Why Is Quantum Mechanics So Difficult? - Comments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of teaching and learning quantum mechanics (QM), particularly at the undergraduate level. Participants explore different pedagogical approaches, the perceived difficulty of the subject, and the role of historical context and philosophy in QM education.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that teaching the mathematical formalism of QM first is essential for understanding the concepts, citing the approach taken in Ballentine's book as a model.
  • Others suggest that there is no single best way to teach QM, as different students may have varying learning preferences.
  • One participant expresses the view that undergraduate QM is the easiest physics class, describing it as a "cookbook" approach lacking in engaging physical concepts and philosophy.
  • Concerns are raised about the historical approach to teaching QM, where students learn outdated concepts only to be told to forget them later, leading to confusion and misconceptions.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of a strong mathematical foundation before delving into QM, suggesting that a course focused on the mathematics of QM could be beneficial.
  • There is a discussion about the relevance of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and its derivation, with some participants noting its connection to statistical mechanics rather than QM.
  • One participant critiques the lack of philosophical discussion in QM education, arguing that it should not be introduced too early in the curriculum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the best approach to teaching QM, with no consensus on a single method. Disagreements exist regarding the importance of historical context, the role of philosophy, and the perceived difficulty of the subject.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention specific textbooks and their suitability for different educational levels, indicating that the choice of material may influence the learning experience. There are references to the challenges of deriving certain laws and concepts, highlighting the complexity of the subject matter.

  • #241
Didnt Hawking famously say - every equation he puts in a book takes X amount of sales off.

Paraphrased.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
Supposedly, it's absolutely impossible to put the equations of modern physics into plain English. I don't buy that. Has any group of physicists ever even attempted to "Gutenbergize" QM for the public?
 
  • #243
I believe that would be most uncompelling and ugly.
 
  • #244
bhobba said:
Then get copy of Landau - Mechanics where all of Classical mechanics is derived from this alone

For something worthy of this honor, it would need to be fully consistent with the applicable regimes of Newton, Hamilton, Lagrange, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Einstein (at least as far as SR), and also all the various types of material physics. And on top of all that, it also has to be profinite, so it can be put to practical use.

Are you saying that the path integral is up to that challenge?
 
  • #245
houlahound said:
I believe that would be most uncompelling and ugly.

Sic transit gloria. You have a better idea?
 
  • #246
Yes, learn the math and see the beauty in full.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #247
houlahound said:
Didnt Hawking famously say - every equation he puts in a book takes X amount of sales off.

Paraphrased.
That's valid for popular science books. For textbooks on physics the opposite is true: The more formulae the author offers, the more steps are made explicit in a derivation, for the student the more simple it is to follow and understand the argument ;-).
 
  • #248
houlahound said:
Yes, learn the math and see the beauty in full.

There's nothing beautiful about having to observe everything projected onto a random choice among real-valued probabilities. But that's how the actual world works, and that's the mystery the public wants to understand.
 
  • #249
Define understand and how you know you understand something.

Personally I think the word understand is vague and rather useless.
 
  • #250
houlahound said:
Define understand and how you know you understand something.

As far as explaining physics to the public, I'd define understanding as a form of economic utility. Math is the only reliable way to grapple with the "Big Questions". If people are to expend time, money, and effort to learn mathematical physics, they expect to see how that's done. If that's not what they see promoted, they'll take the low road and learn nothing or less.
 
  • #251
Explaining equations in plain English does not mean there are no more equations. It means that the equations are written to be teaching tools themselves, rather than merely something to learn. I never thought it possible, but apparently they've been there for quite a while, hidden beneath a pile of Google trolls, and now the trolls have disappeared. (Obama's parting gift?) Here's an example:
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...issertations/2012/Alec-Owens-Dissertation.pdf

I suppose you think this math is ugly?
 
  • #252
Why should this be ugly?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Collin237

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 118 ·
4
Replies
118
Views
14K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
287
Views
28K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K