Quantum Theory

I read an exciting new article today about entangled particles being connected with wormholes, and this network of wormholes makes up the "fabric" of space time. Ive done lots of reading about entanglement and still have one huge question. How does one entangle particles? How do particles get entangled? I assume that entanglement begins at some common source, but what is that source?

I was just reading this article http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=41662.php I was only able to read the referenced papers abstract, what I want to know is how they know if/when an atom tunneled? What measure of change shows this happened? How can tunnelling be distinguished from movement of a more local atom, if the atoms are identical how can they be sure? I'm just beginning some reading on quantum tunnelling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling I'm wondering if anyone knows what the classically insurmountable barrier is here, there is no mention of it in the article. Is it the lasers which contain the lattice? My reading lea…

Thats how I see it... Can I ask an off topic question really fast? Ill try... Ive looked for but cannot find any info about "the evolution of the rules of the universe" at any point, were they any different? did any of the forces change from farthest past up until now? I found some info about different forces being "switched on" at certain points, but didnt understand why...

Please read this https://www.researchgate.net/pub... Abstract Multiplying radius r of a particle on both sides of the de Broglie relation equation produces angular momentum at the bottom of the equation. This relationship can enable us determine atoms and Subatomic particle sizes as I have clearly explained in this paper. We can use this do determine the relationship between particle size, charge, half life etc. especially when we now know how fast these Subatomic particles spin. This would help us better understand charge. A particle with a bigger size will often have a smaller range in air than a smaller particle of the same mass. It could also explain baryon asymmetry …

Can someone help me understand what they mean when they say our observation changes the state of matter? I've watched videos on quantum entangelment and the light through slits test and I still don't know what they mean when they say observing it changes the outcome??? What does me watching or not watching have to do with the way reality plays out?

Could the future already exist? The idea of quantum mechanics is that nature is inherently probabilistic. Particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed. However, even though probability waves would still retain a use in statistical prediction, we find that all testable observations, such as those which make computers run and physics work, continue to function if we adopt predeterminism as the principle driving force for reality. In fact, it seems like many big mysteries of QM such as entanglement, dark energy and the double slit experiment make a lot more sense. Why is there such a strong past-present-future time bias? It's entirely possi…

Ok, im not an expert in this topic (i'll confess that) but i've done some reading about it, the delayed choice double-slit and the double-slit etc. In the double slit, we either measure the photon as wave-like or particle-like, it then behaves like whatever we are measuring it as, even if we know it hit the photo-detection plate, as long as we don't look at the white dot, it can end up with it causing a particle-like outcome by triggering the telescopes behind after the photo-detection plate is removed without being looked at before it hits the telescopes. (do correct me if i made a mistake somewhere up there.) It sounds to me like theres a very very simple explaination…

Electrons are negatively charged. Protons are positively charged. Opposite charges are supposed to attract, like a salt molecule. However, even the densest of atoms - such as lead - are still >99% empty space. It's theorized that if the the entire human race - all 7 billion of us - eliminated all the space in our atoms, the entire human race would be less than a cubic inch in volume. So why don't the electrons get attracted to the positively-charged nucleus, plowing into the nucleus like meteors? When I was in 6th grade, I was told that it was their orbital speed ... like how an object on a string being swung in circles will keep the string tight and strai…

If a fermion was accelerated to energy levels above electroweak symmetry breaking, would it stop interacting with the Higgs field and lose that property we call mass. Being a massless particle means it would then move at c , and possibly ( depending on other properties ) become its own antiparticle ?

Just a thought that majorana feemions are so hard to find because they need to exist at a distance from other forces and form from the shifting atomic mass of novas and black holes at points where there is no mass, only the meeting of a positive and negative area of directional cumulative atomic mass? Fermions, sorry typo.

please make a list of 5 if you can or more would be even better you can link me to it if you want

The phenomenon of quantum entanglement appears to rely upon the belief that prior to measurement, a system is represented by a linear combination of eigenstates but that, when the measurement is made, its wavefunction collapses into a single state (which one isn't known beforehand) which is shared by the whole system. If the system was instead in a single state before measurement, any measurement, regardless of where it was made, would give a result consistent with that state and the mystery of entanglement wouldn't arise. What I am trying to do is to decide whether the above presumption is what is implied by the paper published by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph and d…

Hi everyone, It's been a while since I've been on here. Last time I asked a questions about what generates gravity, and that turned out to be a very interesting discussion. Now I have a new question about particles. So, everyone knows about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which basically says that you can never know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time. So by my logic (which might be off ) that means you can never exactly know where a particle is at any given time, right? So, with all the research into quantum mechanics and quantum computers, I just can't figure out how they are able to measure anything about a particle at …

Why do we assume a photon is a particle that is dislodging electrons from the metal surface. Couldn't the vibration of the electromagnetic field be responsible for the freeing of electrons and at low frequencies there just simply enough of a vibration to free the electron regardless of the intensity? I guess I just don't understand why the photoelectric effect means light has to behave as particle.

This is an important thread so students and others are not misled. People say I'm stirring the pot. Well, the pot needs to be stirred because there's some poison roaming around at the bottom. Username "Mordred" recommended the following experiment, which needs emphasis so students and 8 to 5ers aren't misled: Mordred, on 28 Aug 2015 - 12:12 AM, "said: Here is some tests you can do at home. http://www.google.ca...ekIT1oDkWgJVGxg" As a side note, please question everything you read here, including all of the math I've posted, which BTW nobody has shown any errors. In my previous thread a user who supposedly has a PhD said force equals voltage, and the user Mo…

Convection and conduction are easy enough to understand, but when it comes to radiation of heat, im wondering why there isnt a particle for heat in QFT. It seems that radiated heat is carried in infrared waves, which are light or at least, EMR. Light and heat are not the same thing (are they?), but it does seem they are both commonly radiated together. Does heat just become a factor of light like "brightness" or "color"? Was there ever a consideration to create a particle for heat or does the photon cover it? Ive done a good bit of research, but these questions have not been answered.

Science says that light is not continuous but discrete, as it comes in small packets called 'quanta' I want to ask.... Is there any space between the quanta of light? If not, isn't this a continuity in its own right?

Hi, Now that my science fiction book is finished, I’ve been toying with an idea for an animation I’m thinking of doing. One of the things I want to show is the real comparative sizes of subatomic particles (including strings) and how much empty space there is at the atomic and subatomic levels. People don’t have a good understanding of this – in fact, most representations have given people the wrong idea. I do not want numbers. Numbers are great but they do not give a layperson any kind of feel for size especially with atoms wrongly being represented as compact objects in textbooks and elsewhere. So, I’ve been researching this angle and what I’ve come up with so …

I've heard about this in the form of the casimir effect and how/somehow it could be used to create a warp drive http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html But, I'm wondering, how could negative energy be used in this way? What I mean is, what you do is contract the space in front of you, expand it behind you, so the ship isn't moving, the space around it is. But, what would be the appartus/setup that would make use of the casimir effect to do this? Positive energy is pretty straightforward, you burn coal for example- to heat steam, the turn the turbine to turn the a coil of wire between two poles of a magnet, what would you us…

What are tachyons? All I know about them is that they exist above the speed of light. What do they do? What are they for?

I am supposed to shoot up a six-minute speech along with a presentation at a competition nearby. The topic is "Harnessing Light: Possibilities and Challenges" Therefore, my question is what do you think are the possibilities and challenges of harnessing light? I am supposed to stick to the topic entirely, and that is what makes it difficult. I would be glad if some knowledgeable person shares his/her knowledge and views! Thank you!

I have an idea for an experiment, I will try to explain the setup. Here goes- The experiment is exactly the same as the double-slit experiment, except the only particles which will be sent will be entangled pairs. For each entangled pair, we have a monitoring device which measures its spin continuously, and logs the spin direction to a database along with the time that the spin was measured Near each slit there is some device which influences the magnetic field around the slit in such a way as to change the spin of the particle passing through the slit Since there are two slits, the slit on the right will change any particles passing through it to "spin u…

As a human, its easy to just think of light as the thing that allows us to see. So, Ive been trying to "see" light without this bias to be just another gauge boson. And suddenly, gluons and W/Z bosons seem to make good sense and light or photons are really confusing me. I guess Im confused about the quantum purpose of photons. The gluon interacts between particles and "guides" their QCD, W/Z bosons interact and guide QFD which allows for radiation, and isnt this radiation by QFD which spawns every photon in the first place? If light is the gauge boson for the EMF, why cant I charge a magnet with light? I know these questions sound crazy but that is because I have kin…

EM and EMF seem so easy to understand. Gravity and relativity are graspable with enough study. Im in the middle of understanding the strong force and the gluon field. But the weak force is a total mystery to me. Is there a boson field? It seems there may be more than one. But what is the weak force? The strong force is binding energy that keeps quarks and such in their QCD dance. But truly, what is the weak force? Is it the rules that dictate elementary particle interactions, which result in radiation and such? What does it come down to? How can a layman understand it? Ive often thought that maybe the weak force was simply a type of binding energy that wasnt a…

I mostly wanted to verify this statement, made on this page... http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/QCDvacuum/welcome.html "the masses of the quarks illustrated in this diagram account for only 3% of the proton mass. The gluon field is responsible for the remaining 97% of the proton's mass and is the origin of mass in most everything around us". Is this at odds with the Higgs theory of mass?