How hard is it to get a reasonable working understanding of quantum

If you understand linear algebra? Idk about 2 hours?

>>9163575
I found this guy's lecturing style easy to follow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCAxGTt7nLg&list=PLOarn8QL6W_ImlqPOMluvxIUx9hkWMiTY

>>9163575
>Background: Bachelor's in CS

I am so sorry.

>>9163622
Why are you so sorry? I make 150k+ with a fun easy job

>>9164045
He is sorry for not studying CS as a second major

>>9163590
wait QM is just linear algebra? isn't there super advanced probability theory involved too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1GdgD77AQ4

>>9165146
Nah, just basic stats, differential equations, and linear algebra

>>9165146
For the majority of QM, yea you just need linear algebra. Knowing some stuff about group theory and Lie algebras can be helpful, but aren't absolutely necessary. If you have a decent mathematical background you could work through Griffiths or McIntyre just fine.

>>9163575
>Working knowledge

depends on what you consider functional.

you can get to fine structure of hydrogen without much more than linear algebra, some statistics and perturbation theory. getting to that point will actually give you some pretty interesting qualitative insights into deeper physics without studying to much math.

You can also move "sideways" from there into simple B-E/Fermi Statistics, beginning solid state, low level AMO stuff, and some general knowledge.

some of that stuff requires more stat mech as a backround but that's not particularly trying either.

>>9163575
just QM, or QFT? QM is extremely easy, once you add relativity it starts becoming hard.

File: w.png (97KB, 467x496px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 467x496px

Its not even understanding QM as in visualizing it as you would other things. You follow the math towards insane but true solutions