Huh? It's the very basic thing that you'll find in the begining of every quantum mechanics textbook that hermitean operators correspond to measurable quantities and their eigenvalues are the values of that quantity that you can measure in an experiment. The fact that you didn't find that means that you didn't even try to read any textbook. You are wasting your time being reluctant to our advices. There is no other way to learn quantum mechanics and quantum field theory than reading (not glancing through) a proper textbook, period.My problem with using all of these sources is that I cannot understand meaning(theyr relation with physical reality) of mathematical things(operators, brackets) used.
If he tells you the page, you will find an explanation that contains another concept that you don't understand. If you want to build a house to enjoy the view from the balcony, you must start with building the foundations of the house. The same is with building the understanding of quantum theory. There is no shortcut.Which page of this book explains this specific question?
That said, maybe you also need some better understanding of classical physics (mechanics and electrodynamics) first. There's no other way to understand physics than to learn it systematically from scratch together with a good deal of math.You still don't get it. You won't understand quantum field theory without understanding basics of quantum mechanics, and to learn those basics you need to delve through most of the book, not one or two chapters. There is no other way to understand physics.
I know all these things except hamiltonian.classical electrodynamics (as a first step electrostatics is the minimum in order to understand basic examples like the hydrogen atom). Mathwise you need for sure linear algebra, vector calculus, differential equations, and Fourier transformations.
I know. I have been looking for sources that do not use bra-ket notation. Even better if it did not use hamiltonian ether.Quantum mechanics isn’t a change of notation, it’s a fundamentally different physical framework from classical mechanics. You don’t have to use the bra-ket notation but you must learn quantum mechanics to gleam any understanding on the subject.
It is not that I do want to learn it in specific way, but that I cant understand the sources that use brakets, operators, and commutivity. I have wanted someone to explain me what these mean or give me clear refence to look it up. I now finally understood something(post 31), but still not enougth.why you shouldn’t learn QM the way everyone else does, since it’s that way for good reason.
I don't understand how you can have sufficient knowledge of QM if you don't understand bras and kets, operators, and commutativity, since all of those are basic concepts that are used to describe QM. And, as has already been noted, QM textbooks all go into these subjects. If you work through a QM textbook and find difficulty in understanding something specific it says about bras and kets, operators, or commutativity, you can start a new thread asking about that specific thing. Asking for someone to explain, in general, bras and kets, operators, and commutativity is asking for someone to give you a course in QM, which is way beyond the scope of a PF discussion. If you want such a course, you need to go take one, or find course materials online (for example, MIT's Open Courseware) and work through them.I dont think any of my learning has been hinder by insufficient knowledge in QM, but by not understanding meaning of brakets, operators, and commutivity.