Quantum Theory

The Problem of Time in physics is one born out of the Wheeler de Witt equation. The Wheeler de Witt equation fails to describe the universe with a time evolution because the right hand side of the equation does not contain a time derivative. The Field Equations Einstein derived describe motion in time which arises as a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution itself [1]. I propose that it is a matter of not being a true time evolution in one case where there are pure gravity solutions to Einstein's equation. By allowing to choose two conformal time descriptions in the Wheeler de Witt equation [math]t = \chi[/math] and [math]\tau = \alpha[/math] you can describe…

So the best theory for entanglement is that two particles occupy the same 4 dimensional coordinates, but different 3 dimensional coordinates. But, what would it be like if two particles occupied the same 3 dimensional coordinates but different 4 dimensional coordinates? Is that what atoms do already?

If the Higgs Boson isn't discovered what does that mean for particle physics?

I haven't seen this expression before: [math]\frac{-iM\gamma}{\hbar^2k}[/math] Well I can immediately see that [math]\hbar k[/math] is the momentum. What is the gamma here acting coefficient on the imaginary mass? In fact, more generally, what is this expression describing? I am inclined to believe it is simply a momentum, but the gamma is knocking me off: source can be found in the first equation in this link: http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S02/sol2.pdf

SRY FOR THE MISSSPEL ITS ''QUANTUM WAVE INTEFERENCE''

I understand that when one measures a particle's position, that measurement affects its momentum, and therefore its momentum becomes uncertain, but I don't understand how it works the other way around. How does measuring its momentum result in uncertainty about its position? Don't you need precise position measurements in order to get a measurement of momentum? I mean, maybe I'm thinking of this wrong, but isn't momentum measured by first taking a position measurement and a short time later taking another position measurement? Wouldn't you then calculate the velocity based on the distance traveled over the time between measurements and multiply by the particles mass t…

Due to work I have been conducting recently in regards to tachyonic neutrino's, I was investigating a mathematical proceedure found in the Lippmann-Schwinger Equation. I wanted to apply the process to the Dirac Hamiltonian. I wanted to know if I have done this right... Suppose I want to describe the Dirac Hamiltonian for a free particle can be given as: [math]\mathcal{H}_D = (\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta Mc^2[/math] I could have chosen natural units here, but let's express it in it's full beauty. Now, effectively, there is no interaction potential term in here. Because of this, I can say [math]\mathcal{H}_D \phi = ((\alpha \cdot \hat{p})c + \beta Mc…

Ok, so my question is an odd one, but it's something that I've wondered for a while now. Is there any physical meaning why the reduced compton wavelength appears as [math]\frac{\hbar}{Mc^2}[/math] in certain equations, for example, like the fine structure constant, but then it appears as the reciprocal in other equations [math]\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar}[/math] such as the Klein Gorden equation or even the Dirac Equation...?

I got somewhat interested today in how the quantum dispersion relation for a photon was originally derived and the reason why was because I accidently derived it today, and through a series of simple gestures. But because the dispersion relation is quite an easy equation for photons, there is doubt in my mind my derivation was somewhat easier at all. [math]\hbar c = Gm^2[/math] Rearranging for the angular momentum component: [math]\hbar = \frac{Gm^2}{c}[/math] Then multiply [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math] on both sides gives: [math]\hbar \partial_t = \frac{GM^2}{c} \cdot \partial_t[/math] Hit this with [latex]\psi[/latex] and it makes …

short description of quantum optics taken from wikipedia. Quantum optics is a field of research in physics, dealing with the application of quantum mechanics to phenomena involving light and its interactions with matter. can some one tell me how does measuring a single polarized photon affect its behavior afterwards ex; when it goes through another polaroid. ? isn't there any way to measure it without disturbing it? Can we develop a theory that reasons for the disturbance of the subatomic particles and a way to determine a non-disturbing measurement of the subatomic particles? sincerely yours,

energie can not be created or destroyed, according to M theorie, all matter is created from vibrating strings that vibrate at different energy states to make different types of matter. this suggests that everything we know is comming from nothing however a vibration is energie, so where is all this infinite energie comming from to support the theorie? the theorie of course works, but the problem is infinite energy, in order to create all these strings we need an almost infinite energy scource, the theorie suggests a singularity at the point of the big bang, but in order to have a singularityyou need gravity to already exist and possibly complex particals that acco…

I guess there's some amount of energy confining an electron to an atom, so what would it take for an electron to actually fall into or get pushed into the nucleus? Or does it just never happen? Why does it only happen with particle accelerators? Can I make an atom so massive that the size of the nucleus meets the boundary of an electron? And if that happens, will nothing or something happen?

I propose [latex]\bar{\psi}c(\gamma^i \cdot \hat{p})\chi + \bar{\psi}(\Box \phi \ell^3) c^2\psi = \bar{\psi} \gamma^0 (i\hbar \partial_t) \psi[/latex] where the rest part is derived from the mass dependance of the gravitational field [latex]\phi[/latex] in four dimensions. This an analogue of the dirac equation in graviattional interaction terms. The part [latex]\gamma^i[/latex] determines whether to express [latex]\hat{p}[/latex] as either positively or negatively and for rest energy particles travelling lower than the speed of light is given as [latex]\bar{\psi}c(\gamma^i \cdot \hat{p})\chi > c[/latex] (rest) This component [latex]\bar{\…

Would someone be able to help me understand quantum entanglement a little bit better? I understand that if particles come to close together that something strange happens and that they then start doing some of the same things, but what force drives this? What triggers the force and where does it come from? How far does it stretch? Things like this. Help please?

Einstein derived what is called the Einstein tensor which is: [math]\nabla_{\mu} G^{\mu \nu}=0[/math] and [math]G^{\mu \nu}[/math] is just the Ricci tensor minus [math]\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu}R[/math]. These equations express the local continuity of energy and momentum. As a side note, it could be imagined for a universe to be devoid of mass, so this indiates the right hand side of [math]\nabla_{\mu} R^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2 \nabla_{\mu}g^{\mu \nu} R[/math] But does the absence of matter imply zero curvature for a metric? The answer is no. Gravitational waves are not trivial, where the Ricci tensor is zero everywhere, but the Reimann tensor is not. …

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1711/ http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/69229/title/Sizing_up_the_Electron Good news for anyone who said mainstream science was wrong in it's contentions about zero dimensionless objects. This evidence suggests that an electron actually does have a classical radius [math]e^2/ Mc^2[/math].

[/img]

Calculations (1).doc

Is Color Superconducting phase really superconductor? What would be the meaning of " Color Conductivity " or " Color Resistivity " there ?

I don't know what energy is exactly. I mean I can get how it would just be like this mathematical tool or result, but I just don't see that. Saying that seems like saying time doesn't exist, which exists, just not in the same spacial dimensions we can perceive. And then to confuse things even more, scientists, even though its not technically science even with all the mathematics, predict the existence of strings, which are suppose to be vibrating strands of energy, which means energy its a physical tangible thing in the same sense as a rock. I don't really know how to think of it. AND THEN, there's even photons, which are somehow pure "EM force", which I've heard describe…

Hi everyone, I joined recently and I'd like to share some things I've written with you. I think they might be of interest to some people. This one is my final year A level report on quantum entanglement. It gives an explanation of the mathematical principles behind quantum mechanics and then goes on to talk about electron spin and the EPR experiment. It's quite possible I've made a mistake in some parts so do not hesitate to call me out on it so I can make corrections (stylistic criticism is also welcome). I certainly found the philosophical ramifications of the EPR experiment quite difficult to grasp (and hence write about). If somebody could illuminate …

Try to solve a quantum state transition in hydrogen atom, away from Q.E.D. ...... assume having E1 with radius r2 ..... a wonderful example ..... my kisses, you will see transitions by your eyes on a real-time 3D environment .... 4D. Hint: Mixed states will be used. Then try to apply quantum field theory, by finding the electromagnetic field emitted on the transition. Can you specify the trace of one photon ...... if it is defined.

When a photon is emitted from an electron, is it instantly traveling at c? Doesn't this contradict F=ma*? Or, in other words, doesn't an object have to accelerate if it is to go from one speed (such as rest) to another (such as c)? *I know photons can be considered massless, but then why are they pulled down by gravity?

So the dis-entanglement of particles happens instantaneously, but how can that be if I am in two different gravity potentials? What if one is on Earth and another is by a black hole? Would I still measure at the same "time" that the other one disentangled, and if I didn't, doesn't that mean it's not instantaneous?

If Uncertainty Principle is a result of 'fiddling' of an apparatus with what is being observed (for example light particle/wave of a detector fiddling with particles/waves being observed), then wouldn't uncertainty principle cease to apply if in the future a 'smaller' or 'less interfering' element of nature is discovered for use for observation? Say, a via the use of a "string powered detector" or whatnot. Also, I notice a lot of disagreement between websites on it. The most 'zany' appear to imply the principle is about an abstract concept of "the observer can not know" while others take it down to earth and talk about interference of the apparatus observing and the p…