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

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) |

## Revision as of 20:33, 10 July 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 Relativityisslightly to the right of Quantum Mechanics. 172.68.141.94 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)