The Best and Easiest Reading on Quantum Physics?

[Ashles]

If you wait a little you might become disinterested, as I think I'm about to shake the quantum mechanics from its foundation .

I am on the edge of my seat.

Nothing to do with your silly claim, I just find it comfy to type.

 

[reason1]

I am on the edge of my seat.

You won't believe that I made some scientists on the defensive regarding the uncertainty principle. It was like as if they're part of a religious cult when their faith is shaken, it was really funny .

Nothing to do with your silly claim, I just find it comfy to type.

Well, shaking my baby will surely get me credible attention to my application .

 

[Ashles]

You won't believe that I made some scientists on the defensive regarding the uncertainty principle. It was like as if they're part of a religious cult when their faith is shaken, it was really funny .

Yeah, imaginary events are often funny.

 

[reason1]

Mathematics would remain valid in any conceivable universe which maintained internal consistency

Yeah!, you can do some crazy stuff by using mathematics in the virtual reality, but when it comes to physics we are only concerned with how the real world works, not with the probabilities of how we think it might work .

 

[Ashles]

Yeah!, you can do some crazy stuff using mathematics in the virtual reality, but when it comes to physics we are only concerned with how the real world works not with the probabilities of how we think it might work .

Yeah. Statistics and levels of confidence using probability certainly have nothing to do with analysing data.

P-value

I can see how you beat those silly old scientists with your wicked science skillz.

 

[reason1]

Yeah, imaginary events are often funny.

Why not believe me, I did it with some people here.

Yeah!, you can do some crazy stuff by using mathematics in the virtual reality, but when it comes to physics we are only concerned with how the real world works, not with the probabilities of how we think it might work .

Yeah. Statistics and levels of confidence using probability certainly have nothing to do with analysing data.

P-value

I can see how you beat those silly old scientists with your wicked science skillz.

No, I didn't mean that, notice the highlighted words.

 

[Ashles]

Why not believe me, I did it with some people here.

Er you linked to a post highlighting a load of examples of you not giving any information.

Did you mean to do that?

No, I didn't mean that, notice the highlighted words.

Oh I see.
Yes, now I definitely don't know what you are trying to say.

 

[reason1]

Er you linked to a post highlighting a load of examples of you not giving any information.

Did you mean to do that?

Yeah, but that's not true because that particular post came after I did give the information which I've promised. The poster just couldn't face it, so he/she unsubscribed (on the defensive!), which is analogous to when the scientists closed my thread claiming that I was misleading the students (can you believe that ) by over speculative posts, while what I was actually doing is just posting very scientific conclusions.

Oh I see.
Yes, now I definitely don't know what you are trying to say.

I'm sorry, I thought you know the mathematics model in QM:
I meant according to it, Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened .

 

[Ashles]

Yeah, but that's not true because that particular post came after I did give the information which I've promised. The poster just couldn't face it, so he/she unsubscribed (on the defensive!), which is analogous to when the scientists closed my thread claiming that I was misleading the students (can you believe that ) by over speculative posts, while what I was actually doing is just posting very scientific conclusions.

I find it odd you are describing discussion with strangers on an internet forum as

"I made some scientists on the defensive regarding the uncertainty principle"

Why don't you link to posts that detail your "very scientific conclusions" instead of the post that illustrates you evading answering questions.

I'm sorry, I thought you know the mathematics model in QM:
I meant according it, Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened .

No. It's not a mathematical model, it is a thought eperiment.

It's not really both dead and alive.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse

You should probably read things you link to.

 

[reason1]

I find it odd you are describing discussion with strangers on an internet forum as

"I made some scientists on the defensive regarding the uncertainty principle"

No!, I didn't do that, I said:

You won't believe that I made some scientists on the defensive regarding the uncertainty principle. It was like as if they're part of a religious cult when their faith is shaken, it was really funny .

You're quoting me as if I'm showing off, which is not true because you're the one who forced me to say that by the following 2 posts :

Nothing to do with your silly claim, I just find it comfy to type.

Yeah, imaginary events are often funny.

------------------------------------------

Why don't you link to posts that detail your "very scientific conclusions" instead of the post that illustrates you evading answering questions.

Even if I do that, you won't believe it, because you're still saying that I'm evading the questions while I did give you the evidence that I'm not! :

Yeah, but that's not true because that particular post came after I did give the information which I've promised. The poster just couldn't face it, so he/she unsubscribed (on the defensive!)

------------------------------------

I'm sorry, I thought you know the mathematics model in QM:
I meant according to it, Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened .

No. It's not a mathematical model, it is a thought eperiment.

But I didn't say that the thought experiment is the mathematical model!, did you notice the highlighted text.

It's not really both dead and alive.


You should probably read things you link to.

OK , here is another one, but this time it's a real experiment (notice the mathematics after 03:09 ):

 

[jeremyp]

Quantum Physics (QP) has been a very hyped word these days. I'm really looking forward to understand it at least at the fundamentals, but unfortunately most references out there are too technical and/or sophisticated for my lay mind. In the other extreme, some easy-to-read and watered-down explanations are too new agey and full of spiritual balooney orientation.

Is there any online source with I can get to satisfy this need? Something like the idiot's guide to QP, or QP commentaries for dummies, etc?

Please share. Thank you.

Here is a series of lectures by the late great Richard Feynman. They are also available in book form, called "QED: the strange theory of light and matter".

 

[SusanB-M1]

If you wait a little you might become disinterested, as I think I'm about to shake the quantum mechanics from its foundation . But I'd like to help you If you ask a specific question.

Now, I'm probably a bit slow on an 'in' joke or something, but could you please explain your post?!! I followed the link to a wikipedia page on the uncertainty principle ... but as I said in an earlier post, I didn't even understand the 'Bluffer's Guide'. I am, however, very interested in all this stuff and greatly admire the people who have studied and understood. I would, for instance, have dearly loved to have met Richard Feynmann.

ETA Ah, I see from reading the subsequent posts that I'm not the only one. A physicist (on another forum) made a CD for me containing audio versions of several books about and by Richard Feynmann and many of his lectures, and although I do not understand, he lectures in such a way as to make me feel that I have in fact grasped bits here and there.

 

[reason1]

Now, I'm probably a bit slow on an 'in' joke or something, but could you please explain your post?!! I followed the link to a wikipedia page on the uncertainty principle ... but as I said in an earlier post, I didn't even understand the 'Bluffer's Guide'. I am, however, very interested in all this stuff and greatly admire the people who have studied and understood. I would, for instance, have dearly loved to have met Richard Feynmann.

No, it's not a joke, it's an experiment that I'm going to do, which if succeeded, it will clear Einstein's name :

 

[Ashles]

No!, I didn't do that, I said:

You're quoting me as if I'm showing off, which is not true because you're the one who forced me to say that by the following 2 posts :

Even if I do that, you won't believe it, because you're still saying that I'm evading the questions while I did give you the evidence that I'm not! :

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You were implying (clearly) that you had shaken people's faith in the uncertainty principle (and you referred to them as scientists).
I'm waiting to see where you did such a thing.

But I didn't say that the thought experiment is the mathematical model!, did you notice the highlighted text.

So what are you saying is the mathematical model?
What mathematical model are you referring to?

Your highlighted text refers to this statement by you:

I thought you know the mathematics model in QM

Which "mathematics model" in QM?

Again I don't know what you are referring to. Why would you refer to a mathematical model when talking about a thought experiment not described by a mathematical model.

 

[Ashles]

No, it's not a joke, it's an experiment that I'm going to do, which if succeeded, it will clear Einstein's name

Can you describe the experiment?

What are you intending to do.
How will you analyse the data?

 

[reason1]

Can you describe the experiment?

What are you intending to do.

Nice try!, you want me to describe the experiment so you can go and do it yourself and steal my Noble Prize! .

How will you analyse the data?

OK, maybe I can give you some clues:
Well, according the uncertainty principle, you can not know the exact position and momentum of a photon at the same moment. My experiment on photons should prove that this is not necessarily the case!.

 

[Ashles]

Nice try!, you want me to describe the experiment so you can go and do it yourself and steal my Noble Prize! .

Oh dear, how many times have we seen this on these forums.

OK, maybe I can give you some clues:
Well, according the uncertainty principle, you can not know the exact position and momentum of a photon at the same moment. My experiment on photons should prove that this is not necessarily the case!.

That isn't clues. That is indistinguishable from fantasy.

If I tell you I intend to build a hovercar and you ask me for details (because perhaps, for some reason you are skeptical and do not entirely believe me) how much would the following exchange convince you:

Me: "I am going to test my hovercar that works by antigravity."
You: "Can you describe the test or the car?"
Me: "Nice try!, you want me to describe the experiment so you can go and do it yourself and steal my Noble Prize! ."
You: "Can you give any information?"
Me: "OK, maybe I can give you some clues:
Well, according to gravity, objects are attracted to other objects due to their 'mass'. My experiment with the hovercar should prove that this is not necessarily the case"
You: "Hmm, really..."

You wouldn't exactly be convinced, would you.

It's funny, real scientists generally get on with their research and the first you generally hear about these breakthroughs is after they publish their results.
Yet on these forums we seem to have an overabundance of amazing groundbreaking scientists, who seem insistent on announcing their amazing work before actually carrying out any experiments.
Or actually studying science to any level.
Or understanding the first principles of science.

In many ways such people are indistinguishable from fantasists who enjoying pretending to talk about science, but the moment they are out of their depth they hide behind a shield of secrecy regarding their imaginary experiments.

But I imagine you are not one of those people and we shall shortly read about your amazing experiments in "Proper Real Actual Science Monthly".

 

[reason1]

In many ways such people are indistinguishable from fantasists who enjoying pretending to talk about science, but the moment they are out of their depth they hide behind a shield of secrecy regarding their imaginary experiments.

But I imagine you are not one of those people and we shall shortly read about your amazing experiments in "Proper Real Actual Science Monthly".

Ok, I guess we all have to wait to see which one is the case. Stay tuned to the news!.

But I'm sure that even when it's in the news, some people will just stay in denial about it .

 

[Ashles]

Ok, I guess we all have to wait to see which one is the case. Stay tuned to the news!.

But I'm sure that even when it's in the news, some people will just stay in denial about it .

Well that's the thing about science.

If it's demonstrated you can't really actually stay in denial about it.

I would ask you for at least some form of description as to what sort of 'news' we should be on the lookout for, but I have a strange feeling even that will turn out to be sooper top sekrit.

So I guess I'll just assume you are making stuff up until it is demonstrated otherwise.
Think how easy it should be for you to prove me wrong.

 

[Ikarus]

Grains of Mystique: Quantum Physics for the Layman
Looks reasonable to me. The authors are both computer scientists and the material was vetted through the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup.

This one started off well and held my attention. It is written quite pleasantly, in principle, but then they start leaving stuff out and it seems they forgot complete passages at the end. Left me very unsatisfied and brainached.

Quantum Physics
From the University of Winnipeg, Canada. Brief but hits the high points. You will need to be able to read algebraic equations.

This one, however, I liked a lot. Short, good, understandable. It doesn't go into the interpretations very deeply, but you are introduced into the quantum problem very well, I think. Thanks for sharing!