Top products from r/badmathematics

If you heavily constrain the system, you can get an analytical solution (usually Particle Innabox is the first one students see), or if you have an extremely simple system like hydrogen or a highly ionized atom (read: only one nucleus and one electron).

But we've known about those for years and they're all fairly trivial compared to what theoretical chemists are looking for. Ultimately, what we want to calculate is where the electrons are in a system, because that gives us a lot of information about the system (whether it's a small molecule, a big molecule, a chunk of metal, etc) and its properties.

You don't directly solve the schrodinger equation for any system of practical interest. Instead, one of the more popular methods is to use a set of methods lumped under "Density-Functional Theory," which is more or less trying to solve for a representation of the electron density rather than individual electrons. There's also a few other, older methods out there like Hartree-Fock where the assumption is that there is some single wavefunction that can represent all electrons in a system, but as a result the method can't account for electron-electron interactions. There's also newer methods out there called Post-Hartree-Fock where they try to take into account some electron-electron interactions (called electron correlation). I'm not as familiar with them as I am with DFT, but I know they tend to be more expensive to run, but also tend to be more accurate than DFT.

If you're interested in DFT, here's a really good book to get started on it. It's intended more as an introduction for newcomers, and those who want a working knowledge of it, but it also has a bunch of book and paper recommendations in it, as well as a bunch of analogies to describe how it all works.

> (So quantum mechanics and action at a distance is intuitive but relativity postulates are not.)

A lot of religious people love the notion of quantum mechanics because it requires 'observation' to make things happen. (That's not remotely right but that's where they are starting at.) Therefore, God is an 'ultimate observer' that sets the universe going with His divine ability to ignore Heisenberg's uncertainly principle.

I really enjoyed this one: https://www.amazon.com/Conception-Numbers-Objects-Philosophical-Monographs/dp/0080257267

But do not purchase it from there (it's absurdly overpriced since it's out of print). Just google "library genesis" and search around on the sites you find...

It's like he skimmed David Lewin's book on group theory for musical analysis and misunderstood large chunks of it. Which, to be fair, is relatively easy to do given how Lewin writes out some of his mathematical statements...

That's not to say that Lewin's ideas aren't good or interesting, but his writing style seemed to me to be too 'unclear' for mathematicians and too confusing for musicians (unclear referring to how I recall him notating some mathematical concepts). And I certainly don't remember him drawing such a hamfisted connection between group and music theories.

It should be noted that this image is based off of the great book of the same name by Ian Stewart, so it's a disappointment that all of these errors popped up.

I believe that this is the book in question: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Writing-Mathematical-Proofs-Upper-Level/dp/1547033665/

He/she has a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Theory-Energy-Time-Space/dp/1409229521

Three volumes, with a fourth on the way.

Indeed it is. Last year, she wrote paper with Nassim himself in the journal NeuroQuantology called "[The Unified Spacememory Network:
from Cosmogenesis to Consciousness](
https://search.proquest.com/openview/f4a378020e64b73ba088123ea34ff4b1/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2035897)". The paper appears to be mostly word salad to me when it comes to actual claims about physics, from an undergraduate perspective. Even though NeuroQuantology is listed as peer-reviewed on Wikipedia, I'm somewhat sceptical to its credibility.

I cite Wikipedia
> The journal's founder and editor-in-chief, Sultan Tarlaci, gives his affiliation as "Dept of Neurology, Assoc. Prof. Editor-In-Chief NeuroQuantology, Turkey" – but no institution is listed. According to ResearchGate, he is "independent", having previously been associated with Sifa University in Izmir, Turkey.

Sultan Tarlaci has also written a book, Neuroquantology: Quantum Physics in the Brain: Reducing the Secret of the Rainbow to the Colours of a Prism but according to the reviews, it is on similar level to Deepak Chopra.

So I don't know.