Quantum Theory

Hello everyone. After seeing @swansonts post about antimatter falling like matter, I thought of something. How would they fall without "Anti-Gravitons". Now I know that gravitons are still hypothetical, but if they are real, wouldn't an anti-particle just destroy itself upon collision with a graviton. So, what if there was an "Anti-graviton" That pulled it down? Or what if the normal gravitons quite literally aren't matter or antimatter? Maybe that is why we cannot detect them if they are real... Also, another thing to think about, maybe the reason gravitons are so hard to detect is because they pass through things like neutrinos. I am not stupid; I am just not very exper…

After a now closed thread, the conclusion seemed to be that in having to give up on 'local realism', the clear tendency was that we have to give up the 'realism' part. I was heavy involved in that thread, and based on many 'quantum authorities' and physicists in the thread, I also defended that. But as I keep reading different books on quantum mechanics, I also found other, well argued positions defending none-locality,e.g. some very clear exposés by Jean Ricmont. In Quantum Sense and Nonsense, he writes: This analysis fits e.g. very well to the video presented in the closed thread, in which is clearly demonstrated that the CHSH is based only on 'locality' an…

Could it be that it is a point source of gravitation, no spin, no dimension, no charge... etc.?

Here is the link someone gave me in my "String theory research" topic: See the Highest-Resolution Atomic Image Ever Captured - Scientific American Anyways, I want to know what atom/Ion this is. I would guess that is is Hydrogen and helium. But I am skeptical. And Are those molecules I am looking at? Idk, please help.

Hello physicist, I have a question about the interaction of entangled photons passing throught polarizers. I asked chatGPT but I'm not so sure about the answer, I would feel much safer to ask an expert. If we have a setup that look like that (circles are polarizers and the lines represent the angle): We have 2 entangled photons with the same poilarization but going in differents directions (the source is represented by the black rectangle). The first one pass throught a vertical polarizer at a distance of one meters to the source (or less, that's not important). The second one pass throught a horizontal polarizer situated at a distance of 1 ligh…

Seems like a great time to try something.

I am reading 'Particle Hunters', written by Yuval Ne'eman, and he describes of course about the prediction of the Omega-minus, the baryon with three s-quarks. (He predicted it himself, together with Murray Gell-Mann.) But I would not expect that the 3 s-quarks have the same direction of spin. Wouldn't have 3 s-quarks, where one quark has an opposite spin as the two others, less energy than all spins parallel? The Pauli exclusion principle seems to be no problem, as the quarks have different colours. What am I missing?

Quantum physics is beyond me, so I figured the Science Lounge would be more appropriate than Physics. Is anyone familiar with the Fine Structure Constant? I saw a fascinating 15-minute Youtube with Matt O'Dowd explaining how the existence of life, and the universe itself, depends on very exact parameters. The founders of quantum mechanics obsessed over it, calling it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics." Elon Musk said he thought it is a Billion times more likely that we live in a Matrix-style simulation than in a base reality. Then Neil deGrasse Tyson said he thought it was about equal 50/50 probability we live in a simulation. Anyone familiar wit…

Do force messengers have anti-matter counter-parts?

Is wave function collapse a real phenomenon?

Why are only alpha, beta and gamma radiation often mentioned? There are other forms of radiation.

Can anti-matter protons annihilate with matter protons or is it only matter and anti-matter quarks that can annihilate?

I have a general grasp on the function and "existence" of bosons and such, but I'm struggling to find any sources that provide a helpful explanation of what virtual particles are in a way that I feel I'm really able to conceptualize it. Can someone please help? Mostly just looking for an explanation of what force carriers really are (as in if they do not technically physically exist as particles but rather are just representative terms used in the math discussion of quantum field theory, what are the fields made up of and how do they exist if they do not involve any "real" particles). Also, sorry if any of that was wrong, please correct me if so. I'm pretty confus…

I am not sure why the files are out of order. I tried reordering them. But I numbered the papers one through four. I can also provide a LaTexed version of these equations. Somebody pointed out to me that an error in this math might be that E = mc^2 required that p = 0, and that therefore, S = 0. But I'm not sure that this is correct and they quite literally refuse to elaborate.

When space body travels far it red shifts, how can one then see what it is made of using spectgraphy?

When an anti-electron and an anti-quark meet do they annihilate or does it have to be same particle type to annihilate for example an anti-electron and an electron?

Would it be possible to use quantum computers to solve for the unified theory of quantum gravity? How many qubits would that require?

How are photons responsible for magnetism, electricity and light?

How does uncertainty principle explain lasers, transistors, internet and computers?

The ekpyrotic model proposes that the universe has no beginning or end. Instead of a bang, what happened is thought of as a "Big Bounce", the moment at which the universe, which was slowly contracting to an incredibly, but not infinitely, small point, bounced to expansion. There is no beginning of time. Instead, our visible universe exists on one of two four-dimensional "branes" floating in a five-dimensional space.The ekpyrotic universe theory asserts that the cosmos exists as a product of an endless procession of creation, destruction and recreation. This model theorizes that the universe has been expanding and contracting repeatedly over time scales that make the 13.7 …

Would quantum magnetism be able to control the direction of acceleration in a ship due to the effects of Ferrimagnetism, Anti-Ferrimagnetism, Diamagnetism, and Paramagnetism (granted that the exterior hull of said ship was of the same element)?

An interesting result in Nature "A superconductor free of quasiparticles for seconds" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-021-01433-7 . It shows that superconducting (paired) electrons don't hop into normal (unpaired) states for seconds. The measurement device detects single pair-breaking-events for a large pair population, so the average life time of each pair is much longer than a few seconds (up to many hours). Thus, the superconducting and normal electrons are not interchangeable in the momentum space during the measurement. More intriguing: all modern theories of superconductivity assume that all conduction electrons (superconducting + normal) are interchangeable …

How does photons cause magnetic attraction?

How do you heat gas, minerals to determine what it is made of?

What does electromagnetism really mean?