>>40831439
>If you need me to explain any of this let me know, I know most people aren't familiar with recognitive mathematics.

AI ass post. Get out of here Clippy.

>>40831472
First off I want to note that my background is mathematics, so I already know a lot of this stuff. I spent my early 20s doing epsilon proofs on topological spaces, I do have a weakness in complex analysis that I am nursing through. Quantum Mechanics, to really get it, is CRAZY math.
So far I've read:
-Quantum Physic for Dummies: this book requires at least an understanding of Calc 2 to get I am gonna be real
-Quark and the Jaguar: mostly fluff, but it is cool to know the headspace of the guy who figured out Quarks in the first place
-The Theory of Almost Everything: A ridiculously good book, its only flaws are it being outdates, its neutrino science is from before we know about Neutrino occilization
-Einstein's Theory of Relativity - Max Born: Might be an wild card, but Quantum Mechanics in its actual usable form used Einstien's 4 dimensions, so if you want to understand Quantum Mechanics, you gotta know a little Einstein

I would actually suggest watching PBS to get your feet wet, then pivot to more in the weeds stuff MAKiT is VERY good at seeing the beginnings of real complexity. https://www.youtube.com/@MAKiTHappen

I also suggest Physics Explained and Richard Behiel. Stanford has publicly viewable Quantum Mechanics lectures also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy989li6xgY