Topics (206k) Articles (211k) Users (302) Discussions (237) Comments (383) Files (716) New article
As an overkill example, the happy family are subquotients of the monster group, but the monster group is simple.
Relationship between the quotient group and direct products by 
Ciro Santilli 40 Updated 2025-07-16
Ciro Santilli 40 Updated 2025-07-16Although quotients look a bit real number division, there are some important differences with the "group analog of multiplication" of direct product of groups.
If a group is isomorphic to the direct product of groups, we can take a quotient of the product to retrieve one of the groups, which is somewhat analogous to division: math.stackexchange.com/questions/723707/how-is-the-quotient-group-related-to-the-direct-product-group
The "converse" is not always true however: a group does not need to be isomorphic to the product of one of its normal subgroups and the associated quotient group. The wiki page provides an example:
Given G and a normal subgroup N, then G is a group extension of G/N by N. One could ask whether this extension is trivial or split; in other words, one could ask whether G is a direct product or semidirect product of N and G/N. This is a special case of the extension problem. An example where the extension is not split is as follows: Let , and which is isomorphic to Z2. Then G/N is also isomorphic to Z2. But Z2 has only the trivial automorphism, so the only semi-direct product of N and G/N is the direct product. Since Z4 is different from Z2 × Z2, we conclude that G is not a semi-direct product of N and G/N.
This is also semi mentioned at: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1596500/when-is-a-group-isomorphic-to-the-product-of-normal-subgroup-and-quotient-group
I think this might be equivalent to why the group extension problem is hard. If this relation were true, then taking the direct product would be the only way to make larger groups from normal subgroups/quotients. But it's not.
Ultimate explanation: math.stackexchange.com/questions/776039/intuition-behind-normal-subgroups/3732426#3732426
Only normal subgroups can be used to form quotient groups: their key definition is that they plus their cosets form a group.
One key intuition is that "a normal subgroup is the kernel" of a group homomorphism, and the normal subgroup plus cosets are isomorphic to the image of the isomorphism, which is what the fundamental theorem on homomorphisms says.
Therefore "there aren't that many group homomorphism", and a normal subgroup it is a concrete and natural way to uniquely represent that homomorphism.
The best way to think about the, is to always think first: what is the homomorphism? And then work out everything else from there.
Related quotes:
Atoms exist and last for a long time, while in classical electromagnetic theory punctual orbiting electrons should emit radiation quickly and fall into the nucleus: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20003/why-dont-electrons-crash-into-the-nuclei-they-orbit
In other sections:
Bibliography:
The discovery of the photon was one of the major initiators of quantum mechanics.
Light was very well known to be a wave through diffraction experiments. So how could it also be a particle???
This process "started" in 1900 with Planck's law which was based on discrete energy packets being exchanged as exposed at On the Theory of the Energy Distribution Law of the Normal Spectrum by Max Planck (1900).
This ideas was reinforced by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 in terms of photon.
In the next big development was the Bohr model in 1913, which supposed non-classical physics new quantization rules for the electron which explained the hydrogen emission spectrum. The quantization rule used made use of the Planck constant, and so served an initial link between the emerging quantized nature of light, and that of the electron.
The final phase started in 1923, when Louis de Broglie proposed that in analogy to photons, electrons might also be waves, a statement made more precise through the de Broglie relations.
This event opened the floodgates, and soon matrix mechanics was published in quantum mechanical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations by Heisenberg (1925), as the first coherent formulation of quantum mechanics.
It was followed by the Schrödinger equation in 1926, which proposed an equivalent partial differential equation formulation to matrix mechanics, a mathematical formulation that was more familiar to physicists than the matrix ideas of Heisenberg.
Inward Bound by Abraham Pais (1988) summarizes his views of the main developments of the subjectit:
- Planck's on the discovery of the quantum theory (1900);
- Einstein's on the light-quantum (1905);
- Bohr's on the hydrogen atom (1913);
- Bose's on what came to be called quantum statistics (1924);
- Heisenberg's on what came to be known as matrix mechanics (1925);
- and Schroedinger's on wave mechanics (1926).
Bibliography:
These are the key mathematical ideas to understand!!
There are actually a few formulations out there. By far the dominant one as of 2020 has been the Schrödinger picture, which contrasts notably with the Heisenberg picture.
Another well known one is the de Broglie-Bohm theory, which is deterministic, but non-local.
The first quantum mechanics theories developed.
Their most popular formulation has been the Schrödinger equation.
The first really good quantum mechanics theory made compatible with special relativity was the Dirac equation.
And then came quantum electrodynamics to improve it: Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics.
TODO: does it use full blown QED, or just something intermediate?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 "Mercury and Relativity - Periodic Table of Videos" by Periodic Videos (2013). Doesn't give the key juicy details/intuition. Also mentioned on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry#Mercury
Quantum field theory lecture by Tobias Osborne (2017) mentions that quantization is a guess.
Quantum superposition is really weird because it is fundamentally different than "either definite state but I don't know which", because the superposition state leads to different measurements than the non-superposition state.
Examples:
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8gVXDsh7Q "Interference in quantum mechanics" by Looking Glass Universe (2015) shows how a left-right spin measurement has a defined value for a superposed half up half down state, but not for a pure up state.TODO can this be conducted? As mentioned in the video, this is closely linked to the fact that you can describe the wave function in multiple different bases (up/down or left/right), which is also at the root of the uncertainty principle.
- Video "Quantum Mechanics 9b - Photon Spin and Schrodinger's Cat II by ViaScience (2013)" gives a similar photon version
- it seems that the single particle double slit experiment can also be thought of as in terms of a superposition of "the particle goes through the right" and "the particle goes through the right", although it is a bit harder to thing about as it is not a discrete process
Quantum entanglement is often called spooky/surprising/unintuitive, but they key question is to understand why.
To understand that, you have to understand why it is fundamentally impossible for the entangled particle pair be in a predefined state according to experiments done e.g. where one is deterministically yes and the other deterministically down.
In other words, why local hidden-variable theory is not valid.
How to generate entangled particles:
- particle decay, notably pair production
- for photons, notably: spontaneous parametric down-conversion, e.g.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn1sEaw1K2k "Shanni Prutchi Construction of an Entangled Photon Source" by HACKADAY (2015). Estimatd price: 5000 USD.
Contains the clearest Bell test experiment description seen so far.
It clearly describes the photon-based 22.5, 45 degree/85%/15% probability photon polarization experiment and its result conceptually.
It does not mention spontaneous parametric down-conversion but that's what they likely hint at.
Done in Collaboration with 3Blue1Brown.
Question asking further clarification on why the 100/85/50 thing is surprising: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357039/why-is-the-quantum-venn-diagram-paradox-considered-a-paradox/597982#597982
Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics by Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (2013)
Source. Usual Eugene, good animations, and not too precise explanations :-) youtu.be/iVpXrbZ4bnU?t=922 describes a conceptual spin entangled electron-positron pair production Stern-Gerlach experiment as a Bell test experiments. The 85% is mentioned, but not explained at all.Quantum Entanglement Lab by Scientific American (2013)
Source. The hosts interview Professor Enrique Galvez of Colgate University who shows briefly the optical table setup without great details, and then moves to a whiteboard explanation. Treats the audience as stupid, doesn't say the keywords spontaneous parametric down-conversion and Bell's theorem which they clearly allude to. You can even them showing a two second footage of the professor explaining the rotation experiments and the data for it, but that's all you get.Quantum is getting hot in 2019, and even Ciro Santilli got a bit excited: quantum computing could be the next big thing.
No useful algorithm has been economically accelerated by quantum yet as of 2019, only useless ones, but the bets are on, big time.
To get a feeling of this, just have a look at the insane number of startups that are already developing quantum algorithms for hardware that doesn't/barely exists! quantumcomputingreport.com/players/privatestartup (archive). Some feared we might be in a bubble: Are we in a quantum computing bubble?
To get a basic idea of what programming a quantum computer looks like start by reading: Section "Quantum computing is just matrix multiplication".
Some people have their doubts, and that is not unreasonable, it might truly not work out. We could be on the verge of an AI winter of quantum computing. But Ciro Santilli feels that it is genuinely impossible to tell as of 2020 if something will work out or not. We really just have to try it out and see. There must have been skeptics before every single next big thing.
Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project
Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
Intro to OurBigBook
. Source. We have two killer features:
- topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculusArticles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
- a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
- a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.
Figure 1. Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page. View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivativeVideo 2. OurBigBook Web topics demo. Source. - local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
- to OurBigBook.com to get awesome multi-user features like topics and likes
- as HTML files to a static website, which you can host yourself for free on many external providers like GitHub Pages, and remain in full control
Figure 2. You can publish local OurBigBook lightweight markup files to either OurBigBook.com or as a static website.
Figure 3. Visual Studio Code extension installation.
Figure 5. . You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally. Video 3. Edit locally and publish demo. Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension. 
- Infinitely deep tables of contents:
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact