Quantum Theory

Interesting article on how it could destroy the quantum mechanics theory. Yes If quantum mechanics theory turns out to be correct. But what other theories does Alipasha Vaziri, a physicist have to replace quantum mechanics? And interesting experiment how it could destroy quantum mechanics. https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics

How does electricity "flow"? For example in a setup with battery, wires and light bulb.

hello i would like to ask if resonant tunneling diodes can generate macroscopic quantum tunneling. thanks very much.

How can an expanding electromagnetic field be used to represent a particle structure of a photon?

The following paper: "Mathematics as information compression via the matching and unification of patterns," Complexity, vol. 2019, Article ID 6427493, 25 pages, 2019, DOI: doi.org/10.1155/2019/6427493 (PDF, https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2019/6427493.pdf ). argues that much of mathematics, perhaps all of it, may be seen as a set of techniques for compressing information, and their application. I would be glad of help to see whether or how this theory of mathematics may be applied to quantum mechanics. Please get in touch if you have a good knowledge of quantum mechanics and would be willing to help. With thanks, Gerry Wolff

What is an inflaton field?

You cannot measure both the position and speed of a particle at the same time. When does this show?

The influence of GR gravity from a mass is infinite. Does the same apply in the quantized description? My thinking is, in the QG case, there must be a smallest value for a graviton, and therefore maximum distance it can influence?

What is in a Higgs field/energy bowl?

I've studied a lot of literature on Feymann integrals and have usually found them lacking or simply don't describe the steps to solving them in great detail. I recently came across a reference that I am thoroughly enjoying the scope of how it details the integrals in a wide range of related theories. (warning extremely math intense). If anyone wants a good solid reference I highly recommend this article. Feynman Integrals by Stefan Weinzierl https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.03593.pdf

My question: in the schrodinger cat experiment it only reveals us if the cat is dead or alive if we open the box and it interacts with our eyes. But the cat in the box has eyes too. Does that not matter if there is no light which can interact with the quantum object (the atom) and the eyes anyway? If i understood something wrong, could somebody please explain what interaction in that experiment matters.

Please read the article carefully? America's nuclear fusion 'breakthrough' is super-hot ... yet far from practical https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/14/nuclear_fusion_doe/ "The hohlraum holding the pellet of fusion fuel, a frozen mix of hydrogen isotopes". Quantitative theory, the basics of which — like the basic axiom and both postulates — you can read in garbage bin here, on the forum — reveal that in a certain molar volume there is always only such a certain number of elements (molar mass); which is proved by the existence of the Avogadro number and the periodic table. As I said and now repeat. So, hohlraum holding sets the volume for frozen el…

How is photons electromagnetic field packets? They are not electric or magnetic.

Could quantum mechanics be the key to interstellar space travel in a flash? Is there a connection between quantum mechanics and the future of astronautics? Think of the Starship Enterprise's being able to travel at various warp factors, powers (exponents) of the speed of light? Could advanced quantum understanding someday make this science fiction science fact?

We got the same problem as with mass i.e. what gives a particle charge, spin, weak isospin?

Suppose we have such a pair(A and B) and place detectors (not sure if more than one detector is possible or of use) along the path of particle A but do not do so along the path of particle B Is there any way to determine at which point (or between which points) particle B has any interaction? Alternatively, is there any way at all it is possible to state that there has not been any interaction (and so the particles are still entangled)? As a related (perhaps almost identical) question , is there anything at all we can say(or infer?) about the state of a particle in between observations? (I assume the answer must be "No")

Does someone know papers about direct experiments for the temperature dependence of persistent supercurrents in superconductors? This effect is unexplored, but it may explain a long-standing theoretical paradox. According to the BCS theory of superconductivity, the superfluid density smoothly decreases at warming. Hence, an eternal supercurrent must also smoothly decrease at temperature increase. However, all observations indicate that the running supercurrent is stable despite all temperature variations and abruptly disapears at a critical temperature. The theory/experiment paradox is open.

It is not clear what complex wave function means in Schrödinger, Pauli, Dirac equations. Is it always two-component (complex), or can it be real, or are both variants possible in different situations? For example, how to understand: -i · h/(2·π) · ∂ψ/∂t = h2/(8·π2·m) · div grad ψ (for simplicity in absence of potential multiplied by function). The imaginary unit “i” simply shows that quantum operator is used instead of classical derivative, or function must be divided into two components: ψ = ψ1 + i · ψ2 and then in reality there are two equations ∂ψ1/∂t ~ div grad ψ2 ∂ψ2/∂t ~ div grad ψ1 (~ symbol means is proportional with a const…

Within two decades the LHC consumed lots of money. Is it worth the money already spent on it? Is there a way to evaluate this gigantic project? If yes, what criteria should be applied? What is the total cost since the beginning of this project?

Can you cite experiments where, in some excited states of a hydrogen atom, magnetic moment significantly differs from Bohr's magneton was detected? Correction for magnetic moment of nucleus is insignificant. Only experimental data, not theoretical forecasts. Starting from the experiments of Stern and Gerlach, it seems that only moment of one magneton was detected, I could not find other information. But maybe I'm wrong and didn't search well?

A simple question in conventional theories of superconductivity seems to be open. Imagine, in a mercury ring (superconductivity below Tc=4.15 K) we establish a persistent supercurrent. Then we organize temperature cycles (T-cycles) in the cryostat, say from 3 K to 2.5 K and back. According to the BCS theory of superconductivity, the pair density decreases at warming, i.e. a not negligible fraction of pairs annihilates; the same fraction of pairs emerges back at cooling. Annihilated pairs lose their ordered supercurrent momentum on the atom lattice, so the BCS-supercurrent must decrease at warming; newly created pairs do not experience any electromotive-force (EMF), since …

Is it possible to write the Dirac equation without spinors? Something similar to Maxwell or Schrödinger's equations with simpler tensor algebra elements. Let values not be the same when going from the left coordinate system to the right, they could be valid only in the only system, for example, associated with the geometric center of hydrogen atom. But simple and obvious equation, or several equations.

Is this a good analogy? Take a word,any word. "Phantasy" will do. Suppose I use it. it has a meaning in my mind when I say it and another(indistinguishibly different) meaning if I say it the next day To the person I address it has another meaning and to a third person another meaning too (never exactly the same) If the intrinsic meanings of the words we use to represent ideas are built of of layers of context does that make them analagous to how superposition works on objects in the quantum world?

I understand that the uncertainty principle is "baked into" the world as we know it whereas the observer effect describes the practical impossibility of an actual sentient observer from taking a simultaneous measurement of an object with attributes such as position and momentum to an idealised degree of complete accuracy What I am asking is how these two concepts relate to each other? Is ,perhaps the UP a generalization of the OE or is the OE a specific case of the UH (not sure if those are equivalent definitions or not) I understand that even Heisenberg thought (at first?) that the he was describing an OE so I don't feel bad abo…

How did it come about that 2 particles were considered to be entangled? What were the preconditions for this to occur? I imagine (I am just guessing) that there was a theory and that this theory was confirmed when its predictions were observed. How was the theory arrived at?