04:49
@Mr.Feynman I kind of need both. A non-rigorous but quick way to know how to translate, and then later go back to work out the rigorous. An issue with maths presentation is that they go full general and abstract to the point of being impenetrable to students. That might be what maths people need, and we as physicists cannot insist they change, unless, say, we pay them to (See Feynman on this), but for most of humanity, the impetus for the rigour needs to be motivated.
Otherwise, people cannot see why there was a need for the rigour. And maths people also agree: They would recommend that students go get books of (unintuitive) counterexamples, so that the effects of rigour will be best illustrated.
@Mr.Feynman I think it is only a very tiny minority who would insist that innate talent does not matter at all. The very fact that mental disabilities, handicaps, and so forth, provide rather overwhelming evidence. But it is still a fact that intuition can be trained. Nobody said that everybody can be trained to the same levels.
@Slereah Actually, all publishing was just wild west at the time. Einstein himself lived through the transition between editors publishing anything they liked (and rejecting anything they didn't), to the then completely new, budding, peer review process. There is even a crazy story about that, one that only made sense in light of this being the context. One would have to point out that some mistakes are so interesting that they ought to be publishable too.
@Slereah I had that same feeling. Seriously!
@RyderRude On the contrary. Classical-quantum divide is the most in conflict with actual experimental evidence.
@RyderRude I tried to self-study QFT using a dozen textbooks. Got stuck for 5 years++.
@Secret This is only true if the desired measurement commutes with the free Hamiltonian. Position, for example, never commutes with Hamiltonian, and thus will not be repeatable in the way that we always pretend to claim that it would be.
@ACuriousMind It is as if throwing quantum in front of stuff and things get more hairy!
Actually, this is false for both. Beginner level programming is filled with great introductory stuff. But there is a tremendous chasm between Hello World and GUI programming, let alone concurrency and compiler magic.
This is actually the opposite in physics. The standard physics pathway is incredibly well-thought out, because the earlier generations have thought through how to present students with a gradual path towards understanding the deeper stuff. However, the initial fundamental confusions with basic Newtonian mechanics is often something that self-study will never fix. At least not …
@RyderRude Why should it have a purpose, again?
@bolbteppa So hoomans are quantum and the galvanometer is classical?
@bolbteppa Manifestly not the case. Big name physicists have been operating using other interpretations just fine for decades.
@bolbteppa If you claim that everything can be described by a Schrödinger's equation, then it is manifestly not classical.
@Slereah Nobody is saying that two photons have to be bound to have, what should be appropriately called rest energy. Because an electron-positron pair does have rest energy, so that after their annihilation the final state should have that too. Note that one does NOT have to define centre of mass for that.
