Quantum Theory

i was reading quantum mechanics by dirac where i found he proposed that the same photon has equal probability to stay in two interfering beams simultaneously. i didnt get what is the difference in supposing the other way which is simpler that half of the photons are in 1 beam the other half in other beam. the proposition was regarding 1 photon so statistically the probability remains same. besides this idea was avoided in polarization case. why? where no new theory was required to be proposed. please explain.

Sound travels through matter. Water waves etc. travel on a plain. But how does EM radiation travel? What are the waves generated on? Are they distortions in spacetime itself?

Hi there. Can someone please explain this?

I have had an interest in Quantum Physics for a couple of years now. Originally I was interested in the theory of Relativity. I was young (around 8 - 12) at the time. My brother insisted it meant it was possible to travel in time which, naturally, interested me very much. At that age I had great difficulty understanding the basic concepts. Over time I have come to understand the basic idea behind the theory through reading web pages and Stephen Hawkings book "A Briefer History of Time". I still do not have a clear understanding of the theory. Anyway, after reading Quantum Physics is not consistent with the theory of relativity I began reading up on this th…

Can someone explain to me what the wave function of an electron is? And if possible use plain English without the complicated math which is involved .

When reading anything about the Max Planck's work we often come across the "oscillation of an electron". I've just managed to get around to understanding electron orbitals... The dumbbell shape for P orbitals, spherical shapes for S and so on.. (at a very basic level). From what I understand we can't predict with certainty where the electron will be.. This sounds to me like a random movement within the specified orbital. In that case, what's this oscillation I keep reading about?

I've been working recently on my understanding of the Standard Model. I was fine (more or less) until I got to the force carriers, which is where my understanding seems to really break down. My questions: 1. How can a particle be its own anti-particle, eg, Z particle, photons, gluons and gravitons? What do you get if two photons annihilate with one another...another pair of photons? 2. Is there any experimental data short of direct observation to support the existence and modeling of the graviton, or does it simply serve as a placeholder in an attempt to complete the standard model until better information comes along? Thanks in advance. I'm certain to ha…

I'm going to try an experiment here. There is a debate on terminology in another thread and I want to try something here to see what happens. You know that the uncertainty principle relates uncertainty in momentum to the uncertaintly in position, right? What you don't learn until advanced courses on quantum mechanics the momentum this refers to is actually what is called "cannonical momentum" (aka conjugate momentum). Its different than the momentum p = mv (small p) that you learn about in basic physics. Suppose a charged particle is moving in a magnetic field. The cannonical momentum p has the value (B-45) p = mv + qA where A is known as the magnetic vector …

This I just bugging me. I dont see how anything, photons, kinetic energy, whatever, can go about In getting concentrated amounts of electrons In a wire while not simultaneously making the inductor and/or the magnet an ion. Can anyone help? Thanks.

Please erase my picture of this forum ,which i put these images are worth thousands of dollars I am very sorry missed the opportunity I was very patient Do not put these images again ok I hope not to see them Orifiel Elias Seventh Angel of the apocalypse

Has anyone experimentally obtained a picture like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HAtomOrbitals.png If so, where? If not, how do we actually know it's correct?

Are Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism classical or quantum mechanics phenomena? I am looking for a simple explanations of these phenomena.

I am close to understand Electromagnetism (in the basic sense) What i am not getting is the interaction of the field with the force and the interaction with photons. Let's have a simple ciruit here. + ================= - I know a magnetic field can produce and electric field and vise versa. So what happens when you connect a battery to the terminals? Is a electric field generated? Electrons rush to the postitive terminal...If it is an electric field generated is it within the wire soley? and if it's in the wire, doesnt that create a magnetic field (perpendicular to the electrical field)? Then how do photons actually interact? Do photons actually …

I was just wondering, because we spent our entire 3rd year Quantum Mechanics course using it. One of my lecturers(evidently, not the one teaching me the module!), seemed to bear a very negative sentiment towards its relevance; I asked him if anybody still uses it in Research, and he said the last person who did had a name beginning with D and ending in C... Personally, I came to appreciate the notation in the sense it provided a certain elegance and understanding of QM more broadly in terms of linear operators acting in vector spaces, as well as having to solve less cumbersome ODEs from schrodinger wave mechanics. So, was he right? Is what I've been taught within …

We have several products in Matrix Mechanics : [math]C=A\otimes B \approx A_{ij}B[/math] Tensor product Here A acts on a particle, and B on another particle. [math]C=A\cdot B=\sum_k A_{ik}B_{kj}[/math] Matrix product Here B acts on a particle, A acts after it on the same particle. what about [math]C:=A\times B=A_{ij}B_{ij}[/math] Element product ?

Hi. I have this question, not even sure if this is the right forum. I was having a discussion about the technical implementation of the LHC and got into an argument I have no idea how to settle. I claimed that a particle of non-zero/non-negligible mass can be accelerated via electromagnets (as it happens in reality). In my view, as the particle approaches c, apparent mass increases and it eats up more energy as it accelerates - allowing a virtually infinite amount of energy to be pumped into the particle. Not infinite, but close to. I'm thinking that the energy pumped into the magnets has to go somewhere. The person I'm having the argument claims t…

Ok here is one question I did, but I am not sure of answer. I am asking questions about QM because I am new to this subject area. Here goes the question; An electron is trapped in a three-dimensional box with edge lengths Lx=Ly=Lz= 6.626 x 10^(-9) m. Among the energy levels lying below E = 1.35 x10^(-20) J, how many are degenerate? What is the degeneracy of each one of them? Now this is what I did. the energy of electron in a 1-D box is; En = n^2 *h^2/ 8*m*L^2 inputing the values to get n n = ((En*8*m*(L)^2)/(h^2))^1/2 n =(9.83)^1/2 = approx. 3 So the energy level that lie below the given energy are n =1,2. And the degenercies are 1 …

How does an atomic nucleus form if the charges are all positive? Why are the electrons not drawn into the nucleus? Are the regular laws of physics superceded at the atomic level? Does this sound bogus to anyone else?

I was wondering if it is possible to tell if an object's physical property will exhibit a quantum effect? Can we make some sort of measurement to check? Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave); his hypothesis would hold true for both electrons and for everyday objects. In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength will be a function of Planck's constant (6.626×10−34 joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person.…

When you look at the stars at night, you can see any one of them no matter where you are and no matter what time of night it is. This is possible becomes photons are emitted from these stars and they travel as waves until they reach your eye and interact with your retina. Is this interaction an example of the way the wave form of a particle collapses and becomes more like a tiny point in space that interacts only with things local to it? I have a follow up question, but let's start with this.

....?

I need the english translation of Heisenberg's article, "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik" published in Zeitschrift für Physik( vol.43 1927, pp. 172-198) journal. Please, if you have send me the article. I couldn't find it on the internet. emremetin3334@hotmail.com

how would you ionize hydrogen atoms to get just protons? Is that what people use in particle coliders when using proton to proton colisions? thanks.

Maybe in the form of an analogy. I'm attempting to understand this concept...

I was hoping someone could shed some light on my thinking as far as why they would be looking for a particle that would be the carrier force for gravity? My thinking is this - 1. Gravity, so far, has been proven to be the warping of spacetime by mass or high concentrations of energy. 2. A body of mass is attracted to another body of mass through this warping of spacetime. Would not the carrier force of gravity then be spacetime itself? Instead of a graviton particle - why not a "spacetron" or a "timetron"? Or the combination of a "spacetimetron"? Of course the idea and names behind this are a farce, but my thought is that we already know the carrier force of gr…