ikacer comments on 2013 Census/Survey: call for changes and additions - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Yvain 05 November 2013 03:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (154)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ikacer 06 November 2013 02:25:53AM *  3 points [-]

I assume the purpose of the Schroedinger equation question was to determine how many people had some understanding of the actual physics behind QM, perhaps inspired by the common saying that the only way to understand what QM means is to understand what QM does.

I agree that the question as posed in the 2012 survey doesn't do a good job at determining either. I don't even know what it means to calculate the SE. Solve it perhaps? Or calculate the eigenvalues? A better question would be whether one can derive the SE.

Or better yet just ask directly:

Which best describes your understanding of quantum mechanics:

  • Can't do QM.
  • Can do non-relativistic QM.
  • Can do relativistic QM.

On a side note, the QM question and many others (such as torture vs dust specks) from last year's survey are right now missing from the preliminary 2013 survey posted by Yvain. Were they intentionally removed, and if so for what reason?

Comment author: [deleted] 06 November 2013 09:28:42AM 0 points [-]

On a side note, the QM question and many others (such as torture vs dust specks) from last year's survey are right now missing from the preliminary 2013 survey posted by Yvain. Were they intentionally removed, and if so for what reason?

I'm pretty sure they were there yesterday.