Hey /sci/, do you think that one can learn quantum mechanics without going to university for it? I'd like to make physics a sort of pasion and am just wondering if it's possible for me to learn quantum mechanics.
>>7995259
No.
The hundreds of hours of lectures on youtube and the hundreds of textbooks on Amazon are all there to trick you.
In order to learn quantum mechanics you must pay to enroll in a university and have a professor fill up a really big needle with quantum knowledge and inject it directly into your brain.
It's the only way.
>>7995259
If you haven't figured out how to learn any other type of physics on your own, why would you be able to learn quantum?
>>7995276
This desu senpai
Here's a secret: professors learned from books. Professors write books. Most of everything you're being taught is from a book.
Just torrent some textbooks and watch lecture videos and take notes. Professors just condense the information, make it more accessible, and make it easy to ask questions and make sure you're learning the material through exams in turn motivating you to study.
University is still the best place to do this stuff, but it can definitely be done on your own time with some motivation.
>>7996184
>a secret
Not really. No one really thinks you can learn anything past basic calc in a lecture hall, you need to study textbooks. Lectures just help you stay engaged, but you don't cover 90% of the material you need for exams in it.
Honestly the only real reason to go to university is to get accepted into the academic/professional community. If you're going to spend 4 years mastering a subject anyway you might as well do with the people you want to work with/for.
Anyone with enough discipline and intelligence can study textbooks on their own and no one has ever said otherwise.
You can read wiki articles, slides and watch videos too if you're a dumbfuck millennial who thinks learning is what gets you a job.
>>7996200
>Honestly the only real reason to go to university is to get accepted into the academic/professional community.
This. College is mostly a sort of professional induction process more than an educational one.
Well I feel like I know exactly how quantum mechanics work and I didn't got university for it.
Maybe not the math but conceptually I got it inside out. Relativity would take another few years of my spare time reading shit on wiki and endlessly watching videos. It's not easy but it's fun
>>7996467
Are you crazy? Quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework. Saying that you don't understand the math in a mathematical frame work but that you understand the mathematical framework inside and out is just silly.
>>7996472
Do you understand quantum mechanics? What do you think about the collapse of the super position?
>>7996338
Nobody ever seems to talk about how useful it is to have experts who can guide you in choosing what to learn about, especially when it comes to subjects beyond the standard curriculum.
>>7996467
>Maybe not the math but conceptually I got it inside out.
Doubtful, the maths is pretty much the most important part, you can't just skim over it.
>>7996475
Okay if anyone else understands quantum mechanics I would be very happy to have a discussion.
Do you understand quantum mechanics? What do you think about the collapse of the super position?
>>7995259
Griffiths (2005) Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.
>>7996478
Why don't you tell me what you think first since you're clearly steering things that way.
>>7995259
Before you start with quantum mechanics you'd need to start with normal mechanics and math first.
Of course you can teach it to yourself auto didcticly, but you and I both know you don't have the discipline for that. You'll only look up things that interest you and ignore things that sound boring to you, giving you a superificial and selective understanding of QM which will never allow you to understand it to a point where you could solve actual problems with it
>>7996474
Couldn't you just pretend to be a student and go down to some prof's office, or email them, or ask on one of the numerous internet forums which professors frequent to ask?
>>7996473
You mean the collapse of the wave function?
>>7996486
Well there is no consensus on what this phenomena of collapse "means" physically. Many "interpretations" are made by scientists which often contradict.
For example, there is the popular many-worlds interpretation which personally I think is complete bullshit, since among so many reasons, it implies that there is no causality at the most fundamental level.
There is also the Coppenhagen interpretation which I don't really understand; seems to just be a lot of statistical math (statistics? governing our universe? wtf lol) though I think the implication is that what happens physically is arbitrary and meaningless since we have the math that "makes sense"
>>7996493
ye
>>7995259
Learn Precalculus
Learn Calculus and Freshman/University/Intro Physics (will have a bit of quantum at the end)
Optional: Learn General Chemistry
Learn Matrix Algebra, Vector Calculus, and Differential Equations
Optional: Learn Undergrad Mechanics and E&M
Learn Undergrad Quantum
4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki
I mean we all know the double slit experiment, but does anyone know what is happening physically? How do the elementary particles behave when they are not interacting? What the hell is a probability density? It simply doesn't exist physically until it has to? In it's place there is a 'cloud' of 'possible positions' which gives no information to what is happening physically. What is actually existing in place of physicality?
Sounds like we don't actually know what's going on, and that humanity has no idea how the universe really works.
There must be a fundamental cause and effect otherwise all of science is bunk. As Einstein says, 'God does not play dice with the universe'
I'm just going to leave this video here for now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
>>7996518
The only thing happening at a quantum level is that things get so small the tiniest interaction will completely change their behaviour. On top of that we can't both meassure velocity and position accurately. This is the Heisenberg principle.
Picture a really fast moving car. You can either meassure it's velocity by taking two different positions and meassuring the time it has passed but the car itself will be a blurr. You don't know where it was. When you meassured it you meassured both when it was at the starting position and the end position, so for your velocity measurement the car was "everywhere".
On the other hand if you want to meassure the position of the car exactly, you have to stop it. Halt it in motion, pin it to a spot and then you know where it is. Like taking a picture. But from a still standing car it is impossible to tell how fast it was.
Of course there's ways to meassure both, but none without making the other more inaccurate.
You can meassure the car moving a tiny space and get the velocity that way and have a relativy accurate position of the car but both will be inaccurate to reality. This effect becomes more and more extreme the tinier you get. In the quantum world it is impossible to meassure the position of a certain particle accurately. So it only has a probability of being at a certain position
>>7996541
Yes yes I understand the uncertainty principle, since this is the smallest scale of the universe, the quantum scale where this quantum phenomena happens; so the measuring tool can't be smaller than what is being measured (or rather it can't be more precise than the physical phenomena itself) so the simple act of measuring one attribute, changes it's other attributes
I'm more interested about what causes the particle to 'pick' one position over another. I suppose due to the uncertainty, the implication is that it's a limitation of the universe and the best we can do is create statistics to 'guess' where the particle is most likely to end up at.
I think it's because of this (perceived) limitation that there are so many theories over what is happening behind this phenomena of 'picking a position'. It would be sad to say that we can never know and that this limitation is just inherent to the universe, however the physicists haven't given up yet so no one officially thinks that yet.
If it really is inherent, then that means we will never truly know what is fundamentally happening in the universe... Certainly we are not doomed to be ignorant? But presently, it seems we don't know...
...Or am I misunderstanding?
>>7995259
Quantum mechanics is all except Physics anyway.
On another note, disregarding the collapse phenomena, isn't it crazy that particles 'teleport' at the quantum scale? There's also the fact that sometimes it exists at two places at once but that's more due to the fuckery caused by relativity and doesn't appear to be an objective phenomena.
The universe being discrete at the most fundamental level, particles hopping in quanta lengths... Reminds me of how stuff moves on the monitor, pixel by pixel....
>>7996567
Quantum particles have a wavelength for a reason. They move in a space that is imeassurable to us. It's random simply because we randomly meassure them.
If you meassured the same particle 5 seconds later it might be a in a completely different state than you meassured it before.
Instead of picturing all quantum particles as balls try to picture them as clouds where the particle could be whereever in that cloud and the moment you meassure it you know where it is but it also stops being a cloud
>>7996583
Actually, thing weird about quantum physics is that it is completely useless to try to visualize it (hurr hurr it teleports that's awesome bro).
>>7996585
So this nonrandom mechanism that appears random to us, is it impossible to even... fathom it?
I can't even....
Doesn't that mean it's an assumption? We are making assumptions about the most fundamental nature of reality and just saying it's impossible to verify? I don't think physicists are doing that
Did you check out the video I posted? It's an actual poll of the worlds most modern physicists! There simply is no consensus.
If you are trying to explain the fundamental nature of reality (something physicists haven't even come to an agreement yet) then you are just sharing your interpretation.
So you're telling me to picture a cloud that just magically stops being a cloud. Okay if it's not magic than what is it. A fundamentally mysterious mechanism of the universe? The way you explaining it, sounds like magic to me...
What causes the cloud to collapse into a position? That's the whole crux of this discussion, of modern physics really.
>>7996586
If the phenomena is not happening physically, then where is it happening? If it is a physical phenomenon then it can be visualized! Or are we changing the definition of physicality itself?
Okay if the quantum scale can't be visualized, and it's not physical in the way macroscopic phenomena is physical. Then in what way is it physical? What do you think about this phenomena; physical? how? >2000!
Some scientific theories provide the idea that it is part of an inherent information within the universe, like extradimensional? Ironically the definitions of that word are listed as 'fiction' but one definition says "Coming from a dimension outside Einsteinian space-time." Quantum mechanics is not compatible with Einsteinian space-time is it? I'm not too sure about this...
Honestly it makes complete sense to me when I visualize it, but that's due to my own personal conjecture that I won't share until I hear of other's opinions regarding the lack of consensus and many interpretations from modern physicists that contradict
>>7995259
Why does everyone always care so much about quantum mechanics?
I had to decide between quantum chemistry and biochemistry and I don't think I would ever decide for quantum chemistry shit just seems super boring and most people that talk about QM on the internet are just teenagers that can't even do high school maths
>>7996649
More like they are arrogant ignoramus that can't be assed to read the thread but posts anyways
>>7996655
>ignoramus
Ooh, using them big words
>>7995276
I already graduated but returning to school. This is exactly what I've been doing. Reading textbooks, watching lecture videos on the subject and doing practice problems. I went into the class several weeks ahead and everyone wondered how my knowledge in the subject was so strong.
The professor didn't teach the material to the level I studied prior to taking the course so everyone that went to class to learn the material was behind me. I ended up being stronger in class from being self-taught than having actually attend any course.
:^)
>>7996665
okay. stop being a little stupid ass bitch.
there's no small words for self entitled, egotistical.
I could call you a dick but that's not very specific is it?
fucking noobs and their ambiguity in the use of the English language. fucking shitty society that operates on assumptions and implications.
u know the 1984 book? the whole point of removing words from the engligh language is so that, if you don't know the word behind the concept, you can never think of the concept itself, without going through convoluted abstract thinking that is required for creating novel thoughts... which I doubt your sorry ass is capable of
ye i mad
>>7996473
>collapse of the wave theory
proof is in the pudding
I once suggested to someone that particle annihilation was akin to a debt colliding with its IOU, clearing the books.
Did I dumb down science good?
>>7996678
There is enough pudding in this thread that I and another anon has posted about. eat it already
>>7996639
>What causes the cloud to collapse into a position? That's the whole crux of this discussion, of modern physics really.
Meassurement
>>7996683
following measurement, does the wave function restore itself?
>>7996677
Oh shit you also read 1984 in high school?
wow you must be very smart
>>7996690
You're a fucking idiot, especially if you're the same guy he was responding to earlier.
>>7996688
Sure. The meassurement just never ends after you meassured it once
>>7996693
>he
nice try with the same fagging
If you want to complain about English maybe you shouldn't use the word noob like a 13 year old
>>7996694
then why can't a qubit normally be reused?
>>7996683
You mean elementary interaction? Entanglement? That's the real cause, of which it is a consequence of fundamentally imprecise measurement.
What I mean though, is not what causes the collapse itself, but what causes the collapse to go to a specific position over another.
The statistics and probability, as the concepts inherently imply, are just guesses to what is most likely to happen. It is not at all an explanation of how and why the position is 'chosen'
>>7996688
Well from my understanding the wave function, is a function of the variables regarding the attributes of the particle in question, and also the thing causing the interaction and also possibly the environment.
It's actually a relative thing. Even macroscopic groups of particles that are entangled have their own probability wave function when interacting with other groups of particles increasing entanglement. It's just that the position it will collapse to is like 99.999% chance likely. But textbooks do say that throwing a ball at a wall has an almost zero chance of going through the wall. It is still nonzero.
>>7996690
lol now you are just baiting. u mad? use that emotion productively instead of wasting it towards trolling
>>7996695
kek
maybe he is just sexist. or she. heh
>>7996696
I take it back. Yeah the wave function is restored after meassurement. As an example just take the reflecting light of a double slit experiment and send it through another double slit. You'll get the same pattern again, even if you take the light from only one single line.
>>7996703
A magic pixie named Boobah determines what the final wave function will be.
And no one can prove me wrong.
>>7996715
boobah has to follow the laws of statistical probability though, so boobah's 'decision' is still regulated by something else
>>7996712
I'm not trolling though. me being mad there is me using my emotion productively to prove a point of how you(?) are discouraging clear communication and how that is just counterproductive to society at large. you are literally encouraging ignorance. you are the scourge of humanity. pls an hero :)
>>7996715
Let's break that down a bit. so it is something nonphysical causing influence onto the physical realm? But perspectives and ideologies of physicalism and materialism would never acknowledge that!
>>7996717
Maybe boobah is the one who is regulating the phenomenon, creating the data that the statistical probability is based on.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding?
>>7995259
Yes. I learned QM before going to university.
There are people studying maths and chemistry who have no problem teaching themselves quantum physics.
There are lots of good lectures online, along with textbooks and lecture notes. Lenny Susskind's youtube lectures are good. They don't go into a lot of detail, but they give you a good basis to build on. If you have all of the prerequisites Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" is a very good introduction. The Feynman lectures are nice as well, and cover a lot more than just QM.
One piece of advice would be to forget whatever you've learned from popular science - even if it's correct it will probably confuse you. I'd read Feynman's "QED" before my first quantum textbook, and I was confused by the fact none of the maths looked anything like the "summing over every path the particle can take" Feynman described, and ended up wasting time trying to link what I'd read in Feynman to the textbooks. Turns out his "sum over paths"method (functional integration) is needlessly complicated for introductory problems and is typically saved for relativistic quantum field theory, where the usual wavefunction formalism is very difficult to make sense of.
>>7996717
Boobah determines probabilities. The chance of Boobah having this ability is 100%, because Boobah is infinitely recursive. Boobah don't give a fuck.
>>7996748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvYUJbMlOIE
BTW. Is Dark matter/energy classified as physical? Hmmm. I read somewhere that the observable/physical universe is less that 10% of the entire universe, due to the discrepancy of the mass causing gravity...
>>7996774
Yes it is. Dark Matter is nothing more than Matter we can't observe. Planet 9 or Dark Holes would consritute to dark matter for example.
Dark energy is something entirely different.
>>7996715
Boobah must be a very non-local sort of creature.
>>7996840
Indeed, Boobah interacts with particles via a multi-dimensional configuration space.
>>7996478
Why don't you tell us about the "super position" so we can all laugh at what a retarded piece of shit you are.
>>7996583
>isn't it crazy that particles 'teleport' at the quantum scale?
They don't, what gave you that idea? Quantum teleportation isn't about particles literally teleporting if that's what you're thinking about.
>There's also the fact that sometimes it exists at two places at once
Sort of
>but that's more due to the fuckery caused by relativity and doesn't appear to be an objective phenomena.
Sorry what? Relativity doesn't have anything to do with a position distribution.
>The universe being discrete at the most fundamental level, particles hopping in quanta lengths... Reminds me of how stuff moves on the monitor, pixel by pixel....
I assume you're talking about the planck length here, it's not the "pixel size" of the universe for one thing. It's just some length which theory predicts would be the scale at which quantum gravity becomes important, it has no known physical significance other than that. I mean you can read all of what I just said on the Wikipedia page.
It really shows that you haven't read much about quantum physics beyond popsci summaries. Learning the maths will give you a much better understanding, do that before spouting bullshit.
>>7996680
Not really because that analogy implies they both disappear when matter and anti matter colliding would usually turn into a photon or something
>>7996639
>If it is a physical phenomenon then it can be visualized!
Yeah but not as an actual picture of events. Things don't really have a visual appearance at that level since it's a similar scale to light itself so the only useful way to visualise it is with graphs.
>Honestly it makes complete sense to me when I visualize it, but that's due to my own personal conjecture
Let's hear it
>>7997420
But purely in terms of mass?
>>7997431
The mass would just convert to some of the energy of the photon. Pretty much everything is conserved one way or another as a general rule.
Quantum physics summed up:
>Fuck probability
>>7996703
>but what causes the collapse to go to a specific position over another.
maybe it's just random?
>>7995259
You can watch an entire semester's worth of lecture videos on YouTube and even get the corresponding textbook and do all the problems if you like, so no
>>7997415
Yay someone who actually knows quantum mechanics!! I'm going to look into what I thought of particles moving in quanta movements with particles existing in more than one place depending on your position relative to the particle or some fuckery like that (I think that's actually how relativity works, if there would be teleportation like phenomena, which there is regarding photons constant speed of c irrespective of the frame of reference)
Particles blinking in and out, that was just some shit from some sensationalist videos that call themselves documentaries. That Nova series bullshit ya know... Might have been full BS or I may have misinterpreted. i got no time to research today but I hope you stick around on the forums! For the week at least...
These discussions are literally what I live for
>>7997430
Well I basically said it already when I mention "Let's break that down a bit. so it is something nonphysical causing influence onto the physical realm? But perspectives and ideologies of physicalism and materialism would never acknowledge that!"
To me it seems we have reached the very limit of the physical universe (arguably, depending on the definition of physicality). Instead of using statistical analysis on the fundamental nature of reality, why not do what we have always done using the axiom of causality and relentlessly look for the variable influencing these probability function collapses. If it's not in physicality it must be somewhere else...
Using statistical analysis as a substitute for an actual framework, to allow as accurate predictions as possible is great. But to use statistical analysis as the framework itself to explain the phenomena and then... trying to build an objective scientific framework to explain the physical behavior of the universe...
If I didn't know better I would say that that's against the scientific method. Are you not supposed to create a framework to allow the most precise calculations. oh I reached the character limit.
>>7995259
first admit you're just attracted to the fancy name and the "prestige" you associate with the topic, more than you are the topic itself.
It's okay, I know you won't admit it, no one ever does.
Once you get over your denial and just admit you want to understand it because it sounds cool, find a popsci book on the subject. Don't take this as a step-down or feel like you should be "studying the real thing". You will get far more out of learning the subject this way than you would trying to force yourself to learn a subject you don't have enough of a background in to ever finish.
99% of people you talk to won't have any idea that you never picked up a textbook anyway and you'll have some cool trivia knowledge.
Not trying to be a cunt, I just have a lot of friends who ask these questions to me on a regular basis and I realized pretty quickly in that this is the best solution for most people.
>>7997647
Also I do this for topics I realize I'm never going to bother learning the precursory foundations, but am still interested in it as a general idea.
I'm a big fan of learning more about neuroscience that way and I know better than to pretend I can actually do neuroscience or make any claims on the subject.
>>7997637
>with particles existing in more than one place depending on your position relative to the particle or some fuckery like that (I think that's actually how relativity works, if there would be teleportation like phenomena, which there is regarding photons constant speed of c irrespective of the frame of reference)
You're mixing things up here. It's not that a particle is "in two places at once" it's that its position isn't certain and can only be interpreted as a probability distribution over space. It doesn't depend on your position relative to the particle and it's not to do with relativity, it's just how it works.
What you said in the brackets made zero sense desu
>look for the variable influencing these probability function collapses
This is where it gets interesting and where knowing some maths would help.
You aren't the only one who wanted to find a hidden variable that decided the state of a quantum system, Einstein wasn't happy with the nature of the theory and proposed that idea. A guy called Bell then constructed a mathematical inequality (Bell's inequality) that would be true if a quantum system was indeed governed by some arbitrary hidden variable. However a few years later, experiments were made to test this inequality and it was found that real life quantum systems violated it, showing that hidden variables definitely aren't the right explanation.
You can read about Bell's theorem to get some info on this but to truly appreciate how it works without just taking my word for it I recommend you at least learn enough maths to understand the derivation of the inequality, it's not even that complicated.
>>7997670
Oh I wasn't talking about QM at all there, I was explaining the fundamentals of relativity. You know, how light is always going at C relative to the observer, creating some apparent paradoxes under the assumption that events in the universe happen at the same time, which apparently they don't. Like is there even any objectivity in phenomena itself or just in the laws that describe the phenomena. Relativity is something I have yet to even come close in wrapping my mind around.
QM I feel like I get, but tell me I'm wrong so I can learn mooaaarrrr
>>7997670
>A guy called Bell then constructed a mathematical inequality (Bell's inequality) that would be true if a quantum system was indeed governed by some arbitrary hidden variable. However a few years later, experiments were made to test this inequality and it was found that real life quantum systems violated it, showing that hidden variables definitely aren't the right explanation.
I find that very difficult to fathom. How can one create a proof that shows a system is resulted from a variable.
Are you sure it was to prove/disprove a constant? if it's a variable, then it varies... maybe a variable under a set of certain perimeters could be disproved but there are so many parameters that we don't know about in existence. "Higher" dimensions like those theorized in string theory or just stuff that has to exist but cannot be observable.
There's probably some very abstract concept that was proven/disproven.
I'm not denying what you are saying though. Algebra is fucking powerful
Anyways yea I'll definitely look that up. I'll even bring it up in the math club at school
>>7997699
With relativity things don't necessarily happen at the same time in all reference frames, that all basically comes from the fact that light has to go at the same speed in every frame. Another key idea is that there is no objective frame, no frame has a more valid view than any other. It's about as well accepted as a scientific theory can be.
With the variable thing Bell's inequality avoids complication by dealing with the simplest quantum system, one with only two states, e.g. +1, -1. The variable is written as some arbitrary parameter "x" which will give either a +1 or a -1 for a system. Bell's inequality deals with two entangled two level systems A(x) and B(x), prepared in such a way that if one is in the +1 state then the other is in the -1 state (could alternatively be in identical states but w/e). He characterises the states as functions of x that will give a +1 or -1 for any value of x as long as A = -B.
Using some clever integration and multiplying he then arrives at some conditions which must hold for any function of x, no matter what form.
Again, at this point you can only take my word for it but it makes sense, I've gone through the derivation myself and it works. You should too, don't settle for a non mathematical hand waves explanation when you can learn how it actually works.
I'm fucking pissed with qm your saying we know so much about the world and it's only when we cant see it that's when the magic happends? the people that push this piss me off but then again people that bace thire reputition carrier and job on this wont welcome a paradime shift fuck no
>>7998352
>it's only when we cant see it that's when the magic happends?
No it's when we measure it, as in actively interfere with the system to get information out of it.
>>7998385
No the magic really is just any interaction, which the active interference of measurement is an example of.
What causes a particle to choose one position instead of another when the "probability density function" collapses?
>>7998419
idk, maybe it's just random. That's what it looks like.
>>7998466
if the fundamental nature of reality is random, then isn't the scientific method invalid? Doesn't that make everything we have ever known invalid? Doesn't that recursively disprove the very observation that it looks random?
If it is random then the fundamental axiom of causality is invalid.
This is why there are so many differing interpretations of QM. They try to explain how there is still a semblance of causality.
Which is why I love discussing it. But so far no one has really given their own opinions on it. Just regurgitating the coppenhagen interpretation that says it is not random, it is arbitrary. which is kind of a cop out.
Jesus christ dude stop talking, your'e not talking about QM you're talking about 'cool' parts of it.
You want to learn QM and actually do things with it? Do calculus, analysis, undergrad physics etc.
I think a more important question is what you want to learn about QM? Like where do you want to go with this?
>>7998474
>axiom of causality is violated
Is it though? Things still cause other things in the probabilistic model, they just have variable results.
>>7998539
You could just as well say that the "cause" for a particle being in a certain location is the distribution being non zero at that position. It's not happening for no reason at all.
Randomness and uncertainty are kind of a fundamental part of how it's possible to see the universe.
>>7998539
It's an axiom of the system and its semantics anyway, this doesn't affect shit.
Particles exist as a probability cloud, just because its counter intuitive to you doesn't mean it's wrong. If someone figures out the reason behind it you can be sure they'll use maths to do it because they'll need to show at a suitable limit they get QM as we have experimentally confirmed it.
>>7998546
>distribution being non zero at that position
Uh... that comes from statistical analysis. Which is just mathematical functions made from data of previous observations.
Math has never been the reason anything happened in the universe before, why are we resorting it as an explanation now? It's only when we apply the math to the physical phenomena do we know the "what" "why" and "how" things occer behind the pheonomea... instead of the other way around where we are now applying physical observational data to the math and using this math as an explanation.... that's just not how science works. Not even the physicists agree. Here I'll post the video again regarding the lack of consensus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
>>7998547
Like I said, yea they have to use mathematical theories that become valid in physicality. statistical analysis is not a theory, it's just statistics...
particles do not exist in probability clouds. we only perceive it to be because that's what our statistics implies, statistics that we created from data. this is a recursive explanation, it is not valid. it is wrong.
none of the interpretations of QM that modern physicists have actually say that particles exist in a probability cloud. no scientist actually believes that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
>But the physical and metaphysical questions give rise to doubt and contention over what is the place and character of causality in atomic and sub-atomic physics
WHAT IS THE PLACE OF CAUSALITY IN QM???
Probability clouds do not have causality! I don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing until you guys get this shit...
Cool no offence, you're not arguing QM then you're just arguing philosophy so I'll take my leave to it.
>>7998555
If you think I am arguing philosophy, then so are the modern physicists.
I'm arguing about the scientific method. Statistical analysis has nothing do do with the scientific method. You make theories from statistics, and then prove these theories.
You cannot use the statistics themselves as the theories.
The interpretations I speak of are actually possible theories that the modern physicists are trying to create and then make mathematical models for them, which so far hasn't really happened yet.
Just watch the fucking video about modern physicists and consensus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y
>>7998560
dood I'm a Physics grad student at the top uni in my country, no one is working on this. It's a debate but this isn't QM its the philosophy behind QM. What people are working on is mathematical framework to make predictions and testing them, you're not interested in QM you're interested in the real theory lurking behind QM right?
Thats fine, but if you want to learn QM you need to study lots of other things, if you just want to debate about the universe you don't really need to learn much I guess.
Stats are fine, once again just because you're not used to stats being theories doesn't mean they can't be.
>>7998565
They can't be theories, but they are an appropriate supplement to theories to provide explanation, nay, predictions, for the physical phenomena
But tell me this. Is there any way to know where a particle will be after the probability density function collapses? Before the collapse happens, don't you end up with multiple outcomes of equal chance? Also as an aside, are there outcomes with little chance that can still occur? Isn't that really really bad for predicting????
I'm not undermining you're academic achievements or anything like that but the question begs to be asked: are probability functions really a good way of predicting when it can never tell you 100% what will happen? At the end of the day, it amounts to throwing dice. And we all know what Einstein says about that...
If we cannot make deterministic predictions, then the mathematical framework simply is not complete yet, and to say it is a limitation/fundamental nature of the universe is just incorrect, not to mention a complete cop out.
Hasn't modern science just been bastardized into a means to an ends, instead of an ends in of itself? Where is the integrity in academia???
>>7998578
>If we cannot make deterministic predictions, then the mathematical framework simply is not complete yet
Says who?
>>7998578
I feel like I"m literally banging my head against a wall here.
You keep spouting how the world can't be random, thats you're problem. You've grown up getting used to everything being deterministic, this is the tough part of QM, that as of right now we think that life isn't deterministic.
They are a fine way of predicting as they are in line with experimental data.
You can't solve polynomials of degree 5 or higher exactly in general, thats strange too isn't it? But it's been proved, sometimes shit just isn't intuitive.
>>7998474
You should probably study the actual maths behind quantum mechanics rather than relying on your shaky knowledge from IFLS.
The events where the particle on measurement collapses all follow a probability distribution. We can rely on science because we can predict this probability distribution.
Have a look at the law of large numbers, mate.
>>7998578
Put down the weed mate. Study some statistical mechanics and you'll understand how probability distributions can be used to describe "deterministic" behaviour at our size.
Khan Academy and patrickJMT for math.
MIT OCW for basic physics and comp sci
Youtube has complete courses on PDE and complex variables.
After that with standard textbooks and youtube you can learn on your own.
>>7995259
Yes you can. But it is a lot of work. You need to learn a lot of math. Reading popular books will not do it.
I am currently doing this. I have been tracking MIT's course though not enrolled. Currently I am working on the third year math. I have done one course on QM and preparing for a more advanced course. Some things I have learned:
1. You need to really make sure your understanding is solid before moving to the next stage. Otherwise you will get lost.
2. Do the exercises in the text books. There is no substitute for this. This means getting textbooks with answer to selected exercises.
3. You need to get the background math down pat. This means you will probably spend more time learning math than physics.
4. A book that really helps is "A Mind for Numbers". It is full of helpful advice and tips about learning technical subjects.
5. You need to slow down and work through the material. You cannot read this like a novel or a popular book. Take your time and get a solid understanding.
One of the challenges is working out how much math you need to know. For example in algebra you don't need everything. In group theory you need basic group theory, and representations. You can leave out Galois theory and the Sylow theorems. You don't need a very deep understanding of analysis or topology, just a bit to get through Hilbert spaces. I have learned the hard way to learn stuff on demand - otherwise you can waste a lot of time on esoteric material that you will never use.
>>7998730
I find watching lectures helps quite a bit. These get thinner on the ground as you become more advanced. also having multiple books so if you get stuck with the explanation in one you can look in another one. This has saved me a lot of time.
Second hand books are not that expensive, and there is also the internet ;-)
>>7998589
>>7998593
>>7998614
>>7998620
Um, do you guys know more than the modern physicists? Why don't you attend those conferences along with the scientists and prove to them how QM is undoubtedly indeterministic. Because no one has proved it yet. It is still only a belief
I posted the video three times but maybe you guys are allergic to youtube. The text version linked in the video is here
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/
And here is the full paper from the Cornell University Library regarding the poll of modern physicists at the conference “Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality,” held in July 2011 at the International Academy
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf
>>7995259
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Courses-Mechanics-Microscopic/dp/1598035215
I took this bad boy. The lecturer is Benjamin Schumacher and he does a good job. It starts tame but by the fourth or fifth lecture I had to repeat a lot of the material. I am a guy who , from what it sounds, was like you and this course was exactly what I was looking for.
Don't listen to the random haters of QM who come here for some reason. The material is very interesting, and learnable
>>7998620
Yea they can be used to describe physical phenomena. I never said they can't. As I said, they are an appropriate substitute to theories but aren't theories explaining any deterministic phenomena.
Statistical mechanics is based on Probability theory, which is the the analysis of random phenomena. Phenomena that is not deterministic. Sure it can be used to describe the "average behavior" but it's just really good guessing and doesn't actually explain the phenomena like a scientific theory is supposed to.
>>7998614
This goes for both posts.
I'm not saying that it doesn't work, or that it's even inadequate in predicting phenomena.Of course we can rely on this probability distribution. But it's not a scientific theory (it's still science, scientific analysis), it's not an actual explanation by any means like a theory is supposed to do
>>7996671
are you autistic? or can you really not tell he was being sarcastic?
>>7996200
> No one really thinks you can learn anything past basic calc in a lecture hall
Wtf kind of uni do you go to ?
>>8001882
what kind of uni do YOU go to? No where can a student ignore all the physical material like textbooks and notes from the professor and expect to learn solely from the interaction between the student and the professor in a lecture hall
Does the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics mean it's the end of researchable physics?
>>8002618
not him, but I think the "up to calc" thing is an exaggeration. but generally yes, you're right; I'd probably draw the sand around junior year undergrad courses. before then, the material is fairly straightforward (honestly it's the math that freshmen struggle with, not the physics per se).
ITT
Retards who have never taken an actual physics course
>>7998565
>dood I'm a Physics grad student at the top uni in my country, no one is working on this.
Gerard 't Hooft thinks it's interesting enough to work on and he has a Nobel prize for his work on electroweak interactions.
>>7996583
Except it doesn't, those are just popsci analogies for the general public to delude themselves into believing they know about quantum physics.
