(Part 2) Top products from r/quantum
We found 22 product mentions on r/quantum. We ranked the 55 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
21. Mr Tompkins in Paperback (Canto Classics)
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Cambridge University Press
22. Quantum Machine Learning: What Quantum Computing Means to Data Mining (Elsevier Insights)
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
23. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
W W Norton Company
24. Quantum Physics: What Everyone Needs to Know®
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
25. Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
26. Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Oxford University Press
27. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
28. Quantum Computing: A Gentle Introduction (Scientific and Engineering Computation)
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
Quantum Computing A Gentle Introduction
29. Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Edition
Sentiment score: -1
Number of reviews: 1
Springer
30. Basic Training in Mathematics: A Fitness Program for Science Students
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
32. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
explaining space, time and the texture of reality
34. Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
35. The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics
Sentiment score: 0
Number of reviews: 1
36. The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Basic Books AZ
37. Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Basic Books AZ
38. The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics
Sentiment score: 1
Number of reviews: 1
Basic Books AZ
Friend asked for a similar list a while ago and I put this together. Would love to see people thoughts/feedback.
Very High Level Introductions:
Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):
Blending the line between pop-sci and mathematical (these books are not meant to be read and put away but instead read, re-read and pondered):
Physics is very cool and awe-inspiring - I’ve always had a big interest in it as well! Since people have already supplied you with some answers to your question, I thought I’d give you a book suggestion: Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205/ref=asc_df_0375727205/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=266033622375&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2170571332209706386&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9019289&hvtargid=pla-436179468378&psc=1. This book changed the way I look at the world. Brian Greene does an incredible job at explaining complex topics in an understandable and exciting way (not like a textbook - actually feels like you are reading a story). And there is even pretty extensive notes if you want to take a deeper dive. His TED Talks are great as well - and so are his other books!
Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality
HUGE fan of this one. What it offers instead of many other books is it takes a historical approach to the story, which to me makes the subject significantly more interesting. He starts at Planck, describing his whole life by piecing together historical information, and does the same with every other physicist mentioned. With time, you have a full picture of each character and their life of debating each other on these topics. I really loved how he'd give a very full description of how a discovery happened, for example Heisenberg taking a very late night walk when he thought of the idea of the Uncertainty Principal. Kumar manages to keep the lead-up to each breakthrough very suspenseful by describing the state of physics at the time and the pressure each physicist was under. Later, after the famous debates we are presented with World War II and how each of the major players lived their lives throughout the war (Heisenberg worked on atomic weapon research for the axis, while Bohr was shipped to America to work on the Manhattan Project, and before the war they were both best friends). In the end you'll have a deep historical knowledge of these physicists, while having a good beginner understanding of the theories. I'm not a big reader, but I found myself glued to the book, extremely interested in what will happen next.
I remember getting a few good laughs in as well, while reading it.
For example, during the Solvay convention Einstein temporarily outsmarted Bohr with a surprise thought experiment, and in this picture we can really see the personality of each of them. (Look at Einstein's smug face)
Recommended reading:
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert Burton.
> You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.
> In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton shows that feeling certain―feeling that we know something--- is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. An increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. In other words, the feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.
> Bringing together cutting-edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain challenges what we know (or think we know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X
Sorry, I'm just reading your comment now, 2 months late.
You touched on an important point though. Actually, it's sort of the reason I asked this question because I didn't want to get any false ideas. Remember this, the Copenhagen interpretation (just like the several other interpretations) are trying to explain things that we see in practice, in the real world. Any interpretation has to explain the experimental results.
The experimental evidence says our world is clearly stranger than our common sense/experience tells us. Like you said, "Where did the first classical system come from"? If observation occurs because something in a quantum state interacted with something in a "classical" state (whatever that is), what was the first observation that collapsed the first wave.
Many people will try to brush this aside, which is also part of Copenhagen, but really it's a question that's somewhat left to philosophers. Some people say "God" or "Consciousness", others channel the Many Worlds interpretation. Either way, we don't know how to explain why the universe appears classical because the world is definitely modeled most accurately by Quantum Theory. Researchers are putting bigger and bigger things into superposition all the time. Even objects big-enough to be visible to the naked-eye
If you're interested in that subject, check out the Quantum Enigma. It asks these questions in depth, and it's not one of those new-age books that are so easily dismissible.
Not exactly what you are looking for, but the textbook with the lowest barrier to entry is (imo) QFT for the Gifted Amateur.
I would say that after Griffiths's QM book (also recommended) you are ready for your first (but probably not your last) attempt at Gifted Amateur.
If you know calculus, all you are lacking to get started on Griffiths is linear algebra.
Good luck!
This book by Michael Raymer is a good start.
A good reference book is Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas
Amazon link
Susskind's Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum is a good, informal place to start. I'd read it before tackling Griffiths or Sakurai. For a quick brush-up on the math, you could try Shankar's Basic Training in Mathematics: A Fitness Program for Science Students, but the basics of calculus, diff eq, abstract & linear algebra will get you started.
I'd recommend reading this book. It'll answer all your questions.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Measure-Physics-Philosophy-Meaning/dp/0198525362
Yes, I read it before telling people what it was.
No, I don't want your reading list. I already have quantum computing since democritus to finish, quantum computing and information to re-read, and quantum machine learning to buy.
Who doesn't wonder about being wrong every day?
I'd check this book out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Theory-Almost-Everything-Standard/dp/0452287863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341501920&sr=8-1&keywords=the+theory+of+almost+everything
The Standard Model was just yesterday proven even more correct with the discovery of the Higgs boson. This book is a simple intro to a lot of quantum concepts.
You might want to consider whether you really want to insinuate an equivalence between science and theology, and whether you want to put the word expertise in quotes. If you think that you're equipped to point out glaring logical holes in quantum mechanics, well, there isn't exactly an equivalent to the Bible in physics (it'd contradict the scientific enterprise to have one), but there are a few standard textbooks on quantum mechanics you can choose from.
Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics
Cohen-Tannoudji et al., Quantum Mechanics
Sakurai and Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics
Landau and Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics
I recommend Shankar of the four, but you can pick any you want. Unfortunately, textbooks are a bit pricey, but I'm sure your local university's library has a copy you could borrow. Try reading through one of them and picking out any glaring logical holes you can find.
It wouldn't be fair to try to look for logical holes in pop-sci articles you find on the internet instead. These are notorious for being wildly inaccurate. They say outlandish things because that's what gets clicks.
And I'll leave you with one last thought. (I'm not going to continue this conversation further afterwards.) The meaning of the world "realism" is context-dependent. Do you believe numbers are real, that they exist independently of human thought? Then you're a realist about numbers. If not, then you're a non-realist. Do you believe colors, sounds, tastes, etc., exist in objects themselves, or do you think they're merely in our heads? (Or perhaps that they're properties of our interactions with things, rather than inherent properties of things?) You might be a realist or non-realist about sensory properties.
When talking about quantum mechanics, non-realism or anti-realism refers to denying the reality of two things specifically: hidden variables, and the wave function. Non-realists still believe their measurements are real, that the experiments they do are real, that the objects they study are real, that the world they live in is real, and so on. But they believe that position, momentum, energy, etc., are properties of measurement events rather than of microscopic objects. And they believe that wave functions are artificial constructions for keeping track of information, rather than something out there in the world. They don't believe that there is no reality at all.
Realists by contrast believe in either the reality of the wave function, or of hidden variables. (Actually, realists kind of have to believe in the reality of the wave function now, thanks to recent ontology theorems.)
You're quite adamantly opposed to the position that no objective reality exists at all, but you're arguing against a position no-one actually holds. This kind of thing is exactly why I say you need to take a step back and consider whether you actually grasp the beliefs you're claiming to argue against.