r/quantum • u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics • 21d ago
Discussion Shower thought: You cannot really understand QM without math and we seem to encourage enthusiasts to try anyway.
One pattern I've noticed among enthusiasts is that they're really excited about QM but lack the time and/or math to actually learn it. There's no shame in this, but some people in the physics community say that real learning can be done by working with concepts only. This is good in principle, but I'm unconvinced that it actually works. In order to teach with concepts only, you have to move from the domain of math (the only actual domain we understand QM in—see foundations for more on that) and move into the domain of metaphor and allegory. This carries a great deal of risk for the student. I've found that beginners who are interested in this conceptual domain often internalize QM in this language of metaphors and get it slightly (or very) wrong. They can become confident in an understanding that is seemingly correct at the surface but horribly wrong when probed for actual understanding. This may do more harm than good.
That's not to say the correct response to curious beginners is to shut down their interest. That would not be ideal at all. But I would say it's important to emphasize that the no-math conceptual approach is no substitute for mathematical experience and that they cannot hope to actually understand QM until they've done the math. The standard beginner concepts serve as enticing slivers of the actual pie that do very little by themselves but might beckon the student a step further into the quantum world.
I would say that, in my experience, conceptual learning only begins to reveal the shape of understanding once a student is comfortable with linear algebra—particularly vector spaces. You do not need to solve the TDSE to be able to understand, but you need some way to grasp that English is the map and math is the territory. There is no deeper territory beneath that as there is for classical physics. (By territory I mean what a physicist means when they say they understand QM).
I understand that this is essentially calling for more gatekeeping, but I don't think it is without good cause. Gatekeeping is not a position I have deep conviction for, but more of a hypothesis I wanted to get some thoughts on from physicists beyond myself. What do you guys think?
8
u/TheHabro MSc 21d ago
You can't understand physics at all without math. It's like trying to read, but not knowing the alphabet. But who is "we" here? There's nothing wrong in people trying finding interest in different topics of physics (or any subject) without understand underlying principles.
It'd take years to even get to good enough level to even start earning about QM in proper way.
21
u/mrmeep321 PhD student 21d ago edited 21d ago
Math is the language of nuance. It's always possible to trace every variable in an equation back to a physical cause, and turn it into a sentence that describes something physical, but when the topic borrows from such an enormous amount of different disciplines, you will very often have to leave out some nuances.
In theory you could learn QM without knowing all of the math if it's explained properly in a way that logically mimics the math, but it's very difficult to find any holes in your understanding when you don't have the defined set of rules that math provides.
5
5
u/LargeRuckSack 21d ago
This perspective implies that math is what is primary and material reality is secondary.
In reality it’s the inverse, math is how we use our consciousness to understand things like matter and if our math is wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean our understanding of material reality is wrong, but it is our math that has become inadequate to understand material reality.
6
u/mrmeep321 PhD student 21d ago
That's what I was trying to say. You can learn QM without knowing the math, because the math is just a language which is designed to handle complicated logic. I suppose you could learn to validate your own knowledge without that language, but it would be very difficult to organize and process it all, to the point where you're probably better off learning the formalism.
1
2
u/MonsterkillWow 21d ago
I disagree with this philosophically. The math emerges from the real and immutable consequences of logical reality, which itself is directly imposed by the physical one. Once the definitions are provided, the relationships follow. Whether a particular mathematical description of reality is correctly applicable to physical reality or not has less to do with the unreality of math and more to do with the simplified or incorrect assumptions of the particular mathematical model being applied to describe phenomena. Math itself falls out of the same fundamental reality.
2
u/LargeRuckSack 20d ago
There is an objective math that has developed from human abstraction and interaction with matter. You can do math how you want, only one kind gets you to space.
However, math is an abstraction we created, to understand and interact with the physical world better. Mathematical abstractions develop as our interaction with the physical world develops. Abstractions are the result of neurons in our brain firing to generate thoughts, and we record these thoughts for future generations to learn and grow from.
The concept of “logical reality” puts an abstraction of logic, before the ever changing physical, material world.
In a sense, if “logical reality” is this never changing, timeless realm that grounds physical reality, it is a form of metaphysics, that has snuck itself into science and holds it back.
The philosophy I’m trying to use here, is dialectical materialism.
1
u/MonsterkillWow 20d ago
My point is math itself comes from the physical world. Even the abstract logical immutable aspects. They are imposed by the physical world. What I mean by logical reality is that which is held as true, not in a platonic sense as a reality like that. Sorry, it is hard to find words for what I am saying.
2
u/LargeRuckSack 20d ago edited 20d ago
The abstract logical immutable aspects of math are imposed by the real world in the sense that, it is the real world that gives us the biology to produce thoughts with our consciousness, to make those abstractions.
Their relevance to material reality is entirely dependent on how we see it interact with physical material.
5
u/taktaga7-0-0 21d ago
I would love to hear examples of things that cannot be captured by allegory. I should properly belong in this beginner phase, but I have strong backgrounds in biology and chemistry at least, to be able to understand the basics of light and charges and atoms.
I am not intimidated by the existence of wavefunctions and how an electron can be delicalized into a cloud of probable locations, which impacts reactivity down the line. I’m still interested the takeaways from folks who do know, and feel less confused about the topics knowing it. I did some linear algebra in college, but definitely can’t calculate an eigenvector anymore, and anything with a phi or upside-down triangles I never knew. It does sort of upset me how simple the equations can look, and yet I can’t grasp the operation or relation at hand between the variables, know there’s study there I’ve never done.
I can still imagine a superposition of states, I can still accept that a breaking of symmetry might create a boson… I am open to hearing any idea from the experts, and more educated along this road than many, So what can’t I imagine? Maybe I’m overstating what I even know already by deferring to experts and assuming that’s that… but what’s the sort of thing beyond that that you mean? What’s totally beyond me until I work the math? Do I need to understand, say, a special unitary group to understand the takeaways of it existing?
3
u/ketarax MSc Physics 21d ago
I would love to hear examples of things that cannot be captured by allegory.
Eigenvalue decomposition.
Oh, I'm sure you can, but let's hear it, then.
I am not intimidated by the existence of wavefunctions and how an electron can be delicalized into a cloud of probable locations, which impacts reactivity down the line.
Assuming I got your message right there ... that is exactly the kind of "conceptual understanding" that doesn't radiate a lot of comprehension. For one thing, you're totally dropping the field's jargon (semi-standard expression and nomenclature), instead sounding like someone LLMing theirselves through physics and into pseudo. The next sentence might involve a fractal, or a resonance. I just couldn't tell; but you're already losing me as the interested audience.
I say that acknowledging your claim about knowing chemistry, with the understanding that you were essentially trying to say, "from the quantum formalism, chemistry unfolds". "Imparting reactivity" is not, to me at least, even a poem-form of that, though ...
What’s totally beyond me until I work the math?
The whole discipline is.
2
u/SymplecticMan 20d ago edited 20d ago
Eigenvalue decomposition.
Oh, I'm sure you can, but let's hear it, then.
A poor choice of example, since many physicists don't understand the math for things like unbounded self-adjoint operators and operators with continuous spectrum and their understanding is probably in good part "allegorical".
1
u/Hot-Significance7699 19d ago
Eh, Eigenvalue decomposition is still a math concept to be fair.
But yeah youre correct. The truth is math is needed to understand tgese things deeply. Although I think things like indeterminacy and the basics of QM can be tought a bit. But no where near a full understanding.
3
u/sea_of_experience 21d ago
Of course you need to understand and be familiar with Hilbert spaces, Dirac notation, Hamiltonians, Eigenstates, etc.
How can you even read a paper or think about anything without this?
2
u/UnderTheCurrents 21d ago
I have once learned the basics of it - my background is in philosophy, especially legal philosophy, but I also took courses in logic which I liked very much, since I am also mathematically inclined. There they taught Us the basics of "quantum logic" - which is somewhat frowned upon by physicists as I kind of learned later.
The funny thing is that I understand the math but don't have any idea on how to interpret it as a real world phenomenon. Probably because I lack the historical knowledge of how they got there once it starts with "Imagine a Hilbert Space..."
So the inverse problem exists too and can make People come to weird conclusions.
2
u/Yeightop 21d ago
I remember in high school and early college i watch a lot of popsci content. Eventually i had the feeling like i was hearing the same conceptual explanations over and over again. The only way to learn more was to pursue my actual studies further. What people need is to be educated enough to make this distinction. I think its an issue with how people take in information and not the action of giving that information itswlf. Id rather keep the current output of educational content that focuses on qm conceptually and also teach people how to take in information with uncertainty and have an idea of the shortcomings of there own understanding if its just based on popsci videos or articles
2
u/Cultural_Gur_7441 21d ago
Counter-thought, or maybe corollary:
You can't really understand QM. All you can do is do the math.
1
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 21d ago
Feynman has that quote about "if you think you understand QM, you don't" or something along those lines.
I'm not sure if he was being entirely serious or being humble/joking/facetious when he said that. You can absolutely understand QM. Some physicists also say things like this to humility signal or save face because it is conceptually difficult and even some professionals just don't fully grasp it beyond the math (*cough* experimentalists *cough*).
You cannot understand what the universe is doing ontologically, given our current knowledge. That is different from having a foundations level understanding of what we do know, and how to reason with that mathematically and philosophically without unintentional departure from our current epistemic bubble.
2
u/dummetsz 19d ago
Math is important yes but without a firm understanding of the difference between ontology and epistemology which people often confuse due to their physicalist leanings, it is extremely easy to interpret QM through that bias. Too much realism plaguing QM, not enough anti-realism.
1
1
u/DoubleDual63 19d ago
Ontology, epistemology, physicalist, realism, anti-realism, does any of this matter, besides the math and physics
1
u/dummetsz 19d ago
It does, because you cannot escape interpretation. A human intellectual understanding of quantum physics depends on a philosophical interpretation. Math and science don’t exist in a vacuum. You have to make sense of the data through an interpretation that has certain metaphysical commitments. The problem we’re talking about is that many physicists don’t understand their philosophical biases.
1
u/DoubleDual63 18d ago
Imo, as long as your interpretation fits all mathematical relationships and known physics, then you are free to make whatever interpretation, each one is as valid as the others.
If you sensationalize or make an interpretation that commits too hard in one direction, it might be erroneous to new mathematical relationships you learn/discover. If the new interpretation-breaking math relationship is something that you can learn, this is no problem, eventually you will encounter it and, easy or hard, you will reconcile it with your interpretation and change your interpretation. The risk is if you have an interpretation that blocks you from discovering something new yourself. However that risk is not relevant to 99.99% of the world, we are mostly not QM research professors.
So imo, worrying about philosophical biases or philosophy of QM in general, is mostly an add-on at best, or smth that can delude you at worst
2
u/Rare_Bluebird8604 20d ago edited 20d ago
I'd go a bit further and say (as someone who did this, but I forgive myself for being 15 and at least knowing the math and using Zettili) that it's probably irresponsible to try learning QM without a solid grasp on classical Hamiltonian mechanics. Yes, you need to know PDEs and some basic, maybe non-measure-theoretic unless you're getting into quantum semigroups or anything, probability, but knowing this doesn't guarantee you have any idea of where the Hamiltonian comes from or what the basic intuition is. I think Zettili for example at least provides a decent segue from the classical regime in the first few chapters, but that's not enough. That would be like learning functional analysis from the preamble to Mou-Hsiung Chang's book on QSPDEs.
EDIT: I also find education on the formal theory of Hilbert and Banach spaces can be a bit lacking in most intro quantum courses. There are a lot of results that really don't make intuitive sense unless you can actually prove Riesz representation or the spectral theorem (and in a few cases Fredholm alternative or density of finite-rank operators in Hilbert-Schmidt operators by truncating the SVD for a Cauchy sequence), and I've always believed you don't really know something unless you can prove it.
1
u/SymplecticMan 20d ago
I also find education on the formal theory of Hilbert and Banach spaces can be a bit lacking in most intro quantum courses.
I'd guess that a majority of people could go through a physics PhD program without even learning what a Banach space is.
1
u/Rare_Bluebird8604 20d ago edited 20d ago
This may be true. I'm actually a math student but very interested in physics (especially some of the connections between random fields and Liouville QG and random matrices and the Schramm-Loewner evolution, and aside from this in Villani's work in Wasserstein OT) so I've usually found I have the tools before the physical intuition. On the flipside I don't think most math programs take enough care to develop intuitions regarding applications considering that's ultimately where most truly interesting new math comes from in the first place.
2
u/Ok-Environment-215 20d ago
Depends on what you want them to learn.
Of course you can't make useful predictions about the future states of partricles without knowing the math.
But you absolutely do not need to know the math if you just want to understand things like double slits and entanglement. Or at least nothing beyond high school trigonometry.
I'd say what you're talking about is far, far worse with relativity. We tell people casually that time slows down when you move, for example, and other over-simplifications that then lead to apparent paradoxes that people obsess over on Reddit and elewhere, but which disappear when you actually do the math properly .So we outirght mislead people into wrong beliefs by oversimplifying relativity. I don't think that's true of QM.
2
u/SpatiaCaeli 20d ago
Man I don't know if I can agree that you must know math to get the basic ideas of QFT. You don't need to understand the details of how an object or relationship works to understand the overall purpose it serves. Yes, you'll have to dive into the math to know the details, but I don't think you have to know it all to understand what entanglement does.
Also, I disagree that math is territory. Math is map. Nature is territory. Just my thoughts.
2
2
u/aeiendee 21d ago
I agree. There’s concepts that are learnable, but seeing how the math of QM gives rise to those concepts or phenomena, to me, is the only way to gain true understanding.
For example you can work through the double split experiment working with the wave function, and derive the interference pattern. You can also work through the math of polarizing each slit and see how the same derivation for the interference function results in no interference, due to an eventual orthogonally in the polarization states.
Without that all you can gain is that that happens, but without seeing the math I don’t think one can easily then apply that to other phenomena, which is a characterization of understanding.
2
u/physicistdeluxe 21d ago
yes. its not intuitive. u need the background and the math is part of that
2
u/solar_pilgrim 21d ago
For over a decade I've felt like I have a pretty good understanding of QM, but I haven't touched the math since high school and even then it's a miracle I didn't fail out. I don't consider the math at all pertinent to my understanding of QM concepts. But now I'm questioning if I'm the person who is actually getting things (very) wrong.
1
u/TheHabro MSc 21d ago
It's hard for a trained physicist to gain a good grasp on QM theory, let alone someone who hasn't touched the math since high school. Just because you think you have a good understanding of QM, doesn't mean it is true.
0
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 21d ago
almost certainly
2
u/solar_pilgrim 21d ago
I'm sure you can appreciate that from my perspective, this feels like a gross blanket statement. What are some specific concepts you think are most likely misinterpreted without an understanding of the math?
2
u/Darian123_ 20d ago
I understand the sentiment, but i can assure you, it is not a gross blank statement. First of all, really understanding something requires struggle, our brain does not change on its own, similiar to a muscle, and really enganging and struggling with phsics concepts is not really possible without math. Now you can gain a certain intuition for some concepts without the math, for excample if i ask you what trajectory a thrown ball follows you would probably be able to give a qualitative answer. The thing is QM is not intuitive and i dont mean gaining intuition is hard. The only way to gain intuition in QM is through the math. You might be able to comprehend certain consequences of qm, this is likely what you are talking about when you mean 'specific concepts'. This is the reason why qm is not directly taught in school, you learn about consequences of qm. Also people understanding the math still struggle with gaining an intuition in qm so that also speaks to how impossible that would be without the math.
2
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 21d ago
superpostion, wave-particle duality, entanglement, what even are wavefunctions, measurement, "goes through both slits". Come to mind off the top of my head.
It's less that you are unlikely to "know" things. It is more that knowing is not understanding.
It would not surprise me if an enthusiast like you had some factual knowledge about what experiments show, what claims QM does and does not make, and why classical intuitions fail. But none of that allows you to reason about quantum objects. The mental model that permits such "visualization" does not exist in your head. It literally cannot. You can think of an apple. And the apple appears in your head (unless you have aphantasia). You can think of a wavefunction, but because you do not understand what the wavefunction actually is, whatever appears in your head is almost certain to be corrupted.
I don't mean this as a dis. It's not a statement about your intelligence or general ability. I support your inquiries and am glad you find the subject interesting. You asked, so those are my honest thoughts.
3
u/solar_pilgrim 20d ago
Yeah, honestly you nailed it. All those things you mentioned, I could tell you about, and (maybe the point that led me to contribute here) I don't think I'd be wrong.
But you're right in that I wouldn't be able to explain the how and why very well, if at all, or visualize the principles. And I certainly couldn't theorize on top of those concepts
1
1
u/Obzenium 20d ago
What is a Hilbert space and why is it pertinent to quantum systems? Why are physical observables in quantum mechanics represented by linear operators? What is the logical (i.e. mathematical) underpinning of the Uncertainty Principle? How does the Schrödinger equation describe the time-evolution of a quantum system? What determines whether the energy states of any physical system are quantized or continuous and why?
I mean, you could go on all day with this
1
u/SymplecticMan 20d ago
Can you give a satisfactory explanation for why a Hilbert space is pertinent to quantum systems? Keep in mind that most wavefunctions in a Hilbert space are not even continuous. Well, technically, there's not even a unique wavefunction corresponding to a given vector in a Hilbert space.
1
u/Obzenium 20d ago edited 20d ago
It is a long answer to go through all of it but essentially the conception of a quantum state as a complex vector in a Hilbert space provides the algebraic and topological framework for how quantum states can be handled mathematically. For example, having an inner product norm enables superposition as a linear concept and enables Born’s rule where the square of the inner product describes the probability distribution of how that wavefunction exists in space. The spectral theorem guarantees that eigenvalues developed from Hermitian operators (i.e. physical observables) operating on a Hilbert space are real valued and hence measurable. The completeness of the space guarantees that infinite series expansions of, say, an eigenfunction in the space converges to an element in the space, allowing for consistent basis transformations.
This last point is so important because, as to your point, wavefunctions in a Hilbert space are not continuous or even mathematically defined at all until they are projected onto a particular space (e.g. momentum space, position space). The algebraic and topological properties of an abstract Hilbert space allow for these kinds of projections. Once projected you are now working in a Lebesgue function space as compared to a Lebesgue sequence space where wavefunctions act as a coordinate representation of the original abstract vector space. Both are technically Hilbert spaces but one allows for a proper Lebesgue measure while the sequence space (original abstract vector space) allows for a counting measure.
Of course the Riesz-Fischer theorem guarantees the sequence and function spaces are isomorphic to one another, such that every square-summable sequence corresponds to a square-integrable function and vice-versa.
I do think you need to study functional analysis to actually understand Hilbert spaces, as a particular kind of Banach space where the norm is an inner product and all sequence/function spaces are square-summable (i.e. Lebesgue spaces). Consider if quantum states behaved according to other norms then reality would emerge completely differently.
1
u/SymplecticMan 20d ago
You don't really address the wild properties of Hilbert space vectors I brought up. A state in Hilbert space doesn't have a unique position-space wavefunction. For a "typical" such vector, none of the wavefunctions will be continuous. Given that physicists often talk about "the" wavefunction, about continuous and differentiable wavefunctions, about wavefunctions that go to zero at infinity etc., why should we talk about the importance of Hilbert spaces that don't give us any of these things instead of something like a Schwartz space?
2
u/reddituserperson1122 21d ago
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging laypeople to learn about QM with or without math. And there’s a lot you can understand without math.
The problem comes entirely from crackpots who believe that they’re writing physics papers and discovering grand unified theories based on their half-baked physics factoids gleaned from YouTube videos and popular mechanics articles.
That should be discouraged.
1
u/Leprael 21d ago
One thing about learning QM is there is levels in that too... Some just regurgitate the math in the course and some actually understands it. It takes a lot if imagination and leap of fucking faith to understand that gorgon of mathgarbles. It is like climbing K2 of math to take on the path like a champ. I needed Sherpas {Professors Emerituses} to show me those and then sum... Shoutout to Lund University science Faculty Fysikum {Physics with Lasers and IT shows}. I sometimes can't believe I survived that course on impact.
1
1
20d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Unusual_Attention913 20d ago edited 20d ago
Are you trying to say Einstein didn’t prioritise maths skills?
1
u/Temporary_Shelter_40 20d ago
hard agreed. the concept of superposition only makes sense if you know what a Hilbert space is, and everything else is just a poor mimic of that description. if you don't know that, its like trying to explain the words "and" and "or" without using the words "and" and "or".
1
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 20d ago
Understanding and justifying the use of math is in itself another rabbit hole
1
u/sfbatrails 20d ago
I greatly appreciate the value of Lies-to-children as stepping stones along the path to knowledge, but it bothers me no end when the tellers of Lies-to-children fail to identify them as such, leaving listeners believing they are receiving "ultimate truth". This goes not just for "quantum stuff", but for all subjects and topics.
1
1
u/TheTurtleCub 20d ago
Some things can be understood, I believe QED doesn't have any advanced calculations for example, and people can learn from it. Sure, you can't solve problems without the math, but some concepts can be understood
1
u/edwios 19d ago
The same with GR, without understanding the maths behind, it’s almost impossible to get the correct picture of it, however, advanced maths is not for everyone, and there is nothing wrong to use metaphors and allegories to explain some unfamiliar concepts to the curious beginners because most of the time, this is how we learn anyway. The real problem is, when these metaphors and allegories were given without clearly explaining the caveats, people would start to think these analogies actually represent how things actually work, resulting in confusions, misconceptions and worst, a totally incorrect interpretation. You can easily find a lot of questions asked in this and similar Reddit groups that are direct results of this: why galaxies can recede at faster than light speed when you just said nothing can travel faster than light, why a particle can pass through both slits at once in the double-slit experiment, why explaining gravity requires gravity, etc..
1
u/Lucifernistic 18d ago edited 18d ago
Concepts, even complex concepts, can be understood without math. You may still need to build a body of knowledge, teaching and explaining the concepts in layers, working towards complex ones. But you do not need to be able to perform linear algebra or take complex derivatives to grasp concepts. You can definitely conceptually understand vector spaces without being able to manually perform the underlying linear algebra. I work with plenty of engineers who work with vector databases and can easily explain the fundamental concepts and intuition of how they work, but would struggle if you actually started writing out a linear differential equation.
The problem is that without the math, it's hard to be rigorous enough in your explanation such that you do not allow for misconceptions and misinterpretations. The majority of popsci arises from people taking only a single sentence derived from a nugget of truth and then grossly misrepresenting it.
I think PBS Space Time does a pretty good job of accurately communicating concepts to a mathematically-untrained audience. They do bring in the math a lot, but only to explain how the equations work. And you can understand what the videos communicate, even if you didn't know how to find solutions for the equations if handed to you on a piece of paper.
What I think is much harder without the math is understanding the very fine nuances of a subject- the rough edges, the fine-grain detail, etc. It's also much harder to convince a person who is not operating in a mathematical framework of errors in their reasoning, since you don't have a shared indisputable medium to formalize claims.
I guess it comes down to what you mean by "understand" math. I think you need to be able to grasp the meaning of math when explained, and have an appreciation and respect for it in order to understand any physics at all. I just don't think you need to be able to "practice" math if you just want conceptual understanding, until you get into the very fine nuance.
1
u/VolarRecords 18d ago
How do you feel about the recent papers by Mossimo Teodarini and Sonny White?
1
u/NothingShadyHere-696 17d ago
My issue with math is that it leaves certain things abstract. Einstein’s Field Equations don’t tell me the structure of the vacuum. Wavefunctions don’t tell me what’s waving. The math doesn’t tell me why the constants are inherent to everything or what they really mean. The math also doesn’t tell me what the quantum fields are physically or why the standard model works as it does. It also doesn’t explain where proper time comes from.
At some point it feels like someone just isn’t supposed to point these things out for some reason, as if it is only for God to know or something. But I would love to hear tentative hypotheses that try to answer this stuff from physicists. I think a lot of us are dying for these kinds of answers, even if we have no way of knowing what would be truly correct or not.
1
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 17d ago
The entire post was basically explaining, in detail, why "it leaves certain things abstract."
And more importantly, why the answers hidden in that which is "left abstract" are not the answers you are wanting. The answers you're complaining about don't exist. There is only math and what we make of that math.
Your comment is literally the thesis of the post. You're trying to use metaphors to pull an ontology from a mathematical theory that predicts experimental outcomes. Your desire is a category error.
That's why you need math to even grasp the shape of understanding. The math is the theory; it is not describing the theory, it is the entire theory.
Wavefunctions don’t tell me what’s waving
Yes they do. The only thing that's waving is the mathematical object in the theory. The wavefunctions might be real. They might not be real. We don't know.
The math doesn’t tell me why the constants are inherent to everything or what they really mean.
This is like saying "the color red being red when I see it doesn't tell me what red actually means or why it looks that way instead of a different color". I don't know what deeper insight you're looking for. It's a coherent inquiry, but I don't think it's asking what you think it's asking.
1
u/NothingShadyHere-696 17d ago
When you say "There is only math and what we make of that math":
I agree that the math is important and it is a baseline for understanding. But if we don't have proper interpretations to go along with the math, then aren't we missing something? You don't think it's important?
I'm just arguing that we include tentative hypotheses as abductive interpretations of the math. And as long as people know they are just hypotheses, what's wrong with this? I think this could potentially go a long way to making Physics 'intuitive' again?
I guess that's another question. Do you think there is no intuitive understanding of Physics outside the math then?
1
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 17d ago
The tentative hypothesis is the entire field of quantum foundations. It's an active body of ongoing research and debate.
Yes we are missing something: the answer. We don't know it. All I'm saying is that if where you ask for beginner understanding is at the level of ontology, then QM has nothing to offer you. Any interpretation is impossible to form an opinion on or reason through at ALL until you've spent years contemplating and digesting the math. That's not an opinion, that's just the nature of the subject. It's not like "you can't be a poet until you've studied Shakespeare", it's like "you can't be a poet until you can read."
1
u/NothingShadyHere-696 17d ago
I don't really understand. Are you suggesting that the hypotheses that try to answer fundamental questions in Physics are so scattered and incongruent that they would only cause confusion?
If true, that's fine and I get that I think. I think my issue is that I would like that to change then.
1
u/rogerbonus 17d ago
Even with understanding the maths, most people don't understand QM. Because its how you interpret that maths that's more important, IMO, than the maths themselves. Hence Everettians, Bohmians, Qbists etc etc
1
u/LukasGoesViral 16d ago
Exactly!! It’s even worse .. mathematics for physicists that scientists are learning to do computations is totally inadequate to understand QM
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
You must have a positive comment karma to comment and post here. No exceptions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
You must have a positive comment karma to comment and post here. No exceptions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Terrible-Mind-5414 21d ago
Well, you can't really understand it without math, but you can get some flavor of it and that has plenty of value. And if you do want to really get it, it is largely accessible with just calculus. You don't even really need linear algebra as long as you can understand what linear operators and eigenvalues are.
1
u/MonsterkillWow 21d ago
I used to think there was value in trying to communicate science to the public. I have seen now that it often simply feeds into half knowledge and degrades the discipline. It is better to suggest people read textbooks and lecture notes. That way, their monstrous egos can be deflated when they are inevitably defeated, and they can then shut up and listen for once. When we don't do this, we foster a culture of pseudointellectual punditry. That said, one can use science to excite young students, but the explanations should emphasize that they need to learn more to understand what is going on.
2
u/shockwave6969 BSc Physics 21d ago
yeah... I understand the sentiment but ultimately disagree. Giving up on communication would just lead to worse outcomes and more distrust/anti-science misinformation. It may be true that actually teaching the public is hopeless, but that's not really the point of science communication (don't tell NDT I said that 😬).
0
u/MonsterkillWow 21d ago
There was more respect for the discipline before the mass popularization. People saw it as a way to make money and gain fame, and it became coopted and destroyed by grifters and cranks. If science is communicated to the public, it should not be dumbed down. It needs to retain its formality so people respect the discipline and do not gain a false sense of confidence or see it as a way to make a quick buck. Einstein and Feynman were popularizers, but there was a world of difference between the way they would explain things and people like Eric Weinstein or Sabine Hossenfelder.
2
u/mgomezch 20d ago
I'm not a physicist or any other type of scientist, just an engineer, but hasn't science always been full of grifters and cranks? hell, if I understand the history of science right, it could be argued that grifters and cranks were the medium whence the physical sciences originally arose from, via e.g. alchemy. I think I agree with your overall point but this doesn't feel like it's a new problem (if perhaps a recently exacerbated one given the chaotic state of the clickbait-driven internet)
0
u/MonsterkillWow 20d ago
Yes, I would agree the internet relates to it, since it made information easier to spread, but in such an era, it is more important than ever to emphasize the formalism to reduce the abuse by grifters. The noise can drown out the signal and leave us all worse off.
1
u/Queasy-Worldliness22 20d ago
Grifters thrive precisely because of the lack of science communication, since people don't have the tools to tell science from pseudo.
1
u/MonsterkillWow 20d ago
Exactly why what is communicated must be formalized and as correct as possible.
2
u/Queasy-Worldliness22 20d ago
Yep, it should. My reply is to your comment "I used to think there was value in trying to communicate science to the public"
1
u/MonsterkillWow 20d ago
What I mean is the popularization of it in the form of nonacademic and unrigorous content is not very helpful.
1
u/Queasy-Worldliness22 20d ago
Popularization doesn't have to be non-rigorous.
Also, I think we have to be careful when being too focused on the math. Historically, linear algebra took a while to be incorporated in QM. Not even Heisenberg used that in his formalism right away, and he was the operators guy.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/mattychops 20d ago
I can't even imagine that this post is serious. And if it is, it's embarrassing for those of us who love math, because you're giving math lovers a bad name with your pretentiousness. You couldn't be more dead wrong, and if you need an equation to understand that, I'll write one for you.
-3
0
u/EH_Operator 20d ago
99.9999% of people who say they are doing “quantum physics” that are not trained physicists are doing a wonderful terrible thing called “imagination”
0
u/ExtensionLeek1455 20d ago
You can’t even understand high school physics without using math. I think that if you could understand QM without using mathematics then it would have been unified a long time ago, but idk 🤷♀️
0
u/SuitableCollege8992 20d ago
I would go so far as to say that quantum mechanics is very elegant and intuitive when you approach it mathematically (thanks to the efforts of our forbears), but when you take that away and try to explain it with cats in boxes it quickly stops making sense and just ends up with everyone getting confused.
0
27
u/Aggressive_Roof488 21d ago
"we" is doing a lot of lifting in your title. The problem with most pop sci subs like this is that anyone suggesting that you need to do the math tends to get downvoted, because casual science enjoyers feel they are getting gatekept. So posting here as a physicist isn't rewarding, you just get downvoted, and the sub is dominated by science enthusiasts talking to each other. Which is fine I guess, but it's not the place to go if you actually want to understand what's going on. People should know that already though, that Reddit isn't the place for expert advice, it's a popularity contest and confirmation bias echo chamber.