@Safdar Don't make such superficial edits on posts of dubious quality chemistry.stackexchange.com/posts/139162/…

Edits can break close vote review queue

@Mithoron What happened?

Meh, probably nothing this time, just saying...

@Mithoron What do you mean by this actually?

Frankly I'm not sure how this works exactly, but question that is flagged for CV enters CV review queue and edits can kick it out of this queue.

@Mithoron wait, what? So then we need to flag to close again?

Don't get your panties in a twist. It already has 3 CV so it's probably gonna get 2 more soon enough

And I don't see it even being in the queue in the timeline, so it probably didn't do anything

So it wasn't in the queue? I can't see the review queues.. I am 700 rep away rn. :|

But edits on posts that may be likely closed optimally should turn them into posts that are unlikely to be closed

So, substatial edits etc.

@Safdar You'll get it soon.

@YusufHasan well there is no difference in QM taught in chem and in phys. The rules are still the same. :-) OK, the difference is that QC tends to focus very heavily on solving molecular Hamiltonians. Because the Schrodinger eq. cannot be solved analytically we now have an absolutely stupid number of approaches towards finding "good" solutions to the S. eq. in chem. QC is not just that, but that is the first thing that most people think of when you say QC.

On the other hand, if you pick up a physics book on QM, very few of them even describe molecules in great detail. They tend to stop at atoms. I would say that once you get past the very basic stuff (postulates, eigenstates, etc) QM in chemistry tends to be "advanced applications", and QM in physics is "advanced theory".

Re. "Is there an actual benefit..?" Of course, if you dedicate more time towards something, you will learn more, and at the end of the day you will know more. That much is obvious. Whether it's worth the effort is for you to decide. I will say that personally I have benefitted from reading physics QM, but that's not necessarily because physics is "better", it's more because I get multiple perspectives on the same topic (and it is v important for my current work which involves a fair deal of QM).

In the specific case of quantum computing, I think that the typical QM courses in chemistry degrees do not teach QM theory in sufficient detail to understand that. In my opinion (or experience) a "pure chemist" will probably need to supplant their course with extra reading, especially on density matrices.

Others may have different opinions. Just my 2c.

(sobs as I look at the pile of reading I have to do but have not done)

@Safdar there is also this. chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4294/…