Quantum Theory

Hi guys, I was discussing physics with a friend of mine on another forum until someone showed up talking about Quantum Theory so I thought I might check with you guys if the information presented is accurate or not (I think it's not, but I'll let you decide). What he said : " Is he smoking something or does the above actually have some basis in truth?

i heard that any object above absolute zero should radiate some form of energy. so, can't a particle's position be pointed at any instant if i place very sensitive radiation detectors all around its path? can't i pinpoint the paritcle's position and velocity at any given instant like this? the detectors are not physically interacting with the particle and therefore can't be responsible for any change in its velocity or position. can anyone please clear my doubt on this topic.

Do energy always require a medium for its transmission? If not, is it what is transmitted through electromagnetic waves? If then, why does E-M waves act as the conduit and not the form of energy? I mean why does E-M waves not be transmittable in such a way as to distort or affect mass without its conversion? If then energy always require a medium for its transmission, then it defies its essence, because the concept of energy itself proves arbitrary enough as not to be able to be pin pointed down to anything tangible...we can only describe, horn and manage its effects.

I'm reading an online PDF book about QM, and it starts off with basic experiments, like double slit and photoelectric effect. At the end of the chapter, there are a couple of simple questions and I need to see if I'm doing them correctly. Book: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4184v1.pdf Chapter 1, 1.6 Conclusion, question 4: " You are doing the double-slit experiment with electrons. The distance between the slits is 1 cm, and the impact screen is at 1 meter from the slits. What speed should the electrons have in order to obtain an interference pattern with the bright bands separated by 0.1 m? (The mass of an electron is me = 9.11 × 10−31 kg.)" Now, there's an equ…

can you guys think of new , theoretical cameras to take pictures of the night sky instead of using the common high resolution cameras?

Any textbook gives the interpretation of the density matrix in a SINGLE continuous basis [math]|\alpha\rangle[/math]: The diagonal elements [math]\rho(\alpha,\alpha) = \langle\alpha| \hat{\rho} |\alpha\rangle[/math] give the populations. The off-diagonal elements [math]\rho(\alpha,\alpha') = \langle\alpha| \hat{\rho} |\alpha'\rangle[/math] give the coherences. But what is the physical interpretation (if any) of the density matrix [math]\rho(\alpha,\beta) = \langle\alpha| \hat{\rho} |\beta\rangle[/math] for a DOUBLE continuous basis [math]|\alpha\rangle[/math], [math]|\beta\rangle[/math]? I already know that when the double basis are momentum [math]|p\rangle[/m…

Say I flick my lighter, what happens to make the flame? My understanding so far is that >friction creates heat (spark)[(from colliding particles I presume??) but how??] >heat causes the electrons in the atoms of the lighter fluid to jump to outer orbits (what causes the heat to change the behavior of the electrons? I'm assuming a force carring particle is exchanged) >with electrons in new orbits the atoms rearrange exchanging electrons with atoms in the surrounding air What is it exactly that causes the heat and light, I suppose photons are being given off, but at what part in the process does that happen? Do sub-atomic particles such as force carriers …

The atoms in a metal like all atoms have electrons with negative charge (I.e. having negative quantity of electricity ) & protons with positive charge (I.e having positive quantity of electricity ). However,atoms in a metal have a unique relationship with their neighboring atoms I.e. they can interchange their outer-most electrons with each other. This means that outer most electrons can jump from one atom to the next atom. If these negatively charged electrons jump in the same direction from one atom to the next at the same time, the result is the continuous flow of electric current. In this flow of electric current via the metal-atoms, the positively charged protons…

I have been reading articles about solitons,is there a good reason why I should not be thinking of sub atomic particles as solitons or perhaps better as oscillons?

if you could break down the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th dimension in da most simplelest non wordy no frills way how would u do it?

Hi all, I hope I got the right forum for this I'm reading the original paper on Restricted Open Shell Kohn-Sham ('Molecular dynamics in low-spin excited states', Frank et al) right now and am confused. It says there "Due to spin symmetry, a minimum of two determinants is necessary for the description of the wave function of non-degenerate excited singlet states of a closed-shell system." What exactly is concluded from spin symmetry? What exactly do they even mean with spin symmetry - that the wave function needs to stay an eigenfunction of the spin operator? How is that connected to symmetry? The term 'symmetry adapted orbital' also is frequently ment…

hello I am fascinated by all the research I have been reading about quantam physics and behaviour - genes - but I have not had enough to get the root artcles and TBH I am never sure if the analysis of the research is based on a perception of a person wanting it to mean something... For instance, I have been reading a book (sorry I don't have the references) about some studies by the miiltary and others which showed that DNA has an effect on the flow of protons, and further more that DNA continues to be influenced by the human it was extracted from and changes shape according ot emotion? i.e contract with negative emotion and expands with positive emotion. …

Space is the 'SINE QUA NON' or 'AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THING' for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the singularity or any thing else. In other words, anything which has dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first. My question is:- Since the SINGULARITY before the beginning of universe as well as at the end of universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside herself, then how does this thing called SINGULARITY herself exist outside any kind of space unless we conceive this thing called SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE, thus requiring no space for its existence. Your thoughts?

I said the existence of these particles four years ago. Today, only the most prominent papers which speculate their existences are coming to light... http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5377:a-1997-paper-published-on-cornells-aixvorg-neutrinos-must-be-tachyons&catid=43:science&Itemid=82 This is not a matter of relativity being wrong, but is rather a methodology of bad science.

Do the particles of the quantum world with mass warp the fabric of space-time? Your thoughts?

Matter is made of atoms. Atom is made of a nucleus & electrons. If size of the nucleus is imagined to be that of a brick (for ease of picturization) then electron would be about a mile away from the nucleus & then there will be this intervening empty space time in between the nucleus & electron. My question is: Is the solidness or solidity of matter is an illusion of the observer? Your thoughts?

If a hydrogen atom,consisting of a proton and an electron in ground state,were isolated from external influences,would it remain the same forever?

Quantum mechanics gives the concept of singularity,the starting point of BIG BANG (which according to BIG BANG theory gives rise to universe) but it fails to explain where this SINGULARITY exists without cosmic space? Your thoughts?

Hi, I am developing a new quantum gravity theory. The concept of the theory sounds simple, but in reality, this theory is not so simple. Here, the main ideas of the theory: - No extra dimensions, no spin foam - The Klein-Gordon-Lagrangian looks similar to the Lagrangian of General Relativity (GR), because the maximum derivative is twice and both Lagrangians containing inner product of metric tensor with another tensor expression - To fit KG-Lagrangian on GR-Lagrangian, the scalar field in KG-Lagrangian is not only a simple complex number; it is a more complicated algebraic object similar to matrices - I'm using Feynman's path integral quantization with…

How do we know that quarks are real?If they cannot be isolated. Why could it not be that gluons go through a cycle of re-configuring,which creates an apparition of quarks and colour charges?

Question.When an atom absorbs a photon and the electron jumps to a higher energy level e.g. from n to n1 or n1 to n2. The frequency of the photon being a mid point between n and n1 or n1 and n2. The wavelength of the electron must fit the circumference. My question is does the wavelength of the electron change as it jumps between levels? I assume that it must do,so that a different frequency of photon is required at different levels,but I am not sure?

Quantum field theory, even though it is a theory, has a solid mathematical foundation which works splendedly in practice in real clasical world .Mathematics,even though an invention of man's mind & an abstract construct is nevertheless picturized by man for the purposes of ease of understanding, in a four dimensional space time,even if this happens to be quanta's infinitesimally small four dimensional space time. So my question is:- Is this Hilbert space,abstract though it is, by being a part of abstract mathematics , is nevertheless a micro four dimensional space time where quanta are points of energy having minuscule electromagnetic fields?£ Their quantum motion has…

Is it true that the universe is filled with all the different kinds of fundamental particles I.e. quanta waiting to be thought of by the observer & then waiting to be measured first Mathematically & then experimentally by the observer-------this is what is a FIELD THEORY. Your thoughts?

Hello All, Recenlt I've read mostly about "many -worlds". As I understand, it is still not universally accepted interpretation, but there are some reports that certain experiments simply proved it, like Vaidman- Elitzur bomb test, Zelingher interferometer, vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku)... There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven... So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, other say that that these "worlds" were observed, still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explaine…

WHY PHOTONS ARE THE ONLY QUANTUM PARTICLES WHICH ARE VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE ? Any thoughts?