Without maths, I don't think there is. QM starts with the Schrödinger equation -- which allows you to find a wave function -- followed by Born's Rule, which is a statistical interpretation of the wave function. There are questions of interpretation even at this point. Schrödinger himself was skeptical of his own equation[0]!
The classic intro text is Griffiths', Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. But it's a mathematical treatment -- as it has to be -- although it might be readable by accepting the key equations as axioms and reading the text. A smart, determined person would get something out of that, but I don't know how much. After all, QM is notoriously difficult to understand even by the super-smart, mathematically adept folk.
I'm not sure that a pop-sci book could convey sufficient detail to allow someone to follow many QM debates, even the philosophical debates; there is just too much background required -- which I am not claiming I possess; still learning.
Personally, I think QM is in the process of building an ever increasing body of information. The distillation of knowledge is yet to come. It's a hell of a trip, though.
Ah, well I meant math included but for someone at the level of learning what the heck a differential form is, that kinda level. Thanks for the pointers.
Since I've got your attention here, I might as well ask if you know any good resources for learning about this "negative" probabilities business w. quantum? Something to do with 2D probability? Was reading some lecture notes [0] that mentioned something about using matrix transformations to describe state transitions (reminded me of Markov chains), maybe you'd know where I could learn about that.
The classic intro text is Griffiths', Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. But it's a mathematical treatment -- as it has to be -- although it might be readable by accepting the key equations as axioms and reading the text. A smart, determined person would get something out of that, but I don't know how much. After all, QM is notoriously difficult to understand even by the super-smart, mathematically adept folk.
I'm not sure that a pop-sci book could convey sufficient detail to allow someone to follow many QM debates, even the philosophical debates; there is just too much background required -- which I am not claiming I possess; still learning.
Personally, I think QM is in the process of building an ever increasing body of information. The distillation of knowledge is yet to come. It's a hell of a trip, though.
[0] Bloch, Physics Today, December 1976