Recent content by bhobba

A really great book that integrates it with multivariable calculus and linear algebra is: https://matrixeditions.com/5thUnifiedApproach.html Can be done after Calc BC (or equivalent, e.g., specialist math in Australia). Here in Australia, my old HS (not when I went there, but now) allows you...

I only know of Wigner's version from a comment in Ohanian's Gravitation and Space-Time. It was actually my first serious book on GR after I graduated with my math degree. It's different in approach from other books like Wald (my favourite) and MTW (it's the standard). Thanks Bill

See: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1397 It's been on my to-do list for ages to get down to my old uni library to see the proof. Getting old and disabled these days - do not even have a car anymore. Thanks Bill

It doesn't contain anything new, and nothing I haven't seen before, but as people who have been around a while know, I have a bit of a fascination with 'justifications' for Maxwell's equations. I recently came acrossss the following...

Sorry. Yes, that is the paper. Thanks for picking it up. Thanks Bill

Like many things in QM, the situation is actually more nuanced than even standard QM textbooks sometimes suggest. The so-called measurement problem is viewed by some as a pseudo-problem and nothing to worry about. By others as a deep mystery. Mathematically, we know, in ordinary...

That is what the paper I linked to examines. Thanks Bill

Love it. My definition is 'Particles are excited states of an underlying physical field, often called field quanta'. If you want to delve into the issue of what a particle is at an advanced level, see: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02354 Personally, a much more interesting question is the...

Von Neumann's famous writing on this in his classic text on QM never really caught on (and when I first read it, it left me scratching my head for reasons like you mention, e.g., exactly what is consciousness), but it did catch on with his good friend Wigner. However, later in life, after von...

Highly recommended, but very math-heavy. Fine for math nerds like me, but others may not enjoy it as much as I did. Thanks Bill

I rather enjoy Sean's books. But Sean does not point out one important fact (I can link to an advanced paper on it, but at this level, I don't think it would be of any value, and I have posted it before) that QM is wrong - it is just an approximation to QFT that another poster mentioned. In...

Fair enough. I really should have said for: HS students at the pop-sci level. Of course, at that level, there is confusion between a human observer and what an observation is in QM (i.e., an interaction between quantum objects). I have no personal connection to the article, other than...

I found the following interesting: https://ctrk.klclick1.com/l/01KG5PPJ0FMG5PHBSE7YST7PXZ_12 I have no idea if you need a subscription to Scientific Amacan because I have one (not as big a fan as I once was, but its digital edirion is dirt cheap). If you do let me know and I may be able to see...

God, I hope so. My psychiatrist (I go for other reasons as well, due to depression associated with my autoimmune disease) has discussed ways to stay mentally acute. My GP always refers his patients (he retired a week ago at 78) over 70 to a psychiatrist at least once every 6 months. There...

With your math background, you can study Telagrand for sure. I know you did number theory, but all you need is standard upper undergraduate stuff like functional analysis and differential forms. I did an applied math degree all over the place - stats, plenty of computing, functional...