do you agree with Quantum Mechanics

[AeneasBK]

I didn't think Quantum Mechanics agreed with Quantum Mechanics...

[Garnier Fructis]

Still wouldnt be a good question... Its like saying do you agree with the interpretation of math. Quantum physic is not some kind of theory, STOP IT YOU CLOWNS.

The different interpretations don't contradict the mathematics or predictions of QM, so there's no contradiction. If there were, it wouldn't even be a thing that physicists talked about. No, it's not like saying "do you agree with the interpretation of math." Because with math, if you agree on a set of axioms then you can (usually) determine objectively and definitively who is right or wrong.

Hell, like half a year ago I listened to a talk given by a prominent physicist on why he thought Everett's interpretation was correct.

[Dezerte]

There are actually different interpretations of QM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interp...ntum_mechanics

Many of them, in fact.

I'm a fan of the Hidden variable-theory myself.

[cface]

Quantom mechanic and Quantom Physics, what's the difference?

Anywho. Quantom Mechanic as in there is no gap between the observer, and the observed? That the world is entirely subjective, and cannot be objective and only exists in the conscious?

[Deleted]

I should have voted no just to troll :/.

I just did the same thing to protest the weird nature of the question.

[AeneasBK]

I have to admit, the many-worlds interpretation is one of my favorite. Hehe...

Oh is Hugh Everett III the "Everett" in "Everett's interpretation".

Y'all watch the documentary *kinda* about him via his son exploring his work? Was freaking AMAZING (particularly if you are a fan of The Eels, which you should be.) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parall...Parallel_Lives

[Rukh]

Still wouldnt be a good question... Its like saying do you agree with the interpretation of math. Quantum physic is not some kind of theory, STOP IT YOU CLOWNS.

I think a lot of people miss this, because there are a lot of theories that have come about because quantum mechanics lets us examine things in new ways. All these theories that quantum mechanics have let us describe people just sort of lump under a theory of quantum mechanics, but it's not really true. The theory exists no matter what model you use, its just that some of them are nonsensical if you try to describe them under say, traditional newtonian physics.

More accurately, quantum mechanics is to physics as statistical surveying is to sociology. In itself it's not a specific belief, but it's a new way to represent things so that we can talk about things we just plain couldn't describe before.

[AeneasBK]

Yup yup, just slapped on some Daisies of the Galaxy and reading it all over again

[Dsonsion]

Do you agree with evolution, do you agree with gravity?
They seem to happen whether one agrees with them or not. And that the beauty of scientific theories.

[Cosmic Janitor]

While we are at, I have some knowledge about quantum physics, though mostly just the quality judgment stuff and metaphors and some of the fringe stuff that bleeds into everyday physics. Any book recommendation for in depth reading and learning, including the math with explanations? I'd like to know about the actual workings beyond superimposed kitties.

[Dsonsion]

While we are at, I have some knowledge about quantum physics, though mostly just the quality judgment stuff and metaphors and some of the fringe stuff that bleeds into everyday physics. Any book recommendation for in depth reading and learning, including the math with explanations? I'd like to know about the actual workings beyond superimposed kitties.

When I studied the subject, I found Resnick's "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles" to be well-explained and fairly understandable.

[Deleted]

ok was a stupid question to ask i guess i will never know if the guys who voted no did it to troll

[Garnier Fructis]

While we are at, I have some knowledge about quantum physics, though mostly just the quality judgment stuff and metaphors and some of the fringe stuff that bleeds into everyday physics. Any book recommendation for in depth reading and learning, including the math with explanations? I'd like to know about the actual workings beyond superimposed kitties.

Feynman Lectures Vol. III for introductory QM, it has lots of insight (it's Feynman, after all), and it has some of the math.

The standard "3rd" and "4th" year QM is Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. It's decent for wave mechanics, but it sucks donkey balls if you're expecting to be able to understand more advanced QM texts from just reading this. This is because the formalism of QM is only covered in one chapter partway through the book (why didn't he put it at the start?), and very badly at that. And then it's subsequently abandoned for most of the following chapter only to resurface at spin, by which point you've probably forgotten it.

A harder, but more mathematically satisfying book is Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Make sure you know chapter 1 inside/out.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Thanks for the recommendations, I will have a look at those.

[Garnier Fructis]

Thanks for the recommendations, I will have a look at those.

For Griffiths and Shankar, make sure you know enough linear algebra and calculus. Otherwise it'll be a whole lot of "WTF?"

[Cosmic Janitor]

For Griffiths and Shankar, make sure you know enough linear algebra and calculus. Otherwise it'll be a whole lot of "WTF?"

I got that one covered - spend half my time in uni with that. /UpYoursWhoEverDecidedToRiseTheCharactertRequirement

[Garnier Fructis]

I tend to read the more esoteric (philosophical) books that touch on QM. For instance:


"What is Life?" by Erwin Schrödinger.
Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology
Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information
Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness

They all have parts and bits of QM theory in them, some with math (the Penrose book), but I am generally more interested in knowing the practical applications, than the pure mathematical information. WHich is why I like these books, though I did go through an intro to QM in school.

Beside books there are also very good documentaries on PBS:

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap
http://video.pbs.org/video/2167398185/

Anything from Greene (Fabric) and Penrose is awesome.

[Uzkin]

"Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development" by Ballentine (currently at its 2nd edition) is also a good book about QM, although a bit more advanced than most introductory texts.

Ballentine's approach has some advantages, such as defining the quantum state of a system as a "density operator" (or statistical operator, or state operator, on the system's Hilbert space) from the get-go; this general description of a state is then seen to allow for the more familiar "wave function" (or state vector) description only in a special case, i.e. when the system's state is "pure". Ballentine also derives the basic dynamical observables of non-relativistic QM as generators of the underlying galilei symmetry group, so that the treatment is quite independent of classical mechanics and the heuristic quantization rules thereof.

However, Ballentine is a supporter of the "ensemble interpretation" of quantum mechanics and his book is, in my opinion, quite subjective in this matter. Indeed, it sometimes remains up to the reader to decide which parts of his text refer to generally accepted QM theory and which are merely expositions of his preferred interpretation.