I'd recommend learning the math/physics from a textbook. At some point, the pop-sci explanations get so garbled that they make the actual idea sound harder and more mysterious than it actually is.

When I first understood what entanglement was, mathematically, I was profoundly disappointed. Years of pop-sci had made it seem like a crazy thing, but mathematically, it's quite.. tame. (Some tensor products don't factorize).

For quantum mechanics, I strongly suggest going the quantum computing route if you have a background in computing. Pick up Quantum Computing since democritus (https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/), Nielsen and Chuang(http://mmrc.amss.cas.cn/tlb/201702/W020170224608149940643.pd...), and learn how to program in Q# (Microsoft's quantum programming language) and solve their quantum katas: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/quantum/tutorials/intro-to-....

I've done the same thing as part of a course at university: https://github.com/bollu/quantum-course-exercises

and it made a lot of things click for me.

> Some tensor products don't factorize

I'm sure you know this, but it's that some elements of the tensor product space don't factorize (i.e., are not tensor products).

Thank you for the correction, this was indeed what I meant to write :)

> When I first understood what entanglement was, mathematically, I was profoundly disappointed. Years of pop-sci had made it seem like a crazy thing, but mathematically, it's quite.. tame. (Some tensor products don't factorize).

Is the _math_ quite tame, or is the phenomenon itself?

The math of entanglement is not particularly complicated. The philosophy on the other hand....

That's the part I understood that GP was asking about. I know the math is way over my head, but I'm interested in the concepts, to the extent that I can be. I love popular science that tries to explain that (really been into PBS Spacetime recently)

This is what I'm trying to combat, though! The math is not over your head. maximum, If you know high school math, then literally all one needs to start studying quantum computation is linear algebra --- you can study in a semester, as it is one of the first courses all engineering graduates learn, and is luckily quite intuitive. MIT OCW has Gilbert Strang's video lectures freely available (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra...), along with exercises and transcripts.

That's the beauty of quantum computation; it harnesses all the intuitions we already have about computation, skips the messy parts of solving stuff in quantum mechanics while still keeping all the fiddly interesting bits that makes quantum quantum.

I really do believe that learning quantum computation is the "correct way" (for some folks) to gain an intuition for quantum mechanics

The hard parts of entanglement aren't the Bell pairs, they're all of the things you can do with Bell pairs.

I don't understand how you could imagine having a discussion about "what the standard model doesn’t solve and why new theories are interesting," that wasn't in the language of quantum mechanics, which the dead/alive cats in boxes thing would be an elementary first step of learning. Field theory is way farther off the deep end than the measurement of a two-state system.

I managed to learn QM without reference to cats in boxes, I suspect others may be able to as well.

> I managed to learn QM without reference to cats in boxes,

This is because we teach students the "Shut up and calculate" formulation of Quantum Mechanics by default. Interpreting your mathematics doesn't build transistors or fund particle accelerators, for example.

It's still an important thing to consider but it doesn't have the same logical structure as day-to-day Quantum Mechanics

The "shut up and calculate" method is common in university, but I don't think is antithetical to interpretation/prediction so much as metaphysics!

Plus, I think it's possible to have a smart discussion about QM interpretations without reference to cats in boxes.

There are several languages with which you can discuss the standard model, particularly Group Theory, which I don't think require much familiarity with the details of QM. I assume this is what the GP is talking about given his mention of Noether currents.

I say this as someone who is quite familiar with QM, so it's very possible I'm just neglecting to consider all the implicit context I'm working with.

Group theory has applications in QM, but you can't go from the standard model to experimental results through group theory alone. To do that, you need to understand all of the physics concepts leading up to it. Even knowing what a conserved quantity is involves some of that implicit context you're talking about.

I don't agree that this is the case; it's possible to make predictions about physics over the SM in the language of group theory without understanding how they map to experimental results in physics.

Sean Carroll covers most of modern physics in a "not dumbed down" fashion here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrxfgDEc2NxZJcWcrxH3j...

It is only a few months old & doesn't shy away from math.

I picked a random late episode, and I was pleasantly surprised to see him not shying away from discussing homotopy groups.

Reminds me that my brain literally turns to mush whenever topology and differential geometry comes into play - I can power through it, so far at least, but it doesn't seem to slot into my head as well as almost anything else I've come across.

Yes - "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose.

It's really hard going for a non-physics person. I tried to read it end to end once and spent 9 months on it, I subsequently tried to read various interesting chapters out of order and didn't come away feeling that I had mastered the material or thinking. But it's all there, if you are able to crack it open.

I recommend "Everything is Now" by Bill Spence. It delves a bit deeper but you do not need knowledge in the field.

Ultimately if you want a relatively clean PopSci book on that subject you're probably better off reading the Wikipedia page, then supplementing with the opinions of people like (say) Sean Carroll (Book or not).

There's only so much you can say about a topic, which is why you end up with the cats in boxes.

I don't want to do the work to understand a field by learning it's basics...I want the knowledge magically transferred into my head.

Next, I want to be a FAANG developer without knowing how computers or programming languages work. Or how to type.