Quantum Theory

I have been studying Schrodinger's equation, and I have a question... Given the representation of a moving wave: Eventually the quantum number corresponds to the number of wavelengths in the circuit of the electron in the orbital (discounting spin)? Is my understanding correct?

Hi, all. I expect to be ridiculed, but hey, why not?! Maybe the victim can be gunned down before the shot is fired. It's a unification of relativity and quantum physics.

Can electromagnetic waves experience tunneling effect? It is claimed that photons (light) - can. What about radio waves? If yes, what would be exactly the physical details of the process, such as maximal distance this effect can take place, from which point to which point they will tunnel, what is needed to create this effect, etc.

Ok, so I've been watching the lectures Leonard Susskind gave at Stanford that are available on the internet. He described a superposition of states sort of along the lines below. For purposes of this discussion we're assuming the position of the electron is "pinned down" somehow so that all we have to consider is spin. 1) Prepare the electron by applying a strong magnetic field. This will align the electron's magnetic moment with that field. I don't care whether a photon is emitted in this step or not - this is the preparation phase. 2) Now remove the preparation field, and apply a measurement field, at a different angle. Classical electromagnetic theory ma…

Hello all, as the title says i'm in search for some books about Quantum Physics (Computing) and physics about light. I'm experienced in software engineering but never worked on the fields of physics before. Thank you

In the hyperfine structure of the nucleus the magnetic moment is tied to the spin and the spin is described as angular momentum. Does this indicate that there is inertial kinetic energy in the nucleus?

Good evening! Recently I have found this article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00022 It tells about a no-go theorem which is considered to rule out several forms of macrorealism. The description of the theorem is on the page 9. As authors say, it implies contradiction between macrorealism and predictions of quantum mechanics. I had some troubles in understanding of mathematical sense of this theorem. However, I don't ask for explaining the steps of it formulation. But it would be great if someone told me whether this theorem is sufficient to falsify macrorealism or it just provides some conditions where macroscopic objects cannot be considered as classical ob…

I don't want to put my rudimentary oar into another thread so this is hopefully a simple question. If an object is described simultaneously in more than one way and two such objects are created simultaneously, how can it be surprising when a measurement of one is also a de facto measurement of the other? I ask because I am under the impression that Einstein struggled with and fought against this idea and yet it seems ludicrously simple. What am I missing?(a lot ?) (entanglement is not even confined to quantum objects is it) I googled the following link by way of confirmation bias so I cannot vouch for it.... …

I was watching this video on Higgs Boson. I have been making attempts to theorize a model of matter, energy and empty space that can fit on everything in the universe. What I have come across is this Quantum field theory that says for every field there is a particle as its ground reason. It is understandable easily. But when I try to say something about the reality of particles, I want to know if the same 'field' phenomena acts within bodies or beings of these particles or this topic has been unexplored until now that how these particles are forming, moving, stabilizing and interacting at the micro levels of their being. If you do not know then can you refer me to …

I understand how multiple photons may potentially share the same quantum state but I find it more difficult to accept this for bosons that have mass like the Z and W bosons. (Bosons all have integer spin - This might be the explanation for my question but I would need some clarification). I am sure it is just my limitation and I do understand that the PEP does not concern mass but I would appreciate if someone could give me more details on how this can be possible.

Below I've linked a video from PBS Space Time, which is a really nice science channel and usually presents very well researched and narrated videos. In this video, though, one thing got me confused - the video is about absolute zero and at one point when the presenter is talking about Bose-Einstein condensates he says this: "There's only one substance is known to produce superfluid for conditions possible in the lab. And that substance is helium. In particular, helium-4. Helium-4 has a total spin of 0 which makes it a boson...". This is confusing to me. Can we really talk about an atom as if it were an elementary particle? https://youtu.be/OvgZqGxF3eo?t=3…

Throughout my Researches, I've learned that in the bottom of reality there is a fabric like Subspace formed by Quantum Flutuations. This fabric defines ours and all the Universes existant's rules and qualities of each. Also, lerned about everything being made of vibrating strings that defines the entire reallity, and the vibration of each dictate what universe you live in and the characteristics of it. Apparently, both serve similar porposes in a different way, so I wanted to know: "which of the 'bottoms' is the most 'bottomer'", In other words which one is the most basic shape of reallity? And second question, how do these theoriy pieces bind together to explai…

In String Theory, strings are loops of pure energy. But is it positivelly charged, negatively? How do we calculate that? And what would happen if a positively charged string colided with another? Thanks, Arthur

I don't think so. If you take an ensemble of atoms and put them in a superposition of the ground states and toss them up, gravity will bring them back down without inducing a collapse of the wave function. We make clocks that work this way. Gravitational collapse of the wave function would introduce a bias in such a clock's frequency. If it's happening, it's happening at a level where we can't measure it happening. Somewhere below a part in 10^16. The conclusion from the description in the article is that gravity has no effect on the superposition, and the superposition has no effect on how gravity interacts with the atoms.

Hi guys. I've been away for a while - busy with work and family and so on, and I also got a little weary of the political and social narrow-mindedness that comes up here sometimes. But the quest continues - I've still been prowling the internet for good papers on quantum theory and so on. A few days ago I ran across Schrodinger's original 1926 paper, where he lays out quantum theory from ground zero, rather than via given axioms like most modern treatments use. I've found the connection with optics to be a VERY helpful mental image. So, if we start from the beginning and presume that matter is a wave phenomenon, and work through the development alluded to above, …

I read the kinetic energy of a photon goes to infinity when a photon reaches c. Is that possible?( E=hf ) Does the wavelength/frequency of a photon changes depending on the medium?

Hello everyone; So, we know that photons can move like a particle or can move like waves. But i didn't understood that does the photons moves as particles in a wave way or they became waves or anything else. My thought is that if there were pure wave they should be energy, and i dont think energy can move my itself without any matter. I mean water or sound waves vibrates atoms and we see but they dont work on space. But light can travel in space so it is a particle. But we also know that it moves like waves because of Double-slit experiment. But i dont understand how a particle becames a wave itself and moves without any matter. Thanks for caring.

Why photon delay in atom of transparent medium doesn't change direction of photon?

The theory said that if we could travel to the past we can't modify it because of causality. In the other hand if we travel to the future (as in movies) we could interact freely. I think that even in the future we would find ourselves in a contradiction as in the past travel. The future as we see it is simply the past of a distant future. Am I saying that the universe is following a type of destiny? No The problem is our quantic information. If we consider ourselves in the present as the center of the universal time, yes it would be possible to interact with the future; but if we consider that our present time is only an information in the "river" of the structu…

Quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation of the energy element (hv) but Planck is equating the kinetic energies (e = 1/2 mv2) of the blackbody surface electrons that possess a mass with the energies of massless light particles emitted by the blackbody in the derivation of the energy element (e = hv) since Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) which conflicts with light that is composed of massless light particles. Also, the quantum mechanic wave packet is used to represent a particle structure of light but a wave packet is formed by the superpositioning of more than ten probability waves which is used to represent …

The wave function is often taken as a random process. There are strong reasons to object this conclusion. 1) The wave function evolution is actually entirely deterministic - it is only the collapse of the wave function which is often considered random, especially within the Copenhagen frame of mind. 2) The wave function can fundamentally show, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything. For claim 2), since claim 1) I don't expect there to be any objections to, can be supported with evidence in the following way: 'The strangest thing about the double slit experiment …

I've been absorbing a large amount of theories which rely on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I thought I understood the uncertainty principle but the theories which rely on the principle seem to be utilizing a part of the principle which I am have a problem accepting AS part of the principle. Simply stated: I understand that the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is very clear in indicating that there are two properties of quantum particles that are not able to be calculated congruently. Either the velocity or the position but not both. Is this not a result of the human inability to measure both position and velocity simultaneously due to the effect any measuring dev…

An important derivation