Quantum Theory

Is there a upper limit for EM wave frequency and minimum wavelength

How many particles can coexist as entangled states ? How many such sets can coexist as a symphony ? Any theories on this ?

Hello, everyone. I just signed on to this site because of my interest in astronomy and physics. My comprehension of both involves limited math; I simply want to gain a basic understanding of the universe I inhabit. My current interest involves the double slit experiment, specifically how the particle detectors work. At the risk of sounding like an idiot, and without ever actually seeing any of this equipment, I had envisioned the detector acting something like a police radar gun with a field or beam that the particle(atom) would interrupt as it passes, thus being DETECTED. It is my understanding that the atom behaves like a wave until it is observed, at which point it act…

-5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=-1/π 0=0/π 1=1/π 2=2/π 3=3/π 4=1π 5=2π -5=-2π -4=-1π -3=-3/π -2=-2/π -1=<v 0=0 ∞ double zero (infinity symbol) 1=v> 2=r 3=Δ 4=π 5=2π also gut feeling tells me ΔΔΔ.ΔΔΔ = 333.333 = matter/anti-matter? and πππ.πππ = 444.444 = time/anti-time?

It was brought to my attention that electromagnetic waves do not act as particles. If so, (and the same applies to atoms/quarks etc) the smaller and smaller the level of measurement you look, you will keep finding space bordered by mass. If that is true, what if the particles/waves we see aren't actually physical items, but waves or ripples in the environment.This would apply to the idea that light can travel through a vacuum; maybe it's not actually traveling through nothingness, but is a reaction of another dimension that is unnoticeable by the equipment we have so far.

I am a complete noob to physics... I'm 14 years old, easily frightened. I need answers. There exists a creepypasta (scary story) entitled "The physics of hell". I'm too dumb to describe it, I recommend just reading it. I have to know.... Is any of it feasible? Please... i'm shaking right now... Never has something I read terryfied me to this extent. I tried asking this on another forum, but they removed my post for being "too philosophical/speculative". Please... Someone.... Sorry, I wasn't thinking. Would this have to be moved to the 'speculations forum'?

It is often claimed that Science is based on evidence. For example: "Astronomers think that the Universe started with the Big Bang. As with all science, this is based on evidence; so what is the evidence for the Big Bang theory? " from here: http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid or "Science relies on evidence" from here: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_06 Assuming that "evidence" refers to empirical evidence or observation of natural phenomena, what evidence is there to support the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics? (or would this idea be regarded as speculation, and not Science?)

?

how does it function please explain in detail

Can this happen and if so how? How would you accelerate an electron around a nucleus and what would happen to it

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html And this quantum consciousness is said to be a receiver of consciousness from the supreme/1st consciousness. How come when they say quantum consciousness they say it's a receiver and there's a 1st consciousness? What makes them say that?

Hi scientists, I'm researching about positrons and related particles, I studied that the Beta Plus Decay produces positron like this: Hit Energy on Proton -> Produces Positron and Neutrino. Is that correct?

I know that there have been many technologies sparked by discoveries in quantum mechanics, however I haven't seen much about the application of the discoveries behind the Higgs or the higher generation leptons and quarks. Right now these discoveries are for the "understanding of nature" as was Schrödinger's equations at the time, which lead to the laser which is now very prevelant in modern society. My question is, are there any hypothetical uses for this knowledge, not ones already floating around the scientific community such as quantum computing?

I was just trying to wrap my mind around the photoelectric effect, but I wasn't sure about why classical physics was unable to explain it. Would classical physics attempt to explain it using E=hf or amplitude. And what is it that Einstein used to explain the photoelectric effect that classical physics could not explain. Thanks, i hope the question is somewhat clear.

This caught my eye... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/black-holes-dont-exist_n_5885940.html The paper... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v1.pdf

If a particle is observed for a certain period of time, and then it stops being observed, will it go back to it's original wave-function? Also, what happens when a particle is observed multiple times?

Hello everybody! You know that up to now, I considered the idea of particle useful to acount for properties like the charge, the spin... which don't split when a particle gets arbitrarily confined. As we have no means to confine a particle to a point, I felt a point particle unnecessary. This has evolved. I still believe that the interaction of a photon and an electron wouldn't need points and occurs over a significant volume: the volume of the orbitals if an atom or molecule absorbs a photon, thousand atoms volume or more if a semiconductor absorbs a photon... There, the photon's size adapts to the smaller (better localized) electron, the interaction is diffuse, …

good afternoon, so what exectly do they mean with Teleport?, i read not long ago they successfully teleported something. but i do not understand, on this forum many say that information can't travel faster then light. so what's the deal? and what get teleported?.

I know that a proton consists of two up quarks and a down, but recently I was reading that anti-quarks just burst into the scene and pair with their associated partner. What I'm wondering is, how can this happen, and the mass of the proton remain constant? That comma isn't meant to be there.

We all know that when an electron is excited it moves into an excited energy level preforming a quantum jump between energy levels. If we take a H atom and excite it's electron so that it moves out one level would the potential energy of this electron in this level be equal to an electron in the S2 energy level when it is at ground state (say the electron in a Li atom). I have asked this question to several of my Chemistry professors and I can't seem to get a good answer out of them. Possibly because my professors are Asian and there is a cultural or language barrier between us. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic? I do not have sufficient math skills to formulate …

How is magnetism caused for a single particle/atom, do all single particles have a magnetic field (proton, neutron, electron)

Everything is at the same time both a wave and a particle, and it only becomes fully one of those when we observe it. Please correct be if I'm wrong here, but if I am right, what does that "observed" mean?

I'm going to start this thread off with a quote I pulled from a blog post about this very topic written by a physicist named Luboš Motl, and I will post the link down below along with a video of Prof. Lawrence Krauss. He had this to say: "At any rate, we may prove that the probability that the electron exists in both mutually exclusive states simultaneously is zero. It can't happen. The derivation is identical for any other mutually excluding alternative properties of any physical system." - Lubo's Motl I'm going to preface this by stating the obvious. Many Worlds and Copenhagen appear to be quite incompatible. I feel as though the central reason for this …

Laymen and hobby student of physics here. So the only things I know (or at least think I know) I watch from documentaries. In the test to see if an electron is a particle or wave, they say that if you place a viewer before the slits that the resulting pattern on the back wall is a particle result. But if you aren't placing a viewer before the slit the resulting pattern on the back wall is wave interference. So how is watching the result on the back wall itself NOT placing a viewer thereby always causing the electron to act as a particle? Thank you in advance! Patrick

I've recently been looking at electrons and electricity at school. What I have wondered is how people know they're there at all? It's not that I don't believe that they're actually there, it's more that I want to understand how we know. If anyone could enlighten me, that would be absolutely brilliant! Edward.