What is the process of QM studies? (Not a simple question)

[Adrian Lee]

New physics guy.(This means totally unknowledged and ignorant.)
I've been surfing google scholar,researchgate etc.
Seeing many exotic articles,claming things like
1.unitary quantum mechanics fails to describe dynamics,so is ruled out.
2.quantum randomness is illusional!
3.we can recover determinism by altering the matrix algebra
4.(kind of crackpot sense)lots of people,especially on researchgate,from bad universities,making up their own interpretations of QM(yet very professional and lone articles!),and can't even be admitted by journals
5.lots(i mean,ive seen like a dozen)of people from other fields(social science,psychology,mental illness,computer)are studying QM and posting them on(even psychology)good jounals of other fields!
please don't discuss in detail those questions above!
my question is,how should i tell from right or wrong?my curiosity 's been driving me read all that i see,wasting up all my time and mind!
is every claim made really counting?
how is contribution effectively done to fields of QM?

 

[hutchphd]

You will need to learn Physics. There are textbooks. It will require much time and effort.
You will also need to know calculus. There are textbooks. It will require much time and effort.
Insight finished.

 

[Adrian Lee]

You will need to learn Physics. There are textbooks. It will require much time and effort.
You will also need to know calculus. There are textbooks. It will require much time and effort.
Insight finished.

I guess I explained it wrong sorry!My question is that how the academia sees these new claims given and how to identify useful articles from useless.

 

[hutchphd]

This requires people who are educated to review the content. This is the foundation of "peer reviewed" journals. Submissions are criticized by others in the field before publication (with possible changes). Anything else is (or very occasionally is not) crap. To paraphrase Sir Winston "it is the worst possible system except for all the others"

 

[mpresic3]

Qualified researchers in these fields do not get their information from the internet. The examine journal articles from a small collection of authors, that they recognize as competent and esteemed from their research in this area. Just like you would not expect a world class chess grandmaster to be interested in the games of amateurs in tournaments that are undistiguished, (they might well be interested in developments from equally world class players), you do not expect academics working in the field to be led astray by claims that border on the preposterous, and are quickly forgotten in upcoming weeks.

It does seem like hardly a week goes by that papers on the internet advance some claim in quantum mechanics. After a couple of years in lightly perusing some of these, it is clear that few, if any, are touted after a year or two. Most are gone within a month.

If you want to learn quantum, find a course at the university, find a tutor, or find a good textbook. (Here the physics forums can help) Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, Scroedinger, etc learned quantum mechanics without the internet. Physics departments at universities instruct their students in physics, without the internet. I suspect the methods of instruction at these universities are effective.

 

[Delta2]

You can't learn physics, math or other sciences from the internet forums, you need to go study in some college or university or get some good books and if possible good tutors and study on your own. Even in internet forum sites that have some quality standards (like this site Physics Forums) it is not safe to learn completely from the forum posts. Here in physics forums we can just help with some problems/excersices from books or answer some questions you might have while reading some books. Your main knowledge still should be from books and universities/colleges, not from the internet forums.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Love you guys this is kinda the answer I need.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Qualified researchers in these fields do not get their information from the internet. The examine journal articles from a small collection of authors, that they recognize as competent and esteemed from their research in this area. Just like you would not expect a world class chess grandmaster to be interested in the games of amateurs in tournaments that are undistiguished, (they might well be interested in developments from equally world class players), you do not expect academics working in the field to be led astray by claims that border on the preposterous, and are quickly forgotten in upcoming weeks.

It does seem like hardly a week goes by that papers on the internet advance some claim in quantum mechanics. After a couple of years in lightly perusing some of these, it is clear that few, if any, are touted after a year or two. Most are gone within a month.

If you want to learn quantum, find a course at the university, find a tutor, or find a good textbook. (Here the physics forums can help) Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, Scroedinger, etc learned quantum mechanics without the internet. Physics departments at universities instruct their students in physics, without the internet. I suspect the methods of instruction at these universities are effective.

I agree,thank you for the education.but yet I've ran into a lot of weird articles from even psychologists or fridge designers posted on good journals like foundations of physics, claiming for stuff like the world is about solipsism ,the world is about idealism ,nothing is real but your mind etc.bugging me indeed!
Maybe I am off rail now.reply if you like! I m just a confused newcomer here!

 

[PeroK]

I agree,thank you for the education.but yet I've ran into a lot of weird articles from even psychologists or fridge designers posted on good journals like foundations of physics, claiming for stuff like the world is about solipsism ,the world is about idealism ,nothing is real but your mind etc.bugging me indeed!
Maybe I am off rail now.reply if you like! I m just a confused newcomer here!

Put simply, you are wasting your time if you are finding and reading stuff like that. We get approximately one person a week on here who believes they can revolutionise physics. The posts usually get deleted by the moderators, but there is no shortage of these people.

If you want more than what popular science can offer, then it takes years of hard work to understand physics even at an undergraduate level.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Put simply, you are wasting your time if you are finding and reading stuff like that. We get approximately one person a week on here who believes they can revolutionise physics. The posts usually get deleted by the moderators, but there is no shortage of these people.

If you want more than what popular science can offer, then it takes years of hard work to understand physics even at an undergraduate level.

You're so cute,hahaha
But then how do these get admitted by the journal?(ive also seen a reputed physicist who studies quantum cognition citing some non-physicist's article from social science journals that claims for his "cluster minds multiverse"theory of"free will")
this question's so dumb that i can't even continue typing
this all comes down to personal ignorance or sth?

 

[PeroK]

You're so cute,hahaha
But then how do these get admitted by the journal?
this question's so dumb that i can't even continue typing
this all comes down to personal ignorance or sth?

The important question is what you want to achieve in terms of understanding physics.

Personally, I have no interest in reading why a fridge designer thinks QM is like Zen Bhuddism.

 

[Adrian Lee]

The important question is what you want to achieve in terms of understanding physics.

Personally, I have no interest in reading why a fridge designer thinks QM is like Zen Bhuddism.

Let me get your point,
I shouldn't read anymore articles from journals (even some good ones) with too strong claims or stuff,
is that right?
for example here i have someone named H.Zwirn,seems to have picked up physics in his late years,he's got articles,quite a few! posted on Foundations of Physics,which is a good journal even t'Hooft would post on,about his "Convival Solipsism"interpretation(also he's posted on scrap journals like Physics Essays),using solipsism and everett theory.
you mean that these things arent likely to be after all turning out to be correct?
i study physics for my curiosity ,i want to find out the correct theory to describe nature and our reality,so this is my concern.
Tell me if I've been too annoying.

 

[PeroK]

It's up to you what you spend your time reading. I like to do things rather than read about them. Also, I have no interest in philosophy. "Convivial solipsism" sounds like intellectual masturbation to me.

 

[DennisN]

but yet I've ran into a lot of weird articles from even psychologists or fridge designers posted on good journals like foundations of physics, claiming for stuff like the world is about solipsism ,the world is about idealism ,nothing is real but your mind etc.bugging me indeed!

(my bolding)

Just like you wouldn't go to a hairdresser to get a medical examination, nor a doctor to get a haircut, you shouldn't automatically trust unqualified people telling you about advanced physics.

In short: Don't look for water in the desert. Go to the wells instead.

In this case the wells are e.g. textbooks, lectures, courses, and papers and articles in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

This forum, Physics Forums, is not a well itself. But it's a pretty decent river, so to say.
And from here, you can find the wells.

 

[Adrian Lee]

(my bolding)

Just like you wouldn't go to a hairdresser to get a medical examination, nor a doctor to get a haircut, you shouldn't automatically trust unqualified people telling you about advanced physics.

In short: Don't look for water in the desert. Go to the wells instead.

In this case the wells are e.g. textbooks, lectures, courses, and papers and articles in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

This forum, Physics Forums, is not a well itself. But it's a pretty decent river, so to say.
And from here, you can find the wells.

Nice point,but why do these journals accept them?there are reviewers indeed.

 

[DennisN]

Nice point,but why do these journals accept them?there are reviewers indeed.

I don't know. In other words, I'm not qualified to answer that.

 

[Adrian Lee]

I don't know. In other words, I'm not qualified to answer that.

Thank you for your insight as well.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, it's sometimes amazing what gets through the peer review process. The more it is important to first learn physics and only physics before bothering with more speculative "new" ideas. Concerning quantum mechanics, one should always make sure about what has been experimentally really observed and what is just a theoretical construct beyond that.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Well, it's sometimes amazing what gets through the peer review process. The more it is important to first learn physics and only physics before bothering with more speculative "new" ideas. Concerning quantum mechanics, one should always make sure about what has been experimentally really observed and what is just a theoretical construct beyond that.

Thanks for the education.

 

[Demystifier]

(kind of crackpot sense)lots of people,especially on researchgate,from bad universities,making up their own interpretations of QM

In my experience most comments on research gate are nonsense, at least in the field of foundations of physics. I made myself a few comments there but soon gave up when I realized that people who I discussed with had no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Demystifier]

my question is,how should i tell from right or wrong?

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to tell that.

 

[Adrian Lee]

Thanks guys,back to your work and leave this one alone!
My questions won't be really contributing anymore,so mentors lock this if you like.

 

[Dale]

Foundations of Physics,which is a good journal even t'Hooft would post on

While Foundations of Physics is a recognized journal, to say that it is “good” is a bit of a stretch. Its impact factor is less than 1.5 and the Eigenfactor rates its articles in the 44th percentile, which makes it only the 34th best journal in the physics category (79 journals).

http://www.eigenfactor.org/projects...2015&searchby=isicat&orderby=articleinfluence

That is not to say that the journal is not credible, but it is something to consider. If a concept only appears there, then it is not well regarded among professional scientists. Similarly, if that is the best journal an individual researcher publishes in then that researcher is not well regarded among professional scientists.

how should i tell from right or wrong?

Science doesn’t really tell right from wrong, but you can look at impact factors and the eigenfactor and other similar metrics to tell well-regarded from poorly-regarded

 

[physika]

But then how do these get admitted by the journal?

Which journals ? Physical Review ? Nature Physics ? Science ? ...

 

[Adrian Lee]

While Foundations of Physics is a recognized journal, to say that it is “good” is a bit of a stretch. Its impact factor is less than 1.5 and the Eigenfactor rates its articles in the 44th percentile, which makes it only the 34th best journal in the physics category (79 journals).

http://www.eigenfactor.org/projects...2015&searchby=isicat&orderby=articleinfluence

That is not to say that the journal is not credible, but it is something to consider. If a concept only appears there, then it is not well regarded among professional scientists. Similarly, if that is the best journal an individual researcher publishes in then that researcher is not well regarded among professional scientists.

Science doesn’t really tell right from wrong, but you can look at impact factors and the eigenfactor and other similar metrics to tell well-regarded from poorly-regarded

Thank you ,that's something professional!
Thanks again if it was you who got my advice and moved the thread.