[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3.40 MB, 1492x2122, 1507376938389.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9922047 No.9922047 [Reply] [Original]

I need a non-technical book on quantum mechanics, i.e. containing

- a history of the field and how it developed over the last 100 years
- the core ideas
- modern interpretations of those ideas

Pic not related - I'm looking for something purely informative, not rigorous or mathematical. Something a high school could read.

>> No.9922051

Any popsci book. Fuck off brainlet.

>> No.9922084

>>9922051
Try to understand why people might be asking something, instead of projecting your own insecurities onto everything (which is showing).

Also you haven't answered the question, brainlet. Learn to read you absolute spastic.

>> No.9922097

>>9922084
What's wrong with a fucking popsci book? They are literally written for that purpose, what else would you want? There's little you can learn without knowing some of the mathematical framework.

>> No.9922102

>>9922097
I am literally asking for a pop-science book, is it not fucking obvious? The person I replied to didn't give one, he just say "any popsci book", which is completely useless to me. It's like saying "just go to a library". He's retarded, in other words.

>> No.9922113
File: 8 KB, 200x200, wild-lumo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9922113

>something a high schooler could read
>not Griffiths
QM doesn't get more brainlet than Griffiths without huge sacrifices to accuracy.
Might as well just read some blogs defending Copenhagen from pseuds, there are key insights of QM distilled in them in a fairly accessible format. Pic related.

>> No.9922115

>>9922102
Because it's retarded to make a whole new thtead to satisfy some shitty question you can satisfy by using google and going to your fucking local library. Wany my recomendation? Road to reality if you actually want to learn a bit. But I could have said the same if you asked it on >>>/sqt/, or you could find out if you just searched "popular quantum physics books". There must be always a fucking retatd asking for book recommendations even if the wiki is right there and you have the wonders of the interent.

>> No.9922137

>>9922047
I think Hawkins deals with it a bit, although he's more interested with cosmology.
From an historical point of view, Heisenberg's own later books, especially "Physics and Beyond" are not technical at all.

Schrodinger's "The interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" is exactly in the same vein.

For more recent work, I don't really know ; anything I could give you is either not published in English or extremely technical.

>> No.9922142

>>9922115
I asked for specific criteria. Learn to read.

>> No.9922143

>>9922137
Thanks for the only non-autistic answer in the thread.

>> No.9922147

>>9922143
The main issue I have with Hawkings' book is that he presents his own, personal interpretation of QM ("Many worlds" approach, which is far from standard), on the same level as other, more established/proven facts.

It's very hard to draw the line in his books between what is well-known and what is just his own, personal (although very interesting) theories.

If you can your hand in a QM book for free, usually the first chapter/paragraph is a quick rundown on the fundamentals of the system that is fairly low on mathematical details ; see the first paragraph of Landau's "Quantum Mechanic". I don't recommend dwelling deeper into it, though.

>> No.9922156

>>9922147
Yes I expected Hawkins to be like that. I should have said, I've already worked my way through the textbooks in OP pic (I'm a physics student). What I'm asking for is merely to understand the wider historical/social/philosophical context of quantum mechanics, meaning what do people think are the main implications today, as well as in the past?

>> No.9922167

>>9922156
Schrodinger/Heisenberg should probably work for you, then.
I personally have no formal training in QM :^(
But I got a short course where they gave us the mathematical basis + the main postulates, the rest I self-study with Cohen's book (he's a French author ; don't know if he was translated)

When I'm done with him, I'll probably read Landau's book, it's very hard but I love his style.

>> No.9922520

>>9922047
>- a history of the field and how it developed over the last 100 years
>- the core ideas
>- modern interpretations of those ideas
Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality by Manjit Kuma is your best ally. Also In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat, even if the name sounds silly the book is very good.

>> No.9922860

>>9922047
>I need a non-technical book on quantum mechanics
>non-technical book on quantum mechanics


Go fuck yourself you pretentious retard.

>> No.9923288

>>9922047
a really nice one is "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by john gribbin. it's a bit out of date but the material is very good, and it really gets into the history and the details of how things were done experimentally, moreso than any modern popsci book i've seen

>> No.9923293
File: 73 KB, 447x630, CUBES___++++()())rfh3go0qmpwfynd4btv3453s22niftry67dieryai42qr3ow486e786798oipuibutsre879735y9y4f5f7xue7sie73q3q14q2kh0ubihvxezstbkssjfgsbhbsti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9923293

>>9922047
>book on quantum mechanics
This is the best book on QM, IMO

>> No.9923336
File: 24 KB, 348x499, Landau & Lifshitz Quantum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9923336

>>9922047
>I need a non-technical book on quantum mechanics
Landau & Lifshitz - Quantum Mechanics
Steven Weinberg - Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

They are very easy for Europeans.

But if you are a brainlet I reccomend:
Sakurai - Modern Quantum Mechanics

>> No.9923370

>>9923336
please ignore this guy

>> No.9923440
File: 97 KB, 800x568, beat_by_a_girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9923440

>>9923336
Brainlet yuropoors, never disappoint.
Here in Tajikistan we read Landau in first grade while you are still eating crayons and boogers.

>> No.9923601

>>9923336
>>9923440
honestly, landau is outdated and is a poor teaching tool

no top US universities unironically use landau and lifshitz

we use actual textbooks that aren't "i wrote 10 volumes that cover all of physis" because that's a meme if i ever saw one

>> No.9923606

>>9923601
>i don't understand what a reference is

>> No.9923609

>>9922097
>What's wrong with a fucking popsci book? They are literally written for that purpose, what else would you want?
Popular science is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

>> No.9923612

>>9922097
>>9922102
Popsci books leave you with zero understanding, and a misleading set of illusions.

>> No.9923617

>>9922147
>"Many worlds" approach, which is far from standard
Many worlds is standard among people who care to give interpretation any real thought whatsoever. The "standard" interpretation is "lmao I dunno just calculate bro".

>> No.9923619
File: 55 KB, 382x381, quantum-physics-for-babies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9923619

>>9922047

>> No.9923642

>>9923609
>>9923612
the thing is, we STEMfags need to face the cold hard reality that there are plenty of people who live life very happily without giving one shit about science or math, and they make more money than we do overall

science popularizers are the guys who fucking GET US OUR GRANTS, and that's not to be underrated.

popular science is a good thing, not only because it gets us our moneyz but also because young folk and normies can read it and be like "oh shit science is fucking leet d00dz!"

even if it gives you an imperfect picture of science, at least it's better than what people would think of science without popsci

>> No.9923644

>>9923642
i completely disagree. the funding would be there regardless via corporate or government (read: DoD) sponsorship. I long for a return to the days where engineering and science was a reclusive good ol' boys club completely befuddling and inaccessible to the masses.

>> No.9923647

>>9923642
>science popularizers are the guys who fucking GET US OUR GRANTS
t. has never applied for a grant

>> No.9923649

>>9923644
the funding for DoD stuff might be there, like SkunkWorks and such, but not for pure science

the DOE funds plenty of "pure science" projects like e.g. the LHC and the LHC experiments. and already there have been cuts to DOE pure science spending because of the illiterate administration.

popular science has done a lot to boost pure science, including the ISS and LHC

>> No.9923660

>>9923647
and you have applied for a grant?

you're some professor posting on 4chan? if true then: awesome, i won't troll you anymore

if not, who applies for grants unless you're a professor or senior lab scientist?

>> No.9923664

>>9923649
>ISS and LHC
mostly nationalistic grandstanding if you ask me.

>> No.9923668

>>9923660
>and you have applied for a grant?
yes

>you're some professor posting on 4chan?
you don't have to be a professor to apply for a grant

>if not, who applies for grants unless you're a professor or senior lab scientist?
grad students

>> No.9923670

>>9923668
well yeah then i've done that too

>> No.9923673

>>9922113
>defending Copenhagen from pseuds
Copenhagen is the only tenable interpretation (currently). Hopefully you'll realize that by the end of undergrad

>> No.9923674

>>9923670
i guess to clarify:

as a grad student applying for research funding, you typically apply to "fellowships" or some other word like that

that's what i did

they give you a job to do, and a stipend to live on while you do it.

a grant is more like "here's money to build something and get something done, along with money to employ the people to do it with"

so fellowships != grants

>> No.9923688

>>9923674
>as a grad student applying for research funding, you typically apply to "fellowships" or some other word like that
>that's what i did
>they give you a job to do
I applied for a grant, not a fellowship, and so I got to choose the research I wanted to do

>> No.9923726

>>9923673
Copenhagen isn't an interpretation.

>> No.9923740

>>9923293
this is the book you are looking for

>> No.9923750

>>9922047
I like, Computing With Quantum Cats: by John Gribbin- it explains the early computers like Colossus and the Turing Machine as well as the push towards quantum computers and the early ideas around quantum mechanics and the Bohr model.

>> No.9923757

I know next year Sean Carroll is releasing his new book which will involve all of what you want.

His other books on entropy, philosophy of physics etc are pretty good too. He generally destroys the bad part of pop sci and offers a pretty good perspective into the frame works in which we have to apply current understanding of the natural world without invoking Lawrence Krauss tier time travel and entropy bullshit.

The big picture is great, then I'd suggest from eternity to here and the particle at the end of the universe. You'll get a very good understanding of special, general relativity and quantum physics with articulate explanations without the woo.

>> No.9923760

>>9922115
>popular books on qm
>wanting to avoid woo

Pick one

>> No.9923766

>>9922047
Picturing Quantum Processes by Bob Coecke. It's simple enough for high schoolers and even preschoolers to learn. It's all pictures no math.

>> No.9923992

>>9922047
"Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum" would likely cover point 2.

I'd split up your points. Three books, one for each point. It's gonna be hard to find one that does all three well, I think.

>> No.9923995

>>9923609
You consider that to be one of the lowest desires? I think you may have an exceedingly optimistic view of the spectrum of human desire...

>> No.9924264

>>9922047
The Feynman lectures.
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
Really, a high school student could read them, it's by no means technical though it does have math in it. Maybe try Susskind's stuff https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses and the associated books. I don't know how you really expect to understand the core ideas of QM with no math. How do you expect to do any calculations? Many of the concepts and axioms are almost purely mathematical in flavor as well.

>> No.9924281

>>9923757
>Sean Carroll

Kill yourself

>> No.9924351

>>9924264
I hate to break your bubble, but tons of quantum concepts get explained and used in practice in chemistry and biotech courses without going into the math parts. You people seriously underestimate how many things can be explained and understood before going into the in depth math parts because of your habits.
>Really, a high school student could read them,
I read them some years ago, they definitely required a very good grasp of the math concepts taught in high school at the very least, if you think the average high school student can follow them you are deluded, and the average over 18 dude barely remember what he did in HS. For not physics students It's material for a second or third step, not an introduction.

>> No.9924390
File: 307 KB, 569x651, 1532625833597.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9924390

>>9922047
if you can't do the math, you won't appreciate the results, and will just put down everything as "magic quantum weirdness" at the end of the day. Brain up and learn some physics

>> No.9924417

>>9924390
this probably

>> No.9925272

>>9924390
this

>> No.9925533

>>9922047
although the name sounds like a bad meme, look for "in search for schrodinger's cat", it's pretty good

>> No.9925541

>>9922047
Looking to understand the outcome and implications without understanding the rigor. If you want a list of achievement from quantum mechanics, Wikipedia should have a list for you.

>> No.9925570

>>9922047
Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum

>> No.9925622

richard feynman

>> No.9926605

>>9922102
no joke just go to a fucking library and dont create a stupid reddit thread

>> No.9927680

>>9922047
Show off the back cover

>> No.9927775

>>9922047
anyone got a pdf of the third edition of this book?

>> No.9928455

>>9922860
you are an idiot

>> No.9928648

>>9922047
The New Quantum Universe by Hay and Walters. I read that in middle school, it was nice. But it's best for you to understand, that QM without the math is completely pointless.

I encounter many younger people who say they love QM but they hate math in general. Don't be one of them.

>> No.9928671

>>9922047
>>9928648
More importantly, don't be that guy who thinks he knows something simply because he's read the layman's overview.

Just had a guy in /sqt/ claim he has a "good understanding of QM", and then, in the same post, go on to say "[quantum entanglement seems] more like philosophy to me". Don't be that guy. Accept that, if you don't know the math, you don't know shit. You can't argue for or against observations, hypotheses, theorems, or conclusions put together by those who do, beyond "I don't like the feel of that" (which, best case scenario, is really is just code for "My fundamental understanding is wrong.").

We have far too many of "that guy" on this board as it is, which is among the reasons so many are poo-poo'ing on your effort to get a pop-sci level of understanding of the subject. Unless you have a certain mature level of humility (that is rare these days, particularly among the young), it's going to do more harm than good.

On the other hand, most of the posts on this board show a lack of even a pop-sci level of understanding of the subjects they are arguing about, but alas, feels and ego often combine to trump reality.

>> No.9928749

>>9928455
black science man fans belong on >>>/reddit/

>> No.9928805

>>9924264
>Susskind
Oh man, it's painful to watch. The questions are killing me, is this one of those public lectures or is that really what an average Stanford student asks?

>> No.9928830

>>9924351
>hate to break your bubble, but tons of quantum concepts get explained and used in practice in chemistry and biotech courses without going into the math parts. You people seriously underestimate how many things can be explained and understood before going into the in depth math parts because of your habits.
I would say they get applied rather than explained. Sure, orbitals are a quantum mechanical phenomenon and understanding their importance in bonding is essential. But just because you know how to solve the shrodinger equation doesn't mean you know quantum mechanics at a conceptual level, same with learning about them in chemistry courses. You can learn the tools and methods pretty easily without getting into the nitty gritty or having any intuition about the subject.
>I read them some years ago, they definitely required a very good grasp of the math concepts taught in high school at the very least, if you think the average high school student can follow them you are deluded, and the average over 18 dude barely remember what he did in HS. For not physics students It's material for a second or third step, not an introduction.
When I say a high school student could read them, I should've been more clear. I meant a motivated high school student who wants to pursue understanding physics at a somewhat deeper level, not the average person. Sure, it'll take work, but I'm not saying someone has to go through Irodov or anything. As for the prereqs to the Feynman lectures, having calculus is enough, which is not uncommon and with tons of online resources one could blow past a lot of the math requirements in high school much more quickly. Maybe I'm being optimistic but I truly believe that with time, effort, and patience someone who is motivated to learn could read and understand most of the Feynman lectures while still in high school.

>> No.9928836

>>9928805
Public lectures. Here, this may be more up you're alley
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-06-quantum-physics-iii-spring-2016/
Just go to the videos or read the lecture notes. Basic undergrad stuff but without the people asking nonsense every three minutes.

>> No.9929166

>>9924264
>>9928805
lenny could have done so much more over the last decade or two if he just stopped worrying about black holes and did real physics instead. you know, stuff that might be experimentally confirmable in the next 500 years

back when he worked on technicolor, he actually made predictions that turned out to be wrong. no he wastes his time on stuff that's not even wrong

>> No.9929237

>>9929166
t. buttmad phenomenoloshit

>> No.9929910

>>9929237
t. cognitive dissonance-afflicted theorist rejecting reality that his research is totally and permanently make-believe

>> No.9930240

OP here. Thanks for all your suggestions, I have decided to buy three books mentioned here.

Thread closed.

>> No.9930269
File: 2 KB, 183x276, buk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9930269

>>9929910
at least you tried
t. geometer reveling in inapplicability of his work

>> No.9930283

>>9924281
Whats wrong with Sean Carroll?