/sci/entists help me outI'm a retard interested in learning Quantum ScienceWhat's the best online resource - free or paid - where I can pay someone to teach me quantum science?>inb4 learn yourself using a bookAs I said I'm a retardThanks in advance
>>16543606It's a hoax, borderline meme> t. ex "I heckin love science" normie
>>16543606Either buy a textbook (Griffiths or McIntyre) or don’t learn it at all. Stay the fuck away from quantum mechanics (“quantum science” as you call it). We don’t need more of you quantum computing niggers in the department.
>>16543609okay schizo>>16543610I'm just learning for funDon't have any desire to become quantum computing faggot or pursue anything else
>>16543611So buy a textbook. That’s also the advice for any discipline. Buy a textbook.
>>16543606If you just want basic concepts, download a copy of Hewitt.If you want to go into some of the easy math, download a copy of HRK.If you want to go into some of the actual math, download a copy of GriffithsIf you want to go into the difficult math, download a copy of Zettili
I'll shill Brilliant because they're the only true beginner resource that actually tries to get you somewhere that I know of. Other anons are right though, the usual approach are textbooks. Go with a freshman physics with modern physics, straight up modern physics, or quantum mechanics (McIntyre or Townsend, why not)I remember going through Mastering quantum mechanics on edx and enjoying it, butt had already done all prereqs at college. They now published the textbook for the course, so that's cool. But I'm pretty sure it will be the most challenging option.
>>16543755I will also suggest a different approach which I've never tried nor know how feasible might be for beginners. I recently heard about this book which takes a historical approach. You seldom see this in formal education but I wonder if a layman might find it easier to follow. I still find it interesting and valuable. You may check it out https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/quantum-concepts-in-physics/6B205A4EAC85D0E474DE7F7048519500
>>16543606>best online resource>free or paid>where I can pay someoneYou sound easy to scam. PM me.
>I don't know physics>teach me frontier scientific inquiry in the field of physicsWhat causes this?
>>16543606Learn some math first, ideally calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. Group theory and representation theory would also be good for quantum mechanics.
>>16543811Pop-science videos.
>>16543606If you're too lazy to read Griffiths then I guess MIT OpenCourseWare will at least give you an introduction, you can come back with questions after watching it (although I would recommend that you read Griffiths as well)https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPrThis guy also has an interesting series if the lecture is too technical:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
>>16543811>quantum mechanics >frontieryou’re a century late. Even quantum field theory is more than 70 years old by this point. Actual frontier would be a specialization into condensed matter physics or quantum gravity research.
>>16543610What's wrong with quantum computing?
>>16543755What's your background?
>>16543763Isn’t the historical approach (ie. mechanics > stat mech > wave mech) preferred by universities? At least the course ordering seems to suggest this.I wonder how useful is the wave formulation of QM as some people seem to suggest that it obfuscates quantum theory beneath a bunch of sophisticated math apparatus that has nothing to do with quantum theory in the first place. After all, what’s the difference between a qubit and an electron? Wouldn’t information theory shed a cleaner picture of QM in this respect? To use a popular idiom: “see the forest for the trees”
>>16546149I majored in physics a couple of years ago. Did mastering qm during the break before actually enrolling into a qm course. I did take modern physics (Thornton) the semester before that one though. >>16546259Some do follow that sequence but what I meant is that book actually takes the time to walk you through the different discoveries as understood at the time. Standard textbooks might talk briefly about an experiment and then tell you we have a briefer and more modern way of understanding this so that's what they'll teach you. Which can be fine but I'm hoping the original approach is less daunting for someone without much background in physics.
>>16546259I've heard of what you describe in the second paragraph though, but don't really know much about that. Math/CS people seem to prefer thinking about qm as exotic probability or something. I'm sure it's worth exploring. Hopefully it'll shed some light on fundamental physics in the future if it hasn't already.
how does QM different observers? does one observer looking in Schrödinger's box collapse the wavefunction for other observers?
>>16546096Infested with money-chasing niggers who couldn’t give two shits about physics and can’t do basic math.
>>16551065
>>16543606Modern physics by Krane
>>16551065Collapse (of a wavefunction, density matrix, or otherwise) is, as defined by the founding fathers of QM, an "act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer". If the other observers neither perceive nor learn something, there is nothing to collapse.
>>16543606>What's the best online resource - free or paid - where I can pay someone to teach me quantum science?the talmud, all of the rhetorical tricks of that area of so-called science are explained theirin
