Timeline for Where does a math person go to learn quantum mechanics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2013 at 11:25 | comment | added | Amin | I also agree that you should spend time learning classical physics, and also be willing to spend some time understanding the experiences that lead to QM, otherwise you won't feel comfortable with what's going on, and have the impression that there are definitions falling from blue sky. I'm quite surprised by the person who said classical mechanics is irrelevant for QM, really...And don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the mathematics in QM, but about understanding what's going on. Further, my impression is that the asker is not worried about the maths. | |
| Jan 15, 2012 at 7:52 | comment | added | Chris Gerig | But then Ehrenfest's Theorem becomes less beautiful if you "ignore" CM. | |
| May 12, 2011 at 4:06 | comment | added | Mateus Araújo | I firmly disagree. I am a physicist who has studied classical mechanics extensively, and researches quantum mechanics for a living. Classical mechanics is mostly irrelevant. There's a quick review of what I consider a good approach to classical mechanics in Terry Tao's blog: terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/… But nevermind classical mechanics. If you want to learn quantum mechanics, learn quantum mechanics. For that, I recommend Nielsen and Chuang's superb Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 21:11 | comment | added | Pádraig Ó Conbhuí | I would definitely agree with this. There are a lot of very important results in QM that won't mean anything to you unless you have some intuitive sense of what they relate to in the real world. One obvious example that comes to mind is quantum numbers, which mainly arise to prevent unphysical results in equations, such as diverging exponentials. | |
| Dec 4, 2010 at 16:54 | comment | added | Michal Kotowski | I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that you should not begin with an overly mathematical course - basically all the essential features of QM can be learned in the context of quantum information and finite-dimensional systems, without delving into the subtleties of functional analysis. This way you will get a clearer picture of fundamental concepts, not obscured by technicalities. | |
| Jul 10, 2010 at 8:07 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Math packaged as "physics" sounds alright to me! | |
| Nov 6, 2009 at 8:38 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I concur. Missing out on classical mechanics before QM is sort of like learning algebraic topology before calculus. It's doable but you miss out on much of the context and motivation for the subject. I suppose there are people that pick up formalism quickly, but speaking only for myself, if I see formalism without a compelling historical context, without some sense of the ambient context that the creator of the idea had, more often than not the ideas just wash by me. | |
| Oct 28, 2009 at 5:17 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Anton Geraschenko | ||
| Oct 27, 2009 at 23:02 | history | answered | Deane Yang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |