Point me in the right direction -- Quantum Physics learning resources

[nnope]

I am trying to learn all about Quantum Physics on my own but I am struggling to find credible sources of information. As you are probably aware the internet is filled with misconceptions, crackpot science and weird stuff about spirituality (at least that's what I find when I try and research Quantum physics). I have the basics in terms of 'ordinary physics' as I studying civil engineering and I do have a solid background in science as I have a degree in medical science, however, I want to expand a little and learn about Quantum physics. Could anyone please suggest some solid textbooks I should purchase to begin learning, I would be learning at a slow pace but that is fine.

Also, what is up for with all the weird surrounding this subject? Do you guys have any credible websites I could go to for updates in this field, preferably not blogs written by LSD addicts who think they can make stuff move with their mind?

 

[jtbell]

In US universities, many or most students get their first exposure to QM as part of an "introductory modern physics" course which is intended to follow a standard two-semester intro physics course covering classical mechanics, E&M, optics, and thermodynamics. Typical textbooks (there are others):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118061144/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1938787757/?tag=pfamazon01-20

These assume that you already know basic classical physics (energy, momentum, etc.) and some calculus. After a course like this, students move on to a full-on QM course using e.g. Griffiths.

At the first school where I taught after finishing my PhD, most of the students in this course were in fact engineers, because it was required for all electrical engineering students.

 

[jambaugh]

As to your last question, the mystics, who's goal is to be believed, will always attempt to steal the credibility that resides within whatever the audience holds as authoritative. They must at the same time claim esoteric knowledge that you must access through them instead of directly. So look at the old 19th century ads for patent medical devices and see their invocation of the new technology, look at past and present appeals within the religious audience to divine revelations, spirits and angels. Quantum Physics, as a highly successful theoretical innovation at predicting empirical phenomena and driving specific technological advances (lasers, semiconductors, superconductors and general material science advancements...) has a rock solid reputation as an authoritative theory. As it also requires a bit of math to even appreciate simple predictions it has an air of mystery to the the layman and thus with the additional fuel of misunderstood paradigmatic examples such as Schrodinger's cat you got an authority just waiting to be exploited by the mystics.

As to learning Quantum Physics. Get a solid base of calculus and linear algebra. A little group theory would also be nice. I would leave it to others to suggest textbooks. You also need to study classical mechanics as well. One of the principle example systems we look at is the simple harmonic oscillator, first classically then quantum mechanically. Don't get confused by debates over interpretation. Stick to the empirical predictions and operational meaning of the theory.

A good starting point is to look for introductory courses at various universities. See if you can find their syllabus and the textbooks used. (A good notion for any subject.) If you can actually find class notes, all the better!

 

[nnope]

As to your last question, the mystics, who's goal is to be believed, will always attempt to steal the credibility that resides within whatever the audience holds as authoritative. They must at the same time claim esoteric knowledge that you must access through them instead of directly. So look at the old 19th century ads for patent medical devices and see their invocation of the new technology, look at past and present appeals within the religious audience to divine revelations, spirits and angels. Quantum Physics, as a highly successful theoretical innovation at predicting empirical phenomena and driving specific technological advances (lasers, semiconductors, superconductors and general material science advancements...) has a rock solid reputation as an authoritative theory. As it also requires a bit of math to even appreciate simple predictions it has an air of mystery to the the layman and thus with the additional fuel of misunderstood paradigmatic examples such as Schrodinger's cat you got an authority just waiting to be exploited by the mystics.

Thats actualy a really good explanation, thank you. So then I geuss the scienists who attribute the, for example double slit phenomenon, solely on human awareness or consciousness are doing so based on misunderstanding. (Im thinking of dr. Quantum's youtube videos).

I have looked into my university's physics programs and I will just follow their textbooks at my own pace. Thanks for the advice.

 

[jambaugh]

Thats actualy a really good explanation, thank you. So then I geuss the scienists who attribute the, for example double slit phenomenon, solely on human awareness or consciousness are doing so based on misunderstanding. (Im thinking of dr. Quantum's youtube videos).
[...]

Quite right, though I’m unfamiliar with that particular youtuber. Although there is a reason to point at consciousness and mind to explain the oddness we find in the phenomena. Our experience of oddness occures because we mistake the objective mental model in our heads for an objective reality out there. Confusing the map with the territory so to speak. My thesis advisor explained it this way, what is “out there” is an Actuality (what is happening) which at the classical level we can model as an evolving Reality (what is). But that model breaks down at the quantum level. Reality IS in our heads, but it’s “only a model”. The actuality of phenomena out there is too rich to fit entirely in an object based model. This is why one should take pains to remain Operational and Positivistic in interpreting the details of a quantum description.

 

[nnope]

Although there is a reason to point at consciousness and mind to explain the oddness we find in the phenomena. Our experience of oddness occures because we mistake the objective mental model in our heads for an objective reality out there. Confusing the map with the territory so to speak. My thesis advisor explained it this way, what is “out there” is an Actuality (what is happening) which at the classical level we can model as an evolving Reality (what is). But that model breaks down at the quantum level. Reality IS in our heads, but it’s “only a model”. The actuality of phenomena out there is too rich to fit entirely in an object based model. This is why one should take pains to remain Operational and Positivistic in interpreting the details of a quantum description.

So basically your saying misunderstanding stems from a clash between the objectice model of reality we percieve and the actual reality of the universe.

 

[jambaugh]

So basically your saying misunderstanding stems from a clash between the objectice model of reality we percieve and the actual reality of the universe.

Even the phrase "actual reality" is a bit loaded. "Real" has implicit baggage as in "state of reality". Hence the transition to "actuality". That being said then yes.

 

[nnope]

Even the phrase "actual reality" is a bit loaded. "Real" has implicit baggage as in "state of reality". Hence the transition to "actuality". That being said then yes.

Yep you've completely lost me. I was lost before but managed to get the jist of it, now I am just lost. Let's just leave it at all mystical stuff and claims on conscioussness are a result of misunderstanding.

Thanks for clearing things up.

 

[jambaugh]

Yep you've completely lost me...

I'll try one more time, which you are welcome to ignore.
* Classical Mechanics uses an ontological (state of reality) based description of phenomena. A particle is defined by a set of variables that always have specified (though possibly unknown) values we observe and which dynamically evolve over time according to dynamic laws.

* Quantum Mechanics (if you don't take the phrase "state vector" too literally) uses a praxic (same root as pragmatic and practical) based description of phenomena. A quantum is a correlation between an emission event and detection event, which we represent with the "bra" and "ket" of the Hilbert space/dual space pair. The "state" vector is better named a "mode" vector as in "mode of production" or dually "mode of registration".

The language of QM is more active and as such more general. We can always actively describe objective states but when you get into the details of QM and look at such peculiar implications as Bell's inequality violation, you find that there's actively describable phenomena that defy moderate objective description. It's like owning a helicopter instead of an automobile. There's just more places to see off-road.

A final note. We are very strongly predisposed to think in an object based way. This is because we evolved doing such things as throwing rocks at rabbits for food and fur rather that tossing individual electrons or photons through diffraction gratings. Quantum descriptions are counter intuitive for much the same reason as relativistic descriptions are, we likewise don't run around very often at appreciable percentages of the speed of light relative to each other with very accurate watches. We all stay pretty much the same speed as our planet. It takes study of the mathematics to internalize implications and get a "feel for" or intuition of relativistic behavior. It is doubly hard for QM since there's no analogies to help us. The underlying paradigm of description is different in an essential way.

There is one domain of daily experience where we (hopefully) do forsake objective descriptions for more praxic active ones. That is in human relations. I hesitate to start here as one may confuse my comments as advocating the mystics "quantum consciousness" BS. But taking this as an analog of using distinct types of description note that...
When we attempt to observe the "state of mind" of other people we must interact, and in so doing the very act of asking questions, or putting them through tests will alter them in a way that defies objective descriptions. Even if the observer is carefully hidden, the nature of a specific observation requires the individual be placed in a specific scenario. The individual is changed by that experience. A study of social phenomena has many of the same issues as QM with regard to observation of the phenomena each studies, acts of observation do not commute. Although we will use objective labels on individuals we mostly all acknowledge that these are fuzzy categories and what defines us is how we behave.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2...susing-quantum-mechanics/stories/201101090236

That's all I have to say about this type of nonsense.

Learn QM from standard textbooks. There are no shortcuts.

Zz.