Top products from r/quantum

We found 37 product mentions on r/quantum. We ranked the 55 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/quantum:

u/FunkyFortuneNone · 6 pointsr/quantum

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:

  • Mr. Tompkins in Paperback
    • A super fast read that spends less time looking at the "how" but focused instead on the ramifications and impacts. Covers both GR as well as QM but is very high level with both of them. Avoids getting into the details and explaining the why.

  • Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution (Great Courses lecture)
    • This is a great intro to the field of non-classical physics. This walks through GR and QM in a very approachable fashion. More "nuts and bolts" than Mr. Tompkins but longer/more detailed at the same time.

      Deeper Pop-sci Dives (probably in this order):

  • Quantum Theory: A Very Brief Introduction
    • Great introduction to QM. Doesn't really touch on QFT (which is a good thing at this point) and spends a great deal of time (compared to other texts) discussing the nature of QM interpretation and the challenges around that topic.
  • The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces
    • Now we're starting to get into the good stuff. QFT begins to come to the forefront. This book starts to dive into explaining some of the macro elements we see as explained by QM forces. A large part of the book is spent on symmetries and where a proton/nucleon's gluon binding mass comes from (a.k.a. ~95% of the mass we personally experience).
  • The Higgs Boson and Beyond (Great Courses lecture)
    • Great lecture done by Sean Carroll around the time the Higgs boson's discovery was announced. It's a good combination of what role the Higgs plays in particle physics, why it's important and what's next. Also spends a little bit of time discussing how colliders like the LHC work.
  • Mysteries of Modern Physics: Time (Great Courses lecture)
    • Not really heavy on QM at all, however I think it does best to do this lecture after having a bit of the physics under your belt first. The odd nature of time symmetry in the fundamental forces and what that means with regards to our understanding of time as we experience it is more impactful with the additional knowledge (but, like I said, not absolutely required).
  • Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics
    • This is not a mathematical approach like "A Most Incomprehensible Thing" are but it's subject matter is more advanced and the resulting math (at least) an order of magnitude harder (so it's a good thing it's skipped). This is a "high level deep dive" (whatever that means) into QFT though and so discussion of pure abstract math is a huge focus. Lie groups, spontaneous symmetry breaking, internal symmetry spaces etc. are covered.
  • The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
    • This is your desert after working through everything above. Had to include something about string theory here. Not a technical book at all but best to be familiar with QM concepts before diving in.

      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):

  • A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Intro to GR
    • Sorry, this is GR specific and nothing to do with QM directly. However I think it's a great book acting as an introduction. Definitely don't go audible/kindle. Get the hard copy. Lots of equations. Tensor calculus, Lorentz transforms, Einstein field equations, etc. While it isn't a rigorous textbook it is, at it's core, a mathematics based description not analogies. Falls apart at the end, after all, it can't be rigorous and accessible at the same time, but still well worth the read.
  • The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics
    • Not QM at all. However it is a great introduction to using math as a tool for describing our reality and since it's using it to describe classical mechanics you get to employ all of your classical intuition that you've worked on your entire life. This means you can focus on the idea of using math as a descriptive tool and not as a tool to inform your intuition. Which then would lead us to...
  • Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum
    • Great introduction that uses math in a descriptive way AND to inform our intuition.
  • The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe
    • Incredible book. I think the best way to describe this book is a massive guidebook. You probably won't be able to get through each of the topics based solely on the information presented in the book but the book gives you the tools and knowledge to ask the right questions (which, frankly, as anybody familiar with the topic knows, is actually the hardest part). You're going to be knocking your head against a brick wall plenty with this book. But that's ok, the feeling when the brick wall finally succumbs to your repeated headbutts makes it all worth while.
u/BlackBrane · 7 pointsr/quantum

This sub can be pretty good, but you're sure to find much more activity over on /r/physics. We usually like to direct questions to /r/AskPhysics but it's definitely not as well trafficked.

The main introductory textbook for physics undergrads is Griffiths, and for good reason. It's widely agreed to be the best book to begin a proper undertaking of QM if you have the key prerequisites down. You definitely need to be comfortable with linear algebra (the most important) as well as multivariable calculus and basic concepts of partial differential equations.

Im sure you can find some good free resources as well. One promising free book I've found is A Course in Quantum Computing (pdf). It actually teaches you the basics of linear algebra and complex numbers that you need, so if you feel weak on those this might be a good choice. I haven't really used it myself but it certainly looks like a good resource.

Finally, another well-regarded resource are Susskind's lectures at his website The Theoretical Minimum. He also has a book by the same name. They tend to be rather laid back and very gentle, while introducing you to the basic substance of the field. If you wanted, I'm sure you could find some more proper university-style lectures on Youtube as well.

u/jacobmc8 · 2 pointsr/quantum

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 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!

u/SubsequentDownfall · 1 pointr/quantum

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)

u/Orphion · 3 pointsr/quantum

I would recommend The Feynman Lectures on Physics. They're expensive books, but the description of quantum mechanics is particularly good, albeit 50 years old. Moreover, the lectures cover all of the other things you'll need to know in physics as well.

The problem with the Feynman lectures being old is that in the 50 years since they were given, quantum information has emerged as a field entirely separate from quantum mechanics/physics. The Mike and Ike book is the best single introduction to the field, but it, too, is expensive.

Luckily, there is a huge number of articles published on the physics arxiv, some of which are quite approachable. This introduction to quantum information is written by many of the giants in the field.

u/theodysseytheodicy · 4 pointsr/quantum

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.

u/Zuvielify · 2 pointsr/quantum

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.

u/Alekanekelo · 1 pointr/quantum

Op is referring to this book. But yeah I laughed quite a bit too.

u/Strilanc · 2 pointsr/quantum

Unless you want to learn isolated bits and pieces, I'd recommend reading a book or watching a course.

I've been reading Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum. There's also online lectures that go with it. So far it's been useful; filling knowledge holes and whatnot.

u/MightyManiel · 1 pointr/quantum

>I'd point out the numerous conceptual errors you showed in that last comment (eg. according to special relativity, photons don't have mass, because they move at the speed of light), but I'm clearly wasting my time here.

Anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about wouldn’t even use the term “the speed of light.” Einstein’s famous equation refers to the speed of the smallest form of energy we know of in a vacuum (P.S: the universe is by no means a vacuum; there’s mass everywhere). Photons travel more slowly around objects with large mass, which is why light can’t escape black holes.

You make far too many assumptions based on unfinished data. Again, there was a point where atoms were only theorized to exist. This theory is simply the next step.

>I'll leave with a book recommendation. Don't worry, it doesn't have any math.

I appreciate the recommendation, but not so much the condescending remark. It’s not that I have trouble with math; I’m just not going to learn equations that are not needed to prove/falsify my own theory. The equation I have now doesn’t work and is useless and meaningless, I get that. It’s a work in progress.

u/minblue · 2 pointsr/quantum

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.

u/ianmgull · 7 pointsr/quantum

This is the standard textbook that undergraduates first encounter. It assumes you already have a pretty firm grasp of calculus and linear algebra however.

I know it's not a site, but if you want to REALLY learn QM, this is how to start.

u/csp256 · 1 pointr/quantum

That book and this one are the two best introductions:

u/sinesha · 7 pointsr/quantum

I work on quantum information theory, and there are lots of researchers with a maths, computer science or electrical engineering background (I did physics). So the answer is no, you don't need to go through classical physics. You do need linear algebra, and things like general algebra and calculus are also important. Then, work through Nielsen and Chuang's book Quantum Information and Quantum Computation. Where in Australia are you based?

(edit: link)

u/mctuking · 3 pointsr/quantum

If you're looking for something that's an actual text book, there's no better than Nielsen and Chuang.

u/gggjennings · 1 pointr/quantum

I'd check this book out:

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.

u/lejaylejay · 5 pointsr/quantum

What's your background? I'd probably start with math (sorry). Calculus and linear algebra.

Then Griffiths is probably to go-to intro text book. Though I never really got it until I read Sakurai. I'm not sure where to go for calculus and linear algebra self-study. Perhaps others can suggest.

u/schrodingasdawg · 1 pointr/quantum

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.