Quantum Theory

I've been through this before, and despite all the physics experts that seem to be around I never received a satisfactory answer. So someone who actually knows the math behind this and can help out someone venturing into quantum from a purely conceptual perspective, I'd really appreciate your help in pointing out what's wrong with my reasoning here because, as far as everything I've ever read from physics has told me, I must be wrong... Okay, we have Einstein saying that you can't have anything causal occur at superluminal speeds... state changes within the universe propagate at c and that's all there is to it... Yet we have ESR "spooky" action which allows certa…

As far as I understand, an electron orbiting a proton can be thought of as a standing wave around the proton. The orbits allowed for the electron are dictated by the distances to the center that allows standing waves from its de Broglie wavelength. If this is true, then: how can there be a certain probability for the electron to be outside these very precise distances? how can Heisenberg's uncertainty principle be true as well?

There is no one who don't know proton attracts electron. Why proton attract electron? You say "Do you say it as a question?" Compare proton and neutron, There is a little or big difference. Proton is made of two up quark and one down quark ,but neutron is made of two down quark and one up quark. This one difference make electron attraction phenomena. Why it is possible?

So we know how to calculate the most probable places for electrons to show up as points if they have pound orbitals, but what if the electrons have a more amorphous movement such as in plasma?

Here's a thought experiment involving quantum suicide. Now let's assume I put a loaded gun to my forehead. I then pull the trigger, but I do not die. This is because two realities branch off, one in which I die, the other in which I am still alive. Of course, I don't recommend you take a gun to your head in real life and try to prove or disprove this theory, but it's an interesting theory, nonetheless. Check out this video on it (you may want to turn up your speakers):

How and when are photons created?

I submitted another note on unknown things in a well known domain; this time about the orbital momentum of particles in atoms. See http://www.science20.com/qed_reformulation_feasible/blog/unknown_physics_particle_orbital_momentum First I made a conceptual error when put R=0, but later on I gave a detailed derivation to show where the error was admitted and why this was an error (see here). Vladimir.

If one could somehow measure, the 'strength' of a Bohmian Pilot Wave, for a given quantum particle, over some finite volume of space... would that knowledge uniquely specify, that Pilot Wave, over the rest of space ?

At least 6 years ago (most probably more) I copied the following list from a book or article, I have no reference to its origin. However, the significance of this list has at last come to mind, but now I need to know what is unique about this selection, why did the author select these particular baryons?. (Have tried a web search without getting a result). Due to poor print quality I may have got some symbols (particularly super scripts) wrong, so apologies in advance.

If an electron can appear pretty much anywhere, why can't it appear in the nucleus of an atom? You could argue impenetrability, but couldn't an electron just combine with a proton or just force other particles out of the way? An electron is pretty small compared to the other particles too, I'm sure there would be some gaps where the particles that make up an electron could fit. Even though an electron is a wave, why can't the wave ever touch the nucleus? No particle in the nucleus has the same exact quantum numbers as an electron, so there shouldn't even really be a problem with them canceling each other out.

Just a curious question. I had learnt this fact back in school that overall mass of an Atom is slightly more than combined masses of it protons, neutrons and even electrons which is unexplained by science. is it true? If yes. How?

Description:- We associate heat with infrared radiation. And temperature is only intermolecular/atomic motion. infrared rays heatup a metallic rod and causes expansion. infrared photon has lesser energy than visible photon. case1: Take pure incident visible photon and shine it over a metallic rod for long time. question: Will the rod heat up and expand? case2: Now Cause fluctuation of visible photon over the metal. question: Will it heat faster? In any case does infrared photon heat metal faster than visible photon? If yes. why?

So if I have a proton and an electron, and they fuse to form a neutron, what happens to the prior wave functions? Is there some conservation of wave function law? Is there a mathematical process that shows how the wave function of two opposite charged particles change into one new wave function?

After reading up on particle-wave duality and the double-slit experiment, I came upon this in the article. The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doub…

Are they real or are scientists still trying to determine for sure if they are there? I know it would make sense for them to be there for our current physics, but have they actually been measured and/or observed?

So this is a long topic, but it started out someone I know asking how something could react instantaneously, and my friend said there's nothing we currently know of that does that. So then, I introduced entanglement theory, saying that when particles are also waves of existence and the atomic and subatomic level, and when they come into close enough proximity with each other, their wave functions become entangled in a way that the properties of one is dependent on the other. I also stated that it's been proven that distance does not cause the wave functions of either particle to collapse, so long as the entangled particles are separated carefully. I went on to say that be…

Hi all! I have recently finished studying the Open University module on quantum mechanics, SM358. Unfortunately, Open University science courses (for all their many advantages) are rather maths shy and although this is designated as an 'SM' (science/maths) module, it left something to be desired as regards to mathematics. Specifically (the things I am aware of), it skirted around Hilbert space without ever explicitly mentioning it. No coverage of projection operators or tensor products, no density matrix and no decoherence. No mention of matrix mechanics in general (spinors for spin-1/2 were covered). I am looking for books, ebooks or other resources that …

kinetic method. High temperature collison plasma phase -------- consider as reaction state High temperature plasma state --------------->known particles(which have kinetic energy) +unseen matter(which have kinetic energy) + unseen matter(which have no kinetic energy, remaining around the collision point) If we did particle collision fast and continuously, the concentration of unseen matter which have no kinetic energy would increase with time. And the reaction rate must be increased or decreased with time. We can detect known particle intensity which is increased or dicreased with time. I think decrease is more better. Impotent one is other experim…

Is there any observable proof or any measurable proof of 10 dimensions in any way other than purely theoretical mathematics? What I heard, is that in 3 dimensional space, light grows dimmer by the square of the distance. In 4 dimensional space, light grows dimmer by the third power of the distance. In 10 dimensional space however, light grows dimmer by the fourth power of the distance, explaining why stars far a way look like dots. But otherwise, that's the most concrete thing I know of.

I am by no means an expert or even close to a novice when it comes to quantum physics matters but I am extremely curious about the subject and try my best to read about it. One thing that surprises me is that scientists never found the Graviton, the particle that could be responsible for Gravity. How is it that we haven't found it? If large objects, such as the Earth, have a gravitational field around them (around us at all times too) shouldn't this be one of the easiest particles to find? What if the Graviton doesn't exist after all, would we have to rethink our ideas on Gravity?

The idea that all possibilities "actually" happen can realise no greater possibility than the situation that is described by what we imagine might "actually" happen. It follows that if we can't imagine the actuality of ONE possible world, then we cannot support "any" possible world as being actual.

Does the right-hand rule apply to elementary particles, and if not, how can one find the direction of magnetic force of an orbital electron, if the magnetic field, spin, and direction of travel are known?

http://superstringtheory.com/ And nice explained. Watch. Take Care.

In 1930, Einstein made a famous argument against Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Imagine a box with a photon inside and an opening covered by a shutter. When a timer attached to a clock activates the shutter, the photon escapes from the box. So we could in principle acurately time when the photon is emitted from the box. Now this box is also suspended by a spring so that we can weigh the box before and after the photon is emitted. So, Einstein supposedly argued, we can determine the mass difference in the box. And by E=mc2 the energy of the photon. So we now know both the time of photon emission and the photon's energy to arbitrary accuracy. But this is a violatio…

[math]p=\frac{h}{\lambda}[/math] Where does the direction of the momentum come from? Is the wavelength a vector?