Quantum Theory

Just what the title says, and this goes for any boson to. Thy are individual particles with imaginary mass prior to coupling or interaction, so how to they all combine to form a single field?

I've stumbled upon this quite interesting website (through google admittedly, but I find it nevertheless noteworthy; plus maybe you or someone else knows of similar sites to this one). The website is quite straightfoward, the code is in C and is roughly 3000 words long. http://kim.oyhus.no/QuantumMechanicsForProgrammers.html I am not quite sure as how to interpret the code, eventhough it is in code: float U[ 1000 ][ 1000 ]; ... for( t=0; t<1000; t++) for( x=0; x<1000; x++) U[ t+1 ][ x ] = - U[ t-1 ][ x ] + U[ t ][ x+1 ] + U[ t ][ x-1 ] ; so we have two while loops with a 2d matrix with time and x, loop…

So, let's say we are talking about a photon. We can find E by the equation E=pc, which only works for light. But, when I take p=h/λ, then I fill in λ with v_p/f since λ=v_p/f, so then we get p=hf/v_p, then since E=hf we get p=E/v_p, then to p(v_p)=E, and E=pc for light so we get E=pc=p(v_p), which implies c=v_p, which in a vacuum is true for light but quite frequently isn't. I am confused! What am I doing wrong!

What are the two factors which conribute to the energy of rigid rotor which sum of two energy terms

If a particle at rest has a momentum of 0, it still has a normal frequency, but it has a wavelength of undefined, so how does that work? What's going on with that wave?

How do you solve questions like this? I really need help cause i cant get the hang of it: A neutral pion of mass 135MeV/c^2 traveling at 0.8c decays in to two photons traveling in opposite direction. What is the ratio of the frequency of photon A to that of photon B???

So, let's say we have a proton, and it is at rest, and we use the equation λ=h/p to find it has a wavelength of 0 because it has no momentum. Makes sense. Then we also use the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 to find its energy from its rest mass, then we plug that into E=hv to find that it still has frequency. But, shouldn't it not have frequency because it has no wavelength? If we use fλ=v_p, we get 0 for frequency. Someone help! I'm confused!

If it is not always c, then λf=c would be incorrect, and it should be λf=v_p like matter waves, right?

If the phase velocity of light isn't always c, then wouldn't the equation λf=c be more accurately λf=v_p?

I am confused about group velocity, phase velocity, and signal velocity of waves. Which of these would be the velocity of the corresponding particle to that wave? And, what's the difference between signal and group velocity? Is there a difference?

How many photons correspond to a single electromagnetic wave? Is there more than one photon for each wave?

can time be counted at physic solutions? if so why dont alter it so time runs faster of slower in physic calculation

Providing you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks,all other particles will be created as side effect.

I was watching Dara O'briain's science club on BBC-tv. And they done the cheese on toast experiment,it occurred to me that you can do it with a bit of corrugated cardboard. You simply wipe the surface of the corrugated cardboard with a damp cloth. Take the rotating wheel mechanism out of the micro-wave oven,place 4 wooden/plastic blocks in each corner of the micro-wave and place the cardboard on the blocks,turn on the micro-wave for a few seconds. The corrugated cardboard starts to dry out in patches. On the back of my micro-wave it tells you the frequency is 2450Mhz. The speed of light divided by 2450Mhz gives approx 12.2cm. And that's how my cardboard wa…

is the product of errors in position and momentum measurement independent of velocity of particle?can the value of product be reduced below the specified limit?is the value product under special conditions equal to zero also?Please help me in understanding the problem

(E-V)stands for kinetic energy in schroedinger equattion because V is electrostatic potential energy.Kinetic energy is associated with motion but quantum interpretation negates the motion of electron which leads to the conclusion that (E-V) is energy without any specification of type of energy because there is no kinetic energy without motion Can you please explain what is (E-V) according to quantum mechanics?(E-V) is important part of schroedinger equation

As per the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory, there cannot be electromagnetic radiation without an emitter and absorber. If we had only a single electron in the universe then disturbing it (accelerating it) would not produce any radiation since there was nothing to absorb it. Hence it would also not experience any radiation resistance. In the case of electromagnetic waves in the real universe with so many emitters and absorbers, we cannot use radiation resistance to check the presence of absorbers in the vicinity of the emitter. This is due to the fact that radiation resistance is the same in all the directions. This can be attributed to the fact that elect…

Theoretically, if I had a photon, it's probability distribution exists pretty much indefinitely through space, so if I shot a beam of light in a vacuum and predicted exactly where it should end up in one second, 180,000 miles away, couldn't I possibly measure the photon being a position somewhat significantly ahead of that mark because the correlation of its probability density to space is not dependent on time or relativity, giving the illusion that it had traveled slightly more than the speed of light?

the refraction of light as it passes through one medium to another. can these phenomena be explained using quantum mechanics? also y does violet light bend more than red light(quantum explanation)?

I am still learning as quickly as I can (thank Bob for audiobooks and long drives), but I have some problems with quantum theory. I might as well put them all in one thread, as I'm sure I'm not the only rookie who needs clarification on these concerns. 1) Quantum entanglement - how to two particles get entangled to begin with? 2) Quantum entaglement experiments - I know about the machine (by Clauser?) that fires two particles in opposite directions. One detector is supposed to measure velocity, and one detector is supposed to measure position. Why was this experiment a failure? 3) Uncertainty - it doesn't make sense my head that we'll never be able to measu…

There is a limit to the precision of pairs of properties of particles such as position and momentum that can be determined. Does it mean that the properties are non-existent or simply cannot be determined? Follow-up question: why can't the properties be determined?

please let me know if there is any significance attached to the energy of rotor being sum of two energy terms as in case of energy of SHO which is also sum of two energy terms

As far as I can understand, a particle can be absolutely measured for momentum or location inversely proportional to each other. So if we're measuring an electron's momentum absolutely, then its position is entirely unknowable. However, do electrons not travel at the speed of light? If we nab an electron to measure its position, why can we not assume it was travelling at the speed of light just before we measured it, therefore measuring absolute momentum and position? I'm a quantum rookie, so be kind to me and my ignorant question!

What is the relation between Higgs boson and graviton ?

i was reading david bohm and he seems to be extraordinarly clear in what he talks about. he talks about how everchanging our thoughts are related to context and how our thought leads to fragmentation. any thoughts on bohm. please feel free to discuss.