How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics?

How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics?

Other urls found in this thread:

mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XI
pms.ru/fizika/117.html
is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?do=predmet&kod=NOFY027
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

its ok, i guess

It's a fucking buzzword.

>How do you feel about Quantum Mechanics?
not science or math

What is it?

>What is it?
wishful thinking

Im triggered.

50% good 50% bad desu

aroused

I don't know until I take a look

So what exactly is a "measurement"?

>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.

It's Saturday, i.e. the teenyboppers are here being retarded. Just eat popcorn and laugh at them.

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.

Idk. There are pros and cons at the same time.
I'll be sure when I check it out.

didn't Bell's theorem show that pilot wave and any other local hidden variable models make incomplete predictions?

Le quirky weirdness amirite reddit xD

Why don't you go discuss your feelings somewhere else.

Nope. John Bell himself was actually a fan of pilot wave theory. Google it.

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.

Oh, cool. Any books on pilot wave you'd recommend?

mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XI
Why is popsci so obsessed with pilot wave?

All popsci I have seen presents the Copenhagen interpretation, or similar.
They could not make the undead cat meme without it.

It makes people mad because it’s unintuitive. Personally, it creeps me out. It makes me feel like our world is artificial.

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.

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.

Dead link

[math]|\text{feelings}\rangle = c_1|\text{good}\rangle + c_2|\text{bad}\rangle[/math]

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.

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.

This
QM feel like a "quick fix"

best intro to QM self-teaching books?

>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

Shankar isn't really intro.

the Cohen-Tannoudji is great but maybe it's my french bias

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.

>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

yeah this, Shankar would be better for your second rodeo with QM
maybe Griffith's intro to QM?

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.
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.
>Griffith instead of Shankar
What the hell are they teaching you in US of A?

>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.

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
was asking for an intro self teaching book you massive, insecure, faggot. Also Griffiths is perfectly fine.

We were taught from Shankar in first semester. Which yuropoor are you from and do you attend a good university in your region?
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.

Manchester, UK
conclude from that what you like

it's cool. my undergrad didn't offer enough qm so i switched to math.

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.

I like it. I also don't like it.

>putting QM on the same level of crankery as epicycles
Asking for simple solutions to complex problems is too greedy

>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.

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.

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.

Except that the mathematical underpinnings of QM with [math]\mathbb{C}^*[/math]-algebras is very beautiful.

So the non-local dynamics of pilot wave pose no problem according to you?

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.

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 :^)

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.

>tfw every QM book consist of 3-4 extremely interesting chapters followed by a series of infuriatingly dull and insightful special cases coverages

Meme science that has produced nothing of value in nearly 100 years now. Just stuck with classical mechanics

It covers a review that's perfectly fine FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WERE EXPOSED TO THOSE IDEAS.

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.

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?

you are extremely persistent
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

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.

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.

thanks dawg!

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.

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.

>Schumacher and Westmoreland - Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information
If you're interested in data transfer, is this helpful?

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.

nvm may have found the answer myself from an amazon review

>it goes deeply into the notions of information and information transfer

I really can't tell you my "position" on it.

I can't find a single example on the internet where that is true.

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
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, 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.

Quantum Mechanics is the reddit of science.

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.

>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""""

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.

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.

"My favorite textbook is better than your favorite textbook because I'm smarter than you." ...the (94,372nd) thread.

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).

>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]

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.

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.

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?

>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.

Fuzzy, confused and erected

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.

Absolutely abhorrent argument. You'd say the same thing about gravity if you don't understand calculus.

...

Calculus doesnt explain gravity either. It describes its effects nicely but it doesnt tell you anything about what is going on.

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.

why would you think it's acceptable to post disgusting racist shit on a science forum?

You're right I'm sorry that was out of line.

Not me.
This is me.

Thanks for the clarification but you can stop shifting goalposts now.

Pretty witty

Nice

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.

it lead to MO theory so I love it

>heisenberg principle leads to orbitals
uh what?
The pauli exclusion principle leads to orbitals

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