# Difference between revisions of "Talk:1861: Quantum"

(10 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||

Line 5: | Line 5: | ||

Unless Randall includes Quantum Field Theory in Quantum Mechanics (which is unusual), General Relativity certainly must be on the right of QM, but on the chart they are almost same level, why? All physics students learn QM, but only small minority take GR course, because mathematically it's much more demanding. | Unless Randall includes Quantum Field Theory in Quantum Mechanics (which is unusual), General Relativity certainly must be on the right of QM, but on the chart they are almost same level, why? All physics students learn QM, but only small minority take GR course, because mathematically it's much more demanding. | ||

+ | :If you look closely, General Relativity ''is'' slightly to the right of Quantum Mechanics. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.94|172.68.141.94]] 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | _I'M_ extremely intrigued by Special Relativity being depicted as requiring not much more math than Basic Physics (the only thing I've studied on this chart - I'm not counting magnets as all I know are the grade school basics), but as being vastly more exciting (I enjoyed the physics courses I took, as far as I remember). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | :It's interesting that special relativity is to the left of magnets when you can explain magnetism as a consequence of special relativity, from each charged particle's frame of reference, it's experiencing an electrostatic attraction or repulsion due to length contraction or an altered electric current due to time dilation.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.214|172.68.141.214]] 05:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | ::That's way more complicated than special relativity, at least to me.--[[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | :::The thin with magnets is that they are like lasers; they are easy to get used to, but hard to understand the math behind.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.12|162.158.106.12]] 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | He forgot entropy. Maybe around where Special Relativity is? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.53|172.68.58.53]] 22:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | The Maxwell equations are more complicated than the Lorenz equations. That is why Magnets are to the right of special relativity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.106|162.158.92.106]] 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | Now I'm listening to "Highway To The Danger Zone". Thanks, upper-right corner! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.15|162.158.62.15]] 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | ''Every'' idea anyone has about quantum mechanics is weird. That includes those who can do the math for basic field theory (I have) and beyond. There are no non-weird mental models that fit what the math describes, and experiments validate. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.167|172.68.58.167]] 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | The explanation mentions a couple of philosophical questions, but I'm not sure that a novice to the field would even understand the question. I just can't imagine a room full of people getting excited if you said "Lets explore whether the temporal ordering of spatially separated events depend on the observer." [[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |

## Latest revision as of 07:19, 6 November 2017

The final paragraph probably should note that Magnets are directly on the ICP "Miracles" axis. JamesCurran (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And now I have to listen to "Miracles" again. Thanks explainxkcd. OldCorps (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless Randall includes Quantum Field Theory in Quantum Mechanics (which is unusual), General Relativity certainly must be on the right of QM, but on the chart they are almost same level, why? All physics students learn QM, but only small minority take GR course, because mathematically it's much more demanding.

- If you look closely, General Relativity
*is*slightly to the right of Quantum Mechanics. 172.68.141.94 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

_I'M_ extremely intrigued by Special Relativity being depicted as requiring not much more math than Basic Physics (the only thing I've studied on this chart - I'm not counting magnets as all I know are the grade school basics), but as being vastly more exciting (I enjoyed the physics courses I took, as far as I remember). :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

- It's interesting that special relativity is to the left of magnets when you can explain magnetism as a consequence of special relativity, from each charged particle's frame of reference, it's experiencing an electrostatic attraction or repulsion due to length contraction or an altered electric current due to time dilation.172.68.141.214 05:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

- That's way more complicated than special relativity, at least to me.--TheSandromatic (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

- The thin with magnets is that they are like lasers; they are easy to get used to, but hard to understand the math behind.162.158.106.12 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

He forgot entropy. Maybe around where Special Relativity is? 172.68.58.53 22:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Maxwell equations are more complicated than the Lorenz equations. That is why Magnets are to the right of special relativity. 162.158.92.106 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm listening to "Highway To The Danger Zone". Thanks, upper-right corner! 162.158.62.15 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

*Every* idea anyone has about quantum mechanics is weird. That includes those who can do the math for basic field theory (I have) and beyond. There are no non-weird mental models that fit what the math describes, and experiments validate. 172.68.58.167 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The explanation mentions a couple of philosophical questions, but I'm not sure that a novice to the field would even understand the question. I just can't imagine a room full of people getting excited if you said "Lets explore whether the temporal ordering of spatially separated events depend on the observer." Pudder (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)