AdamWho

deathofamind

I was thinking about my response earlier;
The reason I asked this was that people seem to be enthralled with the (imagined) mystery of QM and rarely with the actual substance. Often times these types will get a piece of some theory, misunderstand it, and spread misinformation.
Why should I care? I don't know, maybe in is the same reason that people on this board argue with christians about the smallest details of the bible.
This is not to say that I don't think that people shouldn't ask questions rather that they should crawl before they run.

nescio

Only with that computerized voice box!

Back in high school physics (circa 1985) we watched a documentary (IIRC about Grand Unified Theories) which had Hawking talking himself. It was near unintelligle but he had an intern/assistant/grad student who could understand him translating. I don't remember details but the apparent moaning and groaning was actually a sophisticated physics talk. I think he got the voice box a few years later.

OK, that's kind of irrelevant, but I hadn't posted on the new board yet.

cfgauss

He had a tracheotomy and was unable to speak (probably) shortly after that. He speaks now by moving his hand to select words on the computer with a clicker. He speaks at 6 words a minute that way.

FrankQ

In books on subjects like quantum physics I finf there are usually two type, a "popular" book that tries to explain verbally without math, and is not very enlightening to the serious person, or books that are very mathematical, which doesn't do much for the non-physicist.

What I would like to find is something in-between, that uses elementary math like first-year college algebra and elementary calculus.

While not completley accurate it would be more so than words alone.

cfgauss

You find that with nearly all subjects. You really have to take a class or ask a scientist specific questions to learn more.

Jackalope

Thank you for making me get off my butt and look at QM theory again. I had a cerebral hemorhage about 8 years ago, and lost some of my ability to track the symbols in complex math (also lost the ability to read music, which really sucked for me). In the last couple years, my brain has been doing some rewiring. I can read music now, in a weird abstract way. It works, but no musician I've explain the method to would ever think to do it that way. Going back and looking at the physics stuff, it's no longer quite so much like gobbletygook anymore.

I learned the theory and the math before my cerebral hemmorage, and while the concepts were still there, I couldn't access the math part anymore. This discussion made me go back and start looking again. Holy shit, I almost understand it again. I wouldn't have even tried if you guys hadn't been talking about the misuses of quantum theory.

--Lee

asvani

Really, one doesn't need calculus to grasp Maxwell? I'm sorry but this is quite beyond my abilities to do so. Perhaps our understanding of the word 'grasp' is at variance.

I do suppose you're right in a way although I do have some reservations about one learning the finer points of Latin poetry if one does not know Latin grammar.

We should teach people to doubt, not just a jumble of facts.

Starboy

A book that I found interesting that might fit the bill is:

"The Physics of Chance" by Charles Ruhla.

Since QM is essentialy a statistical theory it starts out with basic statistics and then works its way through the theory of measurement, ideal gasses, classical statistical mechanics, then chaotic behavior, then to QM, then the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and finally Bell's inequality. It is not afraid to bring on the math, including Dirac's braket notation. I think that a first-year college algebra and elementary calculus graduate could handle most of it. I am not aware of any other book that covers so much in so few pages, (214) with exposure to so much of the actual theory.

Starboy