https://www.amazon.com/How-Teach-Quantum-Physics-Your/dp/1416572295/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=how+to+teach+quantum+physics+to+your+dog&qid=1559516110&s=gateway&sprefix=gow+to+teach+qua&sr=8-1

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information by Nielsen and Chuang is the standard intro text-book on the subject. It's how I got into the field and have taught classes using it as well. Highly recommended.

Don't think jumping directly into a programming language for quantum computing is the best idea. To me it seems like trying to understand addition and multiplication by learning Java. I would tell you to spend time at a university to learn the things required, but it doesn't sound like that's an option.

I think your best bet for a shortcut is to pick up Quantum Computation and Quantum Information by Nielsen and Chuang and start reading. It's the standard intro textbook for the field. Whenever you read something you don't understand, you find some resources that explains the concept to you. You can always come back here and ask if you're stuck on something.

I personally use Anki, which is a free program for digital flashcards and spaced repetition. Michael Nielsen (who wrote the book on quantum computing) has written about it here.

I think audio books are going to be crazy confusing. I recommend an actual book - How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog by Chad Orzel

https://www.amazon.com/How-Teach-Quantum-Physics-Your/dp/1416572295

I would also watch YouTube videos because there are some great ones on this topic.

If you're up for it, you should read a book on quantum physics. The one I picked is called How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog, but there's other types of "for dummies" books out there.

a great book on GR i like is called "Why does E=MC^2" written by Dr. Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. they tell you when you can skip a head if you don't want to go through all the math, and they really break it down. almost like ELI16

The Elegant Universe did a pretty decent job of explaining it in terms I could understand. I think the author Brian Greene, has a documentary on YouTube too.

More elegant but not necessarily better

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903

book on quantum mechanics

Okay thats fair.; Exact category is often debated.

The less debated fields don't have a replication crisis per se: They have a falsifiability crisis.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/how-physics-lost-its-fizz/

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray

Yeah I find this comes up for me a lot. I don't have a science background, dropped physics in highschool, can't do math without a spreadsheet to save my damn life.

That being said, a couple of these authors here were a huge jumping off point for me to become excited and energized at the concept; they may not go into the nuts and bolts of things but in terms of illuminating concepts and translating nearly undefinable ideas to a brain like mine it's essential.

I don't know, I think people like to pass judgement, but I find with QM there's as much art to the explanations as science, at least when you're starting to learn; you can hear the same explanation ten times, and then the right author comes along and number 11 is the one that breaks the concept wide open for you.

For what it's worth, that Halpern book I think is pretty well regarded as a historical account, I think the Carroll one is also good. Both little books are meant to be summations.

If you're anything like me and want to go "next level" on this stuff, I started with the Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and Friedman. It seems to hold up to a lot of scrutiny and is a text that appears in first year classes a lot. I'd be lying if I told you I understood it and it didn't kick my ass, but it may be what you're looking for as a next foray.
Finally Rovelli is a damn treasure and his face should be on money. Fight me.

I think the whole space is filled by the different quantum fields simultanously, ie there is the electromagnetic field and the electron fields, which have some values at each point of space-time (there is of course uncertainty, because even the fields have to obey the Heisenberg uncertainty relations). Each of these fields is controlled by a particular partial differential equation, so the electron/positron quantum field is controlled by the Dirac equation, and other fields are controlled by the Klein-Gordon equation. The quantum field theory of these free fields is realatively simple. The complicated stuff happens when these quantum fields interact, ie. when the electromagnetic fields starts interaction with the electron/positron field. This gives rise to the famous Feynman diagrams. I once even understood how to derive the Feynman diagrams using the Dyson series. If you want to learn more about it, then learn from the master himself

https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

This sub will be overwhelmingly supportive of any idea you have (which is typically a very good thing), but it sounds like you may benefit a lot from reading books meant for an audience of people without a background in physics before you jump into this. This one is great, and there are other books with fewer equations you might also like. Getting a physics degree will require a very strong math background, and on top of that it’ll be two years or so of slogging along before you get to the sorts of things you’re envisioning (quantum mechanics, particle physics). If you’re worried your interest may be gone by then, it may be good to step back and do more thinking first.

You might like https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Computation-Information-10th-Anniversary/dp/1107002176 The first chapter goes over what someone wanting to study quantum computing should know about quantum mechanics, from a linear algebra point of view. Very very clear, not much phenomenology, in case you wanted to understand the operator formalism better. Otherwise I will throw this here randomly and suggest asking on physics.stackexchange: https://online.stanford.edu/courses/soe-yeeqmse01-quantum-mechanics-scientists-and-engineers

They could, that’s an equally valid point of view as well!

But anywhere there is no experiment that can determine whether you are in motion or not.

> Galileo's principle of relativity states "It is impossible by mechanical means to say whether we are moving or staying at rest". If two trains are moving at the same speed in the same direction, then a passenger in either train will not be able to notice that either train is moving. However, if the passenger takes a fixed frame of reference, a fixed point, like the earth, he will then be able to notice the motion of either train. Another thing, if one stands on the earth one will not be able to see that it is moving.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

If this stuff interests you I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760/ref=nodl_

It goes through the history of relativity and all the way through how Einstein formulated his theories. It walks you through it and holds your hand very well even if you don’t have much math or physics background.

Susskind’s book (Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465062903/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_fabc_n5f9FbT9VTEFY ) and the corresponding free lectures which cover the same material (https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter).

I also took a course on the subject which used Griffith’s text, but I feel I got more out of The Theoretical Minimum, honestly.

In terms of books, Nielsen and Chuang is a good basis to start with. If you want to gain some intuition, you could try BLACK OPAL

Just want to comment, that physics dont have to be beautiful minimalistic which is also discussed in the science community and also found its way into popular books like Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.

Imo it is quite unscientific to rule out solution which are not "mathematically beautiful" or "simple and elegant". Or not searching for solutions which do not meet this criterias.

I'm not very surprised because pathfinder has a very passionate fanbase, but it has to be one of the few fanbases that is obsessed with the better game. Almost every other rpg, except for dnd perhaps, is fully aware of the niche they're targeting.

Pathfinder 1e had 28 official source books, 7714 pages in total, how is it not obvious that they're targeting experienced players? And pf 2e's core rulebook already had more pages than dnd 5e's phb and xtge combined. I have a book on quantum computing that's about as long, and as dense, and pf 2e's core rules.

I'm assuming this is an undergrad QM class so what you have will be more than enough. If you're in the states odds are the book they will be using is Giffiths Amazon link, PDF of the first edition. If you can Taylor expand and find eigenstates you'll be fine.

First semester undergrad quantum is mostly focused on learning how to solve the Schrodinger equation for a variety of Potentials. Expect it to be like first semester calculus, you gloss over the deeper mathematical rigor, and focus on being able to take limits and derivatives. First semester quantum is the same, learn how to solve the Schrodinger equation, and learn what physical meaning you can get from it.

Here’s a vid!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3P4iKb24Ng

I’d read The Elegant Universe too. It’s a great intro to a bunch of topics that physics is currently covering:

https://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/039333810X

I’m sure if you asked your parents to buy this for you, they’d be down

Gotcha.

There's a book called QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter written by Richard Feynman that gives a gentle introduction to some of these topics. It's written in a way that doesn't get overly mathy or complex, but still helps you build some intuition about the theory. I definitely recommend if you're interested in learning more.

"Why e=mc^2 and why you should care" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

Very good book if you want to grasp the fundamentals of spacetime.

https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760

LINK: book

^(I am a bot, I make links more tappable on mobile)
^(Please report any problems to r/fatFingersbot)

^(Reply '!thinfingers' to disable replies to you)
^(About)

I always wondered what was on the cover of the Theoretical Minimum books, it's a meccano set! Also I highly recommend the books if you are competent in advanced mathematics and want to learn more about theoretical physics.

I think you should read this if you're interested in Quantum Mechanics.

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Theoretical-Leonard-Susskind/dp/0465062903/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3ODKZA5P4LK48&keywords=quantum+mechanics&qid=1576320055&sprefix=quantum+%2Caps%2C327&sr=8-3

Otherwise, please quit talking about quantum mechanics like it's magic.

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information is generally considered the Bible of the field. Requirements are calculus and linear algebra.

The quantum algorithm zoo is a fairly comprehensive overview of quantum algorithms. Probably a bit overwhelming at first glance.

>it's a common misconception to think of the fundamental interactions as particles (say photons) being sent back and forth. That's taking feynman diagrams literally when they are mathematical aids to compute effects in qft.

Maybe people interpret photons as particles going back and forth because Feynman said: > > "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. > >You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." - Richard Feynman, UCLA 1984

Feynman's UCLA lecture was later published as a book: https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

In that lecture, he unequivocally developed the idea that light is delivered as particles that interact with electrons which he treats as particles. He attributes the wavelike nature of light and electrons to their probability distributions. He shows why glass is transparent, why it bends light, why rainbows form and a few other ideas all based on a particle theory of light.

The fundamental thing about quaternion, octonions etc. is, they involve extradimensions of sort. The quaternion-based Maxwell theory anticipated quantum and scalar wave effects, which the current Maxwell theory cannot. So there are good reasons for utilizing the octonion math within contemporary physics. The opposite problem is, such a vector math is too dependent on right-angled Cartesian system. And once the number of dimensions increases, the things stop to become right angled anymore - the extradimensions violate Euclidean geometry too. The octonion-based theory will be still usable, but overly complicated, over-parametrized and as such suboptimal.

This is btw also the fact, which ruined string theory too and a general problem of every hyperdimensional theory: they apply only in flat 3D space-time following the Cartesian system and their validity scope is thus constrained to very subtle phenomena, which don't violate the dimensionality of space-time in which they reside too much (i.e. dark matter fluctuations). Even the best brains on the planet don't know what to do with it (a renormalization problem of switching extrinsic and intrinsic perspectives). As famous blogger L. Motl noted the octonion based math is the same case of fancy but void formal approach, like this one criticized recently by Hossenefelder - who indeed had the string theory of L. Motl on mind instead... ;-)