Thread replies: 27
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Why are quantum physicists so fucking brainlet ? 2017-03-18 02:27:39 Post No. 8756968
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Why are quantum physicists so fucking brainlet ? 2017-03-18 02:27:39 Post No. 8756968
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: stern_gerlach.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 1280x720px
Why are quantum physicists so fucking brainlet ?
Anonymous
2017-03-18 02:27:39
Post No. 8756968
[Report]
It is extremely hard to find one damn one clear book about quantum physic. In almost every book, physicists try to present very fundamental Hilbert spaces definitions and theorems (dude weed if [A,B] = 0 then AB = BA lmao ! ), maybe to convince themselves they are not doing absolute bullshits, but they do not define properly their own operators. The most annoying thing is their absolute shit tier notations.
There are ten operators in quantum physics, ONLY TEN ! And finding a book which expose them clearly is extremely rare.
It's unbeliveable to see how unclear are the fundamental concepts of Hilbert spaces, projections, convex functions for quantum physicists, they really do not get what they are doing.
I'm not criticizing physicists ( I'm not a mathautist), only quantum physicists. Those who work in mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, fluid mechanics, statistic physics and RG understand what they are doing, but not quantum physicists.
It's really like they are enjoying their blurred concepts, without any kind of clear definitions.
Quantum physic is not hard. Understand it is basically understand any little class about basic algebra/analysis in Hilbert spaces. But quantum physicists are so ignorant they try to bullshit as much as they can their field so it could look like very complicated.
Death to those parasites.
>>
every scientific/engineering field does this
>>
>>8756968
Intro Quantum Mechanics books are written for undergrads or beginning grads in physics. To do QM rigorously you need Functional Analysis and Measure Theory. Physics students don't learn these, at least not before they take courses in QM.
>>
>>8756968
>There are only ten operators in QM
What the fuck are you on about you undergrad retard?
>>
post the 10 operators then.
Also, there is a quote by Nash you would enjoy, basically abut how quantum mechanics is just a voodoo cookbook that everyone uses and nobody really understands why it works.
The prof at my school who teaches GR is insanely intelligent and he always berates QM
>>
File: 1463296693152.png (176KB, 2853x1692px) Image search:
[Google]
176KB, 2853x1692px
>>8756968
there are postulates for qm, but of course you are an undergrad and cannot access those books. the clear books are about AQFT
>>
>>8756968
>I'm not a mathautist
>I'm not, I'm not, I'm not
Yes, you are.
>>
congratulations on learning that the general populace has no notion of what is real or not and academia is just full of people trying to appear smart in order to gain prestige/money
Protip: Quantum eraser experiment is actually showing that the future exists
>>
>>8756968
Do you understand there're still unsolved problems in the very basics of quantum theory, right
>>
>>8757732
I'm working with with mechanical engineers you baka, at least they understand what they manipulate. They also manipulate tensor, like quantum physicists and GR research workers, but at least they know what it is.
>>8757487
Position
Momentum
Angular Momentum
Spin
Kinetic energy
Potential energy
Dipole moment
And few others.
>>8757402
Do you know a clear book about quantum physic ? I just want to do not melt my brain by reading it because of non-clear assertions.
>>
>>8756968
>maybe to convince themselves they are not doing absolute bullshits, but they do not define properly their own operators. The most annoying thing is their absolute shit tier notations.
This used to drive me mental back when I did physics.
>>
>>8756968
>t. brainlet
Did you just find out you failed Intro to QM?
>>
>autist
>French
Is this the worst combination?
>>
>>8758089
>But the concepts of QP are NOT clear.
That's because the foundations have still to be put on a rigorous foundation. Closest you'll get is CQFT.
>>
Have you tried with Takhtajan and Von Neumann?
>>
>>8756968
>if the commutator is zero they commute
yes that's what that means?
>>
Then there's Folland's QFT.
One better know all the math involved beforehand.
>>
>>8758017
There's actually only 2 operators. r and p. The rest are all made of r^x p^y
>>
>>
>>8758715
The hamiltonian is also some sum of r^x p^y
Say the qho, H = p^2 + x^2
>>
>>8758715
Non commutivity just says its not a number ie either a derivative or a matrix
>>
>>8758017
>Do you know a clear book about quantum physic ?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Mathematicians-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0821846302/
>>
>>8758821
Quantum spin isn't made up of r and p.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (42KB, 380x475px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 380x475px
>>8756968
I know right. Clebsch--Gordan coefficients are totally ok but as soon you start talking about multiplexes everyone is like WOAH THERE DUDE THAT'S CONTRIVED!!!
The few quantum chapters in Pic related are extremely informative and organized for maximally easy consumption
great book
>>
>>8758047
What have Frenchmen ever done to you ?
>>
Thanks so much for this thread.
My uni's physics program is kinda weird, no Analysis classes required nor is linear algebra even required (though it is covered in Mathematical Physics). I got into quantum and it felt like they were trying to teach me physics without thoroughly explaining the math. I'll check out some of the textbooks posted in this thread. Even though I'm now a grad student in NE, I'd like to be able to say I actually understood what I learned in quantum.
Thread posts: 27
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3