May 10th, 2006, 06:38 AM
Well, you probably already know this, but I'll offer as a warning anyways my understanding of what "quantum mechanics" means. To me, anything that can be explained in straight-forward mathematical expressions that can be solved with a few months of calculus or less is just "quantum physics". This generally refers to the conclusions derived by Schrödinger after spending a few weeks purportedly in moutain solitude, namely his bastard of an equation. I guess I should note that the equations for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and Quantum Barrier Tunneling, which were derived from the Schrödinger Equation, only use high school algebra and are actually quite fun to solve for storybook problems. However, the Schrödinger Equation is something that I can look at and understand what it does and what is going on, but to actually put numbers into it and thereby arrive at different numbers is something that I really dislike doing and properly speaking have never done properly. The process of actually working with the Schrödinger Equation in real-world problems almost always uses mathematical operators I'm not familiar with, nor with which I desire to be familiar.
Quantum Mechanics is thus a very nasty thing to work with, but it's fun to study from second-hand sources for wacky implications. The truth is that most of the weirdness issues with quantum mechanics, such as its incompatibility with general relativity and non-locality, are something that most physics students don't formally encounter until grad school, if at all. However, you can pick up a book of pop physics in the appropriate section of your local Barnes and Noble or whatever and learn about the weirdness with few (if any) numbers or equations presented in a meaningful sense. That's really how I did it for the most part, as much as I try to put up an air of formality and shit.
I personally recommend both of Brian Greene's books. In The Elegant Universe, he focuses mostly on M-theory and its progenitors, but does include relativity and quantum physics/mechanics in his outline of physics history and sporadically elsewhere for direction of where certain aspects of string theory is relevant. He deals with both much more in his later work, The Fabric of the Cosmos, which is less a pitch for M-theory (which it still copiously is) than it is a history of explaining fundamental world observations in terms of weird physics. The problem with both of these is that while they impart a good telling of what quantum and relatavistic physics actually mean, they say very little of why. Even his endnotes are little more than teasers; they generally depict pure equations and particle trait tables with no explanation of their derivations. He even presents Maxwell's Equations only in differential terms (as opposed to the more accessible integral forms), leading even advanced students wondering what the fuck is up with the upside-down triangles and shit.
One of my physics profs once said in a lecture after I asked him his thoughts on Brian Greene (whom he'd actually met) that he's "too turtle-necked black sweater-type" for his taste, or something to that effect. (Greene probably gets that a lot, because in FOTC he tries way too hard to relate to the slobbering millions with his countless appeals to Bart and Lisa performing experiments on skateboards going relativistic speeds.) Later in a study session in his office, a fellow student asked if there was any remedy to the probabalistic nature of quantum mechanics and I threw in that string theory might do that eventually. His retort was that it's arguable whether or not string theory constitutes real physics, as it's just mathematical formulae that make no falsifiable conclusions and are probably better termed as "abstract mathematical philosophy". That professor did have otherwise a very weird sense of humor of deliberately transparent condescension and was a generally swell fellow, so don't take that to mean he's just a jerk (even though he didn't accept my late homework :angry). Example: he used his wristwatch to disprove the Bohr model of the atom by counting down the time for electrons to collapse on their nuclei and cause the class to cease to exist: it was something like a billionth of a second.
HOWEVER: if you feel up to it, I do sincerely recommend that you get an undergraduate physics textbook on the subject of "modern physics". Once they are replaced by more current editions (with the differences usually only being the numbers in story problems), these books generally run VERY CHEAP on Amazon Marketplace being sold by desperate college students. This will give you an earnest explanation of why the equations say what they do, and in most all cases the equations themselves. Generally special relativity is covered in full, as it involves only high school algebra, and esoteric operators are either prefaced with explanations or are omitted entirely. General relativity is grounded in linear algebra, so either expect its equations to not be included or not be able to understand them if they are. Quantum physics is usually explained very clearly with actual equations and their derivations, but beyond Schrödinger these become useless to real impact. Expect to deal with quantization of atoms and such, which isn't as intimidating as it sounds.
Woo.
|
Linear Mode
