Quantum Theory

I was wondering, what makes the particles shoot away from the event horizon? Or do they not and just orbit?

Kind of a random thought from someone who has no business dabbling in quantum theory but i was wondering if this has could have any validity... Theorists have derived that the universe is expanding more rapidly over time by studying the changing differences in distance between bodies in space. (bodies that are millions of light years from here) They then compare these changing distances to the changing distances of closer bodies in space. (im sure your all aware of how this works but bear with me...) They are basically looking farther back in time the farther away they look. My question is... Could light over vast distances (3,000,000,000 light years or so) cau…

The elementary charge (symbol e or sometimes q) is the electric charge carried by a single proton, or equivalently, the negative of the electric charge carried by a single electron It has a value of 1.602 176 487 × 10^(-19) Coloumb. So is there any elementary mass

You can isolate other charged particles, why not quarks? Can it theoretically be done but we just don't have enough energy? Also, why would any particle not be able to be isolated? Aren't gluons or muons inseparable? Is it the same principal?

1. Weak interaction is the only method by which strangeness and CP can be violated. What's so special about it that it can do this? 2. The only gauge bosons that have mass are both associated with this force. Is that significant?

We are used to stationary Schrödinger equation. Slowly varying potential makes it more complicated. Physics should smoothen rapidly varying potential ... but let us discuss what's happening while theoretical rapid change of potential (no adiabatic approximation). For example imagine that potential has one minimum before the switch moment and a different one after (e.g. capacitor charged in one way then in opposite one) - like in this picture: In minus infinity electron should be in the ground state of one potential and in plus infinity in ground state of the other - the question is how the transition of wavefunction would look like? The main problem is that qua…

I'm trying to understand how a single photon is sifted out of a beam and given a unitary operation in so called "deterministic teleportation". In the teleportation scheme, we perform Bell State Measurement/Analysis on a pair of Alice's particles, of which one is already entangled to Bob's particle. This projects Bob's particle(photon) onto an unentangled pure state in the polarization basis (a qubit state). This particle then has a unitary operation performed on it to transform it to the original state of Alice's second particle. But in a real experimental situation, how does Bob figure out which exact particle to perform the operation on? and how does he separate it…

Experiments to demonstrate/prove entanglement or non locality seem to have been performed using photons, presumably because they are relatively easy to produce and measure. Is it reasonable to assume that this also applies to all elementary particles and their anti particles even though they may never be measured with any degree of accuracy? If this is the case then can we assume that all particles produced at the big bang share this non locality with their partners wherever they are in the universe? In other words could it be said that everything is interconnected by probability waves?

Old explanations was that the act of measuring one parameter disturbs the measurement of the other conjugate -- like determining a particle's position disturbs its momentum. But this is a simplification. New test with neutrons verifies the uncertainty is there independent of the disturbance! Because a so-called particle also behaves like a wave, and this wave-like nature makes determining both its position and momentum to arbitrary accuracy impossible. Cool! http://www.scienceda...20116095529.htm

So virtual particles can be thought of as having an "energy debt". The greater the energy of the virtual particles, the shorter ammount of time it exist for. I've never discreetly read this...but I'm assuming that if a virtual particle has an energy debt of planck energy, than it will exist for planck time. Therefor planck energy is the maximum energy that a virtual particle can "owe", since having more would mean existing for shorter than planck time, which is impossible. Am I correct to assume this?

When phyicists say that their laser is firing single photons, how do they know that? How do you verify that it is firing a single photon and not a small cluster of photons?

Apart from understanding how the Universe works, are there any everyday practical ramifications to finding, or not, the Higgs Boson? What would finding it bring to our day to day existence?

I understand, that a "Cooper pair" is a composite, bosonic, state, of two electrons. Vaguely, the electrons have "opposite spins", so that the CP is S=0; and, the electrons have "opposite momenta", so that the CP is p=0 (in an isolated, non-conducting, ground state, i.e. the CP BEC "just sitting there" at rest). Yet, the electrons are "entangled", so that they really represent only one single conjoined, co-mingled, composite, combined, quantum state. Is the wave-function, of a CP, at rest, representable by the following wave function, indexed by the individual electron momenta k; and individual electron spin s=1/2: [math]\Psi_{CP, k} \approx |+k +s\rangle_1 |…

I was wondering if any of you knew about any recent studies on QHD and their results. Also I have been reading about superfluid, and wondering if it is possible to create artificial superfluid that would have productive uses ( I could really only think about self applying lubricant). Would this hypothetical superfluid be expensive or too unstable?

I'm a little nervous about this post. If there's a level of science beneath beginner, I'd still be too short to reach it. My science knowledge (beyond linguistics) is very, very limited. (I hope I have the right place here to ask this from you lovely people too.) May I ask two things: 1) If matter and anti-matter touch, creating an explosion, what effect would light energy have on anti-matter? 2) in order to stop anti-matter and matter touching, what kind of field would you need to surround the anti-matter? (As far as I remember, anti-matter is man-made, it's not been around since the big bang. Is this right?) Thank you for any help that's out t…

Theoretically, if an object has 0 kinetic energy, then it would mean that it's time stops, but, that same thing is exactly what happens in measurements in quantum mechanics. When we measure a particle, we are measuring a single finite and "not moving" point, its just a point, and since it's just a point and it's can't be moving because it would mean that your measurement is somehow getting information of it's motion before photons reach our eyes, it has 0 kinetic energy, so couldn't the reason why there's all this measurement weirdness be because a million times a second we are technically "stopping time" and therefore giving something 0 energy, and since it doesn't have …

If all forces and motion are carried through virtual particles, shouldn't a black hole just suck up all virtual particles that carry forces and motion? I suppose the way kinetic energy works here on Earth is that the electro-magnetism of atoms repel one another with a lot of force when they get into close contact with each other, but a black hole should suck up those virtual force carriers as it does with Hawking Radiation. Or is there maybe something about a Higg's field that causes only some particles to get sucked up by a black hole and not others?

I had a look at the double-slit experiment, and I get how they discovered it, and it makes sense. What I don't get is how the heck this happens, and how a particle would know when it's being looked at, and when not.

More specifically: What separates a neutrino from an antineutrino? Lepton number cannot be considered as it is not a physical property of the particle: it is a value used to balance equations, and is assigned to them because they are either particles or antiparticles. They are electrically neutral and have no colour charge. The one property that could be different for them and their counterparts is the direction of spin. However, can't a neutrino spin in any direction anyway? I'm pretty sure there isnt a set of specific directions neutrinos are allowed to spin in, and a corresponding set of opposite directions for the antineutrinos. Surely that would require some explanat…

1. Are quarks created with a specific color charge? For example in pair production a red up quark and a cyan antiup quark? 2. Why are there only 8 colour states for gluons? There are nine possible combinations of colour to 'anticolour'. 3. If there were only blue and red quarks but no green, would the strong force still have an effect and be able to bind quarks into hadrons? 4. Why is the strong nuclear/residual force transmitted by virtual pions, and since that's possible does it mean that all composite particles that have an integer spin (bosonic) can transmit a force in such a manner? (i.e. atoms such as helium 2) If you know the answer to one and not t…

I don't have a scientific background so this is probably a silly question to someone that does... If in the reaction of a radioactive material decaying it releases photons is it ridiculous to suggest that electrons protons ect are just made of photons. when you heat something it releases light too, and like when you heat water the atoms gain energy and move around the extreme ones moving fast enough and far enough away from each other to escape the liquid state the 'photons in the electron' escape when heated too. I'm sure I heard that in billions of billions of years all the electrons ect will decay but what else would be released from them and so what else could t…

Whops, my post got deleted, apparently not by chance. Sorry if i didn't state the question clear enough, but i think it's valid to wonder what ultimately determines the properties and the specific parameters of normal distributions (Gauss curve - why do you get a different variance when you toss a dice n times with variable n). First principles. How deep down the ladder can we go today?

From wikipedia, I understand the following re: QT: an entangled pair of particles is generated, sharing some property, e.g. spin, such that s1* + s2* = S12 the sender transmits the 'second' particle, to a remote receiver the sender entangles the 'first' particle, with an 'information' particle; and makes a measurement, of their combination, causing wave-function collapse, s1*,s2* --> s1, s2, s.t. i + s1 = Si1 er go, the sender now knows, the quantum state, of the 'second' particle, at the remote receiver, s2 = S12 - s1 = S12 - (Si1 - i) = i + (S12-Si1) the sender transmits the 'offset factor', S12-Si1, to the remote receiver the remote receiver 'subtracts o…

Would fabricating a high-temperature super-conductor, require engineering, a large energy difference, between the Cooper-pairs' lowest-energy ground state; and their first available, vacant, excited state ?

In classical QM, when 'particles' propagate into a 'classically forbidden' region, wherein their energy E < V, then their wave-functions decay away exponentially, [math]\propto e^{-\left(\frac{V-E}{\hbar c}\right)x}[/math]. And, when 'particles' are "borrowed into existence", per HUP, then, in some sense, they represent a negative energy, w.r.t. the zero-energy vacuum, from which they were "borrowed". Does that cause their wave-functions, to "decay exponentially", explaining their finite propagation range, cp. Yukawa potential ??