You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on Yet More "Stupid" Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: NancyLebovitz 08 September 2013 02:18PM

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

Comments (265)

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

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 September 2013 04:18:51AM 4 points [-]

No. You should follow an established curriculum because the textbooks are written that way, such as where mathematical techniques are introduced.

Memorizing enables fast recall. If you have to know it, you'll have to memorize it even if you can derive it. And there is very little to memorize in physics. You have to know that metals are ductile, but that's not a lot of information; you're not going to check it by going back to quantum mechanics. In principle, you could use QM to derive a quantitative version, but it's computationally intractable.

In the direct relation between quantum and classical mechanics, QM is simply more complicated: you generally start with the classical laws and modify them, so they are a prerequisite. I think that there is a recent QM textbook by quantum computing researchers that get to quantum weirdness with very few prerequisites. This sounds like a good place to start, but if you want to cover the whole thing, you'll need classical mechanics.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 September 2013 02:30:19PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, I think I'm gonna follow this.