle should fuck everything up, but then it leads to orbitals, and soon e'll be able to predict all of chemistry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:12:36 2017 No.9338681 File: 148 KB, 1404x824, orbitals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337195 it lead to MO theory so I love it

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:13:10 2017 No.9338684 >>9338641 >heisenberg principle leads to orbitals uh what? The pauli exclusion principle leads to orbitals

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:20:27 2017 No.9338708

the cradle that is mathematics seems inescapable for so many, and I would argue one of higher humanities greatest set backs in the search for what I'll call "truth"....... yes understanding an extremely dense physics equation is quite satisfying, but what did you learn? pretty much a figment of imagination

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:24:18 2017 No.9338719

>>9338684

Pauli principle described the way that electrons occupy orbitals but at the end of the day they had to be developed all because of the Heisenberg principle. We couldn't know the precise location of the electron so we had to develop a probabilistic system, and those probability functions gave us the orbitals, which helped us to see the shape of molecules in a new way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:29:08 2017 No.9338736 With nerve endings in my finger tips.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:29:23 2017 No.9338738 Why is it always... Science guy: "I want to understand what's going on in the physical universe." Math guy: "I just want everyone to see how brilliant I am." You see this constantly on science sites.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:34:04 2017 No.9338751
File: 167 KB, 350x407, 1387114160102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338738
Wrong.
It's more like
Science guy: "I want to understand what's going on in the physical universe."
Math guy: "Here's how to do it with math."
Science guy: "I don't understand it so it's the wrong way to understand the world."
You see this constantly on science sites.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:34:21 2017 No.9338753 >>9338607 Sick way to cop out brah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:35:22 2017 No.9338756 >>9338753 Just reciprocating anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:38:08 2017 No.9338763 >>9338751 No. It's right. There seems to be a very high incidence of narcissistic personality disorder among mathematicians. You, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:38:57 2017 No.9338766 >>9338763 >NO MY OPINION IS THE RIGHT ONE!!! Damn... ever heard of irony?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:41:22 2017 No.9338773 >>9338756 Judging by the context, i dont think you know what the word “reciprocating” means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:41:43 2017 No.9338775 >>9337195 >pilot wave ultimate meme

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:43:02 2017 No.9338778 >>9338775 t. 12yo

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:43:03 2017 No.9338779 >>9338773 > i dont think Probably the only true thing you've ever said in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:43:32 2017 No.9338783 >>9337920 if you don't think quantum is beautiful you're a brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:44:34 2017 No.9338786 >>9338778 t. physicist*

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 21:46:20 2017 No.9338789 >>9338786 I meant mentally.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 22:17:27 2017 No.9338839

>>9338779
Oh no! My feelings! But seriously answer the question. What exactly is going on with non-locality? Math is not an answer. Newtonian physics describes gravity, but Newton clearly had no idea what the mechanism behind it was. I will accept the words “I dont know”, and I will automatically assume this to be the case if you dodge the question again.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 22:31:52 2017 No.9338857
File: 985 KB, 1034x1989, babaa_scattering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338839
The axiom of microcausality states that given [math]A(x),B(y)
\in \mathcal{A}(U)[/math] observables in the local algebra [math]\mathcal{A}(U)[/math] of [math]U \subset \mathbb{M}[/math] if [math]|x - y|_{\mathbb{M}} < 0[/math] then the vacuum expectation value satisfies [math]\langle A(x)B(y)\rangle = \langle A(x) \rangle\langle B(y)\rangle[/math]. This (along with other axioms in Wightman QFT) implies the locality of the observables in [math]\mathcal{A}(U)[/math] by the clustering theorem [math]\lim_{t \rightarrow \pm\infty}\langle A(x,t)B(y,t)\rangle = \langle A_\pm(x)\rangle\langle B_\pm(y)\rangle[/math] of asymptotic states. This means that the states on which the observables act cannot be entangled if the observables space-like separated. The experiments of Bell et al. shows that Bohmiam mechanics give states that directly contradict this statement. This is also why you can't send information faster than the speed of light with entanglement.
If you don't accept this explanation then you need to take your problem up with Wightman, though I doubt his ghost would suffer a moment with you.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 22:48:06 2017 No.9338885

>>9338857
Nowhere in that post did you describe what non-locality is. You gave me Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation, Im asking you for General Relativity. If you cant provide me with that just type the words “I dont know”, we both know you dont because nobody does yet. Also, as I said before, John Bell was an advocate of pilot wave theory. Look it up. Bell’s theorem and the experiments surrounding it rule out local hidden variables, which are in no way the same thing, or even part of, pilot wave theory.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 22:50:09 2017 No.9338888

>>9338885
Nonlocality is the violation of the clustering theorem you fucking retard.
>This (along with other axioms in Wightman QFT) implies the locality of the observables
>P implies Q (locality)
>not Q (nonlocality) implies not P
Are you actually this stupid?
>You gave me Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation, Im asking you for General Relativity.
Oh wait, you are.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:02:39 2017 No.9338908

>>9338888
I can tell Ive struck a nerve. Why am I not surprised that an anime smugposter thinks they are the smartest person on /sci/? You still didnt answer the question or show any proof of why pilot wave theory is incorrect, and now you are just throwing a tantrum.
>Are you actually this stupid?
Im not the one who got completely flabbergasted by what is very obviously a metaphor.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:04:33 2017 No.9338912

>>9338857

>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#4
>If you have a long rigid stick and you hit one end, wouldn't the other end have to move immediately? Would this not provide a means of FTL communication?
>Well, it would if there were such things as perfectly rigid bodies. In practice the effect of hitting one end of the stick propagates along it at the speed of sound in the material

We've observed FTL sound;

>http://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.2423240
>Measurement of negative group velocity in an acoustic loop filter
>The results confirm recent theoretical predictions that faster-than-light group velocity propagation of sound is possible

>https://m.phys.org/news/2007-01-mach-scientists-faster.html
>The superluminal acoustic effect we have described is likely a ubiquitous but imperceptible phenomenon in the everyday world,” the scientists conclude

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:08:49 2017 No.9338917

>>9338839
>>9338885
>>9338908
>math is not an answer
>blabblers on like a retard when given the answer
you're a fucking retard, the worst kind of idiot in /sci/. the one who argues with knowledgeable people for no fucking reason, and continues being an insufferable retard even when shown everything.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:11:00 2017 No.9338920
File: 52 KB, 214x211, fuck_off2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338908
>I can tell Ive struck a nerve
Yeah because I'm allergic to retardation and the allergic reaction is rage.
>Why am I not surprised that an anime smugposter thinks they are the smartest person on /sci/?
When did I say or even imply this? Keep setting up strawmen.
>You still didnt answer the question or show any proof of why pilot wave theory is incorrect, and now you are just throwing a tantrum.
I've shown you what "nonlocality" means in the most successful physical model of reality, i.e. Wightman QFT. And since nonlocal hidden variables necessarily violates one of the axioms in that theory pilot wave is incorrect in the sense that it is incompatible with the best model of reality. However you want to interpret this result is up to you.
>Im not the one who got completely flabbergasted by what is very obviously a metaphor.
The metaphor is wrong. The reverse would make more sense since it's painfully obvious that you have no idea what I was talking about. It was not my intention to try to showcase my intelligence or whatever, but I don't think anyone would be able to help it in your presence.
>>9338912
And? These are FTL excitations in materials while QFT is a theory in vacuum. Tachyons can exist and Cherenkov radiation has been detected in something even as translucent as clouds.
Why do you think whatever you're trying to say is relevant here, aside from your lack of understanding of the topic at hand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:17:54 2017 No.9338931 Pretty cool. Normies don't know anything about it but I have a friend who does. It's great talking to someone who understands why Antman is so triggering.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:19:40 2017 No.9338934

>>9338917
You didnt “show” anything. You typed out some math for entanglement probability and said “look this is what entanglement is, and pilot wave theory is wrong because Bell’s theorem disproves something completely unrelated”. Im done trying to show you why you are wrong. You are clearly suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:22:08 2017 No.9338937 >>9338934 >you I'm not the guy you're arguing with. I'm someone who's sick of imbeciles like you acting like total jackasses when people make an effort to show them shit. If you're done then fuck off and kill yourself please

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:23:19 2017 No.9338940
File: 287 KB, 1540x1482, _junko_touhou_drawn_by_kaiteki_gk428425_1502f8afd47bb37dcbbe7dddd6b8c962.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338934
>literally written down what locality means in Wightman QFT
>HURR DAS JUS SUM MAFS FOR ENTANGLEMENT AND SHIEEEETTTT
Yeah so you really do have no idea what you're talking about. Even replied to the wrong person too.
Truly pathetic. This is where the conversation is going to end here because I don't think I can suffer another blow to my IQ by reading your retarded posts.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:37:17 2017 No.9338965
File: 62 KB, 603x487, IMG_3272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338920

>These are FTL excitations in materials while QFT is a theory in vacuum

Materials are composed of quantum values over fields. An 'excitation' involves the transfer or quantum values or states across these fields - the energy has to come from somewhere.

>Why do you think whatever you're trying to say is relevant here, aside from your lack of understanding of the topic at hand?

What is pressure? Well, one effect is that it restricts the energy states particles can take. If we model the spectrum of states as a 2D matrix, the box gets smaller as the pressure gets higher.

FTL information transfer is made possible because within certain high-pressure contexts, the fewer states means that - relative to external, lower pressure, larger-numbered state materials - the number of points on the matrix is smaller, and so energy transfers at a speed that appears FTL from the perspective of an external observer.

It's a wormhole, Mr. Genius. But I guess you're too 'smart' to realize that, because you've gotten caught in meaningless abstraction. Instead of algebra, try using geometry.

This would be why we observe FTL speeds in blackhole jets;

>http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt
>Astronomers reported today discovering clouds which appear to move many times faster than the speed of light, shooting out from the region of a black hole at the center of the M87 galaxy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:37:49 2017 No.9338966 Holy shit an actual crank lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:49:49 2017 No.9338984 >>9337077 Uncertain [sp]until observed upon[/sp]

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 00:33:54 2017 No.9339042
File: 59 KB, 372x413, IMG_3273.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9338965

Back;

>https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0195
>We discuss the spacetime picture and the emergence of the principle of relative locality, according to which locality of events is not absolute but becomes observer dependent, in the controllable, relativistic way

As you gain momentum, you bend space like mass does. If we model the universe as being composed of stacked planes of squares, momentum stretches the squares and so reduces the number of squares required to transfer a signal through.

However, this jet doesn't expand at FTL speeds - signals simply transfer along the jet at FTL speeds. So, within the jet, you can move across expanses of space that seem to be very long to an external observer, but which to you seem very short.

As the jet dissipates, the pressure goes down, and so the speed of sound goes down. Note that 'preasure' here is not the same as pressure as per the Newton-Laplace equation -instead, we speak of 'energy pressure,' where we conjecture that energy itself bends space.

Once the jet gets somewhere, it can be used for FTL travel - but not back to the past, before the jet arrived at the location. However, since the jets are as old as the universe itself, and they lead like fountains back into themselves;

>https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s-hubble-finds-evidence-of-galaxy-star-birth-regulated-by-black-hole-fountain

time truly is a circle - this is called the Rainbow universe theory;

>https://m.phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.html
>In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval," Ali, a physicist at the Zewail City of Science and Technology and Benha University, both in Egypt, told Phys.org. "So, all objects existing in space and occurring at a time do not exist below that length and time interval [which are associated with the Planck scale]

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 01:03:54 2017 No.9339086 >>9337909 underrated post

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 01:07:26 2017 No.9339092 >>9338590 This is the point where your professor says “Physics describes, it does not explain.”

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 02:28:27 2017 No.9339161
File: 89 KB, 600x600, Heisenberg_-_Bryan_Cranston.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337945
Shankar, Sakurai, and Cohen-Tannoudji. The last one is the best but maybe too thick for beginners. Sakurai is pretty bad overall with poor exercises and organization, but its discussion using symmetry is very useful.
>>9337951
Dirac is shit now. Terrible formalism and notation. May be useful for historic motivation.
>>9337959
>>9337991
>>9338112
Not much point in using Griffiths. Covers very little and not very well. Shankar is suitable for beginners. Though one advantage is that it talks a lot about basic stuff like the operator and wavefunction formalism and simple problems like particle in a box or barriers which can help beginners.
>>9338007
At my university there's an intro quantum course and a grad quantum course. Although we also talk a lot about quantum in 2nd year general physics(waves, special relativity, quantum), up to even the harmonic oscillator and angular momentum(including ladder operators, but we didn't use the ket formalism which made things annoying). The intro quantum course was taught with Griffiths, the grad one with Sakurai. I don't think there's much point in the intro one, I think it's mostly for non-physics majors, I skipped to the grad one, and took qft at the same time for research purposes. Funnily enough my research adviser teaches the intro course and he actually didn't know how shit Griffiths was until I told him, he uses Shankar now.
>>9337989
I don't know much QC but Nielsen-Chuang is amazing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 02:42:39 2017 No.9339169 >>9337077 >undecided

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:01:32 2017 No.9339181 >>9337077 >asks how one feels about quantum mechanics I try not to feel about it, or try to feel carefully about it, because feelings affect the outcomes of quantum mechanical events.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:01:54 2017 No.9339182 >>9337077 lasdhfsadgf

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:13:49 2017 No.9339191 >>9339161 >actually didn't know how shit Griffiths was until I told him Because it isn't. The problem is that it should be used in the 2nd year general physics course.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:17:07 2017 No.9339197

>>9337945
Did you even bother looking at the wiki?
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Quantum_Mechanics
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Quantum_Theory
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Path_Integrals
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Quantum_Field_Theories

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:23:14 2017 No.9339201 >>9337939 yeah that's why everyone in the business uses QFT

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:42:37 2017 No.9339217

>>9339191
Sorry I meant that he thought it was shit. I was first learning qm under his guidance and he recommended I look through it. As I told him my progress he looked through the book again and really didn't like it and told me to switch to Shankar, also Baym but I never got much out of that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:03:02 2017 No.9339289 File: 630 KB, 717x713, TheAlchemist2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337077 easy stuff when you know the truth, nature is pretty simple https://youtu.be/SYGF25asipc

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:05:26 2017 No.9339291
File: 34 KB, 448x446, Sun2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9339197
all bullshit garbage nigger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkdQvavKyY

let the wizards teach you how it is done, fin the Black Sun
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjAFO7xz5UotUfIzvd_xXDA/videos

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:23:19 2017 No.9339300 >>9337077 functional analysis for brainlets

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:42:52 2017 No.9339315 >>9337107 How is it a buzzword, brainlet?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 06:27:01 2017 No.9339343 >>9338577 You are an idiot. You think the word "understand" has any basis in reality? Maths are just abstraction of ideas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 06:41:20 2017 No.9339359 >>9337077 not sure desu. i'm at 2 places at once

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 07:08:16 2017 No.9339397 >>9338912 group velocity you fucking retard which is allowed FTL even theoretically

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 08:26:05 2017 No.9339496

>>9339161
>Dirac is shit now
The reason so many undergrads think bohmian mechanics is valid is because they haven't read Dirac. It has the best treatment of non-relativistic QM i've come across. But his treatment of renormalization and relativistic QM is sub-par.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 08:30:21 2017 No.9339501 It's really great at what it does (electrodynamics) but fails completely at gravity. I'd rate it an 8/10.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 08:56:33 2017 No.9339553 >>9337107 That's so retarded, i'm not even sure where to begin unpacking it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 09:02:37 2017 No.9339567
File: 158 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337077
Although there's no strong evidence one-way or the other, i have a gut feeling over the next 100~ years Pilotwave Theory will be shown to be the correct interpretation of the quantum world over the Copenhagen Interpretation; as much fun as i'm sure we've all had imagining a world where shit blips in and out of existence truly randomly, it just seems far more likely to me that the issue is with equipment sensitivity, and not the universe itself being founded on a nonsensical substructure of 'maybe' particles.

Though of course there's no doubt in my mind the nature of these particles in terms of their movement through the world will remain complicated and strange as fuck.

It just seems to me the Copenhagen interpretation is more fun because it leaves a lot open to the imagination, and that alone is enough to make me dubious of it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 12:26:39 2017 No.9339928

>>9339397

You're a collection of values moving from one square to another, like the pixels of a sprite on a computer screen.

Gravity and momentum bend space. This bending of space comes in the form of a fountain that flows from the northpole back to the southpole. Stars have been directly observed forming along these fountains, proving that the supermassive blackhole at the center of the galaxy recycles matter - it doesn't make matter vanish.

The macroscopic universe is formed from meta-patterns of quantum state flows through the blackhole - your location relative to it is a single wraparound value that forms a dimension that probably accounts for time.

That is, closer to the blackhole, th rest of the universe seems redder and dimmer. Further from the blackhole, space is less stretched, and so appears bluer and brighter. If this was true, we'd expect to see old, metal-poor stars at the rim, and young metal-rich stars at the center - and that's exactly what we see;

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population
>Generally, the youngest stars, the extreme Population I, are found farther toward the center of a galaxy
>However, metal-poor objects are even more primitive. These objects are formed during an earlier time of the universe. Intermediate Population I stars are common in the bulge near the centre of our galaxy, whereas Population II stars found in the galactic halo are older and thus more metal-poor

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:01:39 2017 No.9340936 >>9338599 >jews >race

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:27:04 2017 No.9340979 >>9337077 If it worked the way that we currently understand it I would fucking hate it. It's completely unintuitive and violates hard determinism. I calm myself by figuring that it's just a partial understanding of deeper mechanics though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:40:57 2017 No.9341005 >>9337077 Aether theory is the true explanation to all

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:44:09 2017 No.9341007 >>9337909 ay

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 08:41:32 2017 No.9341934
File: 34 KB, 736x554, 1508540574784.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9337077
its retarded black magic but so far its been experimentally consistent for nearly a century so until someone comes up with a better framework or some new critical information is discovered its what we are rolling with

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 13:58:26 2017 No.9342563 File: 2.46 MB, 532x461, BlackSun3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337077 3,6,9 damn she fine

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 13:59:32 2017 No.9342567 File: 570 KB, 529x723, wizard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9341934 We already have the framework negro >>9342563 It isn't that complex

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 05:16:52 2017 No.9344215

>>9337077
the quote "you never understand quantum mechanics" is fucking bullshit. I simply don't understand what they mean they can't understand. Is it the duality of a particle and wave? is it the "crazy" calculations? (only calc, lin. alg. and diff. eq). is it the spooky action at a distance?
really, we understand as much as it as any other new field of science that has ever been introduced, more and more each day.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 05:19:25 2017 No.9344216 >>9338577 >Math doesnt have to have any basis in reality. Math is the most real thing there is, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 05:28:05 2017 No.9344222 >>9342563 >muh esoteric symbolism so deep >muh basic geometry so organizational >muh 3,6,9 i count in multiples of 3 so clever Go back to where you belong: >>>/trash/

Anonymous Tue Dec 5 08:51:42 2017 No.9344454
File: 83 KB, 640x534, pong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hi, i wondered if anybody here at /k are techy. I know a way to make fusion bombs without the hassle of enriching u-235 first.
A super easy way to generate 500 tera watts (actually 2, but the first is just a lightning strike)
And a smart way to get a high enough q factor for ignition.
I dont expect any replies, i know it sounds nuts. I might try science instead. (Explanation and drawings are 4-5 pages) (pretty damn simple)
Price is like 20k usd a pop.
Yes, cross sections teslas of magnetic confinement, stick it up your arse. Trust me, its crazy how useless they are at figuring out proton electron fusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 08:52:51 2017 No.9344457 File: 217 KB, 1200x1646, Mamu+geent+doftivnely_dd9eb4_6444513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sorry about the /k science thing. I just copied and pasted

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 08:54:57 2017 No.9344461 >>9344454 Show your theory

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 09:55:24 2017 No.9344536 File: 190 KB, 540x386, 1432252491893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9337909 Exquisite

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 10:02:28 2017 No.9344557 >>9339567 >Pilotwave Theory doesn't take relativity into account

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 10:04:08 2017 No.9344558 File: 256 KB, 1162x850, wait shit wrong city.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9344454 >>9344457 It's '/k/' Also >pic

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 11:55:55 2017 No.9344791 >>9337271 >houses some of the worst notations This x(1/h)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 14:17:20 2017 No.9345057 >>9339567 >Bohmian mechanics shill >His argument: muh feelings Imagine a universe consisting of only 1 hydrogen atom and observe how your brainlet theory falls apart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 14:21:48 2017 No.9345069 >>9337077 Should be called Lepton/Boson mechanics instead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 18:08:35 2017 No.9345646 File: 180 KB, 945x945, 1501008799683s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9345069 Quarks aren't leptons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 5 19:06:17 2017 No.9345770 >>9344454 >500 tera watts (actually 2, but the first is just a lightning strike) Everyone knows that a lightning contains 1.21 jiggerwatts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 10:47:52 2017 No.9346964 >>9337077 I like their early work

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 14:51:08 2017 No.9347439 >>9338334 >reddit >best place to go on every subject Imagine being this delusional.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 15:19:48 2017 No.9347519 >>9338058 Friend, how is MSU astro program doing? I am currently at Cornell and I would like to spend a semester abroad at MSU.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 16:39:35 2017 No.9347751 >>9337195 > pilot wave kek.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 16:40:38 2017 No.9347758 >>9337909 I wish i was yukari-smart.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 16:42:48 2017 No.9347765 Shit was fine. Until path integral. Fuck you Feynman.

Anonymous Wed Dec 6 20:27:05 2017 No.9348227

>>9347519
If you want to go here because there's some expert in a specific topic or the topic is actively researched here, go for it. But otherwise avoid it, Putin cut funding and it hit us hard.
The level of education is very good, but the research is lacking unless you're working on few specific topics that get funded.
I can only tell you about my program- mathematical physics. The department is full of cranks who'd rather waste time on LQG than admit strings are the way to go. I put extreme effort into my seminar projects only to get them dismissed here, i had to go to MIPT for 2 years just so i could get a proper BSc because the idiots here refused my proposal. I honestly don't know why i came back, because unless the LQG shills all die, this place is beyond saving. Meanwhile on MIPT, you work with people who came from IAS.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 20:38:32 2017 No.9348250 File: 1.05 MB, 1000x1375, test (9).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9347758 If you really do wish that then you'd be reading and studying instead of posting on /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 20:49:24 2017 No.9348268 >>9348250 > Quantm topology Can i have the author's name ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 20:50:31 2017 No.9348272 >>9348268 Turaev.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 6 21:02:23 2017 No.9348304 >>9337077 I feel pretty uncertain about quantum mechanics

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 7 11:14:29 2017 No.9349637 >>9337077 Isn't any form of subjectivity or feeling, or subjective feeling, either a quantum mechanic, a collection of quantum mechanics, or arisen from quantum mechanics? Sort of a nonsequiter (Are nonsequiters quantum mechanics manifest?).

Anonymous Thu Dec 7 15:17:19 2017 No.9350021

>>9337077
I feel like it's one of those things that if we learn it as well as we know classical mechanics then our lives would fundamentally changed.

>fundamental particles able to be manipulated by us
means that we are now able to alter the world around us at it's most fundamental level

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 01:20:29 2017 No.9351226 >>9337107 undergrad detected

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 11:54:23 2017 No.9352010 >>9337195 >I have never taken QFT. Stfu about pilot wave.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 11:55:25 2017 No.9352012 >>9337271 Dirac notation is the shit Besides that, Einstein summation is the shit too

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 17:02:31 2017 No.9352752

Does QM PROVE that we are in a simulation? If we were in a simulation, it'd make more sense that the whole reality isn't simulated at all times, to save computing power, but only the parts we are observing. A log of wood is empty "inside" until it is cut in half and observed. Likewise, there are no atoms being computed until we take a look at them. This would explain why the act of observing and measuring would change results, as it does at the quantum level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 18:40:02 2017 No.9352954 >>9352752 Simulation is even worse pseud cancer tha bohmian mechanics. Kindly of

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 19:51:44 2017 No.9353139 >>9352752 Even if it doesn't prove it, this makes simulation theory a science.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:31:26 2017 No.9353242
File: 87 KB, 407x402, _0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9352012
People who complain about braket are usually the ones who know jack shit. Pretty much all leading literatures on geometric quantization use brakets to denote sesquilinear forms on the space of Hermitian sections.

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:40:32 2017 No.9353257

>>9337271
m-muh notayshn, it requires 30 pages of proofs per page and put everything into hundreds of groups. But yeah people who usually study quantum mechanics are interested in the essence of the world thinking it will answer their deepest questions but all it does is introduce new ones. Also, the lack of rigor introduces some of the most retarded papers trying to merge engineering, physics and math. I knew a teacher who was making sense of Bell's Theorem trying to make a new theorem out of it in a talk about Quantum Entanglement and how weird and loony QM is and how the engineering equipment wishes more physicists would use it, but ended up getting reamed by another QM professor because his findings didn't prove anything about Quantum Entanglement. At least Field Theory and String Theory keeps out most of the retards now. TLDR; Faggots trying to understand the world through probability.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 20:47:25 2017 No.9353269 >>9337077 (((Quantum Mechanics))) is what gave birth to (((postmodernism))).

Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:10:51 2017 No.9353437

I've been working through Zettili's Quantum textbook but I find myself unable to do problems sometimes. How do I go about getting better at doing standard problems for QM? Any recommendations for problem books that assume I'm a retard and slowly goes up in difficulty?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:12:57 2017 No.9353440 >>9353437 Do Griffiths instead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:32:18 2017 No.9353472 >>9353440 I don't hear too many good things about this book. Is it good?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:33:12 2017 No.9353474 >>9353472 It's good for people like you. Start from the easy basics even if it gives you trash intuition and fundamentals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:43:03 2017 No.9353498 >>9353474 Did you just called him a brainlet?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:44:44 2017 No.9353502 File: 761 KB, 1186x860, brainlets_on_suicide_watch.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9353498 Well I ain't calling him a dumblet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 8 22:53:59 2017 No.9353521 >>9353474 >>9353498 Lol, never change /sci/. I'll look for a torrent, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:24:51 2017 No.9354124 >>9353440 Don't it's harder to unlearn wrong intuition than it is get good intuition from a proper book. Zeilinger or Shankar, both are appropriate if you succesfully finished high-school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:44:36 2017 No.9354149 >>9348250 hi hank

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:10:49 2017 No.9355532 >>9339289 yes my man, this is the shit. good stuff

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 12:16:18 2017 No.9356939 >>9337077 angry

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 12:36:23 2017 No.9356978 >>9337077 At first I thought there ppl can be cooler mechanics

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 12:56:29 2017 No.9357018

>>9353257
Man, chemistry though? Oh boy, shit has such good synergy with QM underpinnings. This is coming from a molecular biofag, but seeing some concept such as molecular orbital/probability spread having a macroscopic and empirically determined result of products in an organic reaction gives me a fuckin' chubber. It's also nice that chemists and their autistic and retarded cousins, physicists, have to learn statistics- not particularly new due to most competent programs requiring understanding entropy based dynamic systems statistically- but still something that's kind of funny to watch people struggle with who aren't used to that level of thinking.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math