Quantum Theory

Does anyone know about this book or the theory behind it? I think I'm gonna add it to my wish list and get it once I get a bit more calculus knowledge.

Say for instance that QM operates in nature on probability. I would like to say this probability is relation to a non static or dynamic environment, such as just more of the same. I would like to pull from string theory the idea of the primordial particle or thing, and simply call it “stuff” for the purpose of this thread. Now lets purpose that you have a bulk of this substance or stuff and of course not saying what laws do exist lets just go along with the probability. Now not knowing for sure the ramifications that quantum tunneling or entanglement has with respects to current definitions of time, I would like to think that such an environment would be pure chaos lack…

Does anyone have any ideas about superposition (entanglement) and why distance or separation is an imaginary/non-real quantity to it?

I've recently found an extremely interesting bit of writing by John Bell (of Bell's Inequality) that I'd like to share: http://books.google.com/books?id=FGnnHxh2YtQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&ots=3qT9MVkq-6&sig=1HGVjQN12sbTUoJ-qK_pz3g4qGU#PPA103,M1 It's interesting to see Bell talking about these kinds of ideas. Can anyone provide me with further background on Clauser-Horne-Shimony or your interpretation thereof?

There are different spectral lines for each element, right? These spectral lines are explained by the Bohr model of the atom, right? That is, the Bohr model says that electrons drop from one energy level to another, and these drops are accompanied by the emission of photons carrying an amount of energy equal to the difference between the two energy levels. Because there are only a few such energy levels, the electrons can only emit photons of certain energy amounts (i.e. only certain wavelengths/frequencies). These wavelengths/frequencies are what cause the spectral lines. Here's my question: since each element creates different spectral lines, the energy difference b…

I saw this article: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526223.700-parallel-universes-make-quantum-sense.html Apparently a team of scientists has shown mathematically how waveform collapse can be explained by the continuous branching of the Everett many-worlds model. Unfortunately I can't find their paper. Can someone opine?

Hello QM experts, I've just written a paper on quantum mechanics, and I need some expert criticism. Basically, I want to know if I've got it right. Keep in mind it's written by a non-expert for non-experts. The paper is written in three parts. The first part covers the basic facts of quantum mechanics, the second part covers the major interpretations in the field, and the third is my own personal take on these interpretations. Mostly, I need criticism on the first two parts. You can criticize the third part as well, but I'd appreciate if you kept your criticisms to an assessment of my understanding of the subject - not whether or not you agree with the positions I…

Obviously this isn't my area of expertise, but I've been reading a bit about "multiverses" lately in my science magazines, and of course I'd heard of this rather famous prediction of quantum theory in general sketches before. What struck me somewhat was some of the ethical questions that a multiverse of the type Everett proposes might bring up. Is anything really right or wrong if what ever action 'you' don't take some other 'you' does in some other universe? Am I making difficulties? I don't suppose it's a terribly pressing question, just a bit of a mind game.

I'm thinking of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle here. I understand why an increase in the precision of position measurements results in a degradation of the precision of momentum measurements, but I don't quite understand how the reverse works - that is, getting precise measurements of momentum even though your position measurements are more uncertain. I mean, the only way I know of for getting momentum measurements is to get two position measurements, and using the amount of time between them, deriving the velocity. Multiplying that by the mass gives you momentum. But how are you supposed to get the two positions if the measurements you take of them are degraded? Is…

A particle, vibrating at a certain frequency, can only have descrete amounts of energy determined by E=hf. I'm told that you can have integer multiples of this basic energy amount but not fractional multiples. But what happens to the light given off by this particle if it's a multiple of E=hf? It couldn't increase its frequency because that has to stay the same as f. It couldn't increase its amplitude because that corresponds to a greater number of photons, not the amount of energy carried by each one. So in what way would the light carry more energy if E was a multiple of hf?

Can you give me the energy expression for an electron? And also, does the energy of an electron decrease, or does the energy of the Energy shell decrease while moving nearer to the nucleus?

http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/geekipedia/string_theory_smackdown Wired.com has this superbrief three-round debate between (you guessed it) and (yeah! ) and they call it a "smackdown". You get to vote.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070917151054.htm Implications?

Many individuals, including scientists like Roger Penrose, have tried to make the case that the brain exhibits distinctly quantum mechanical, non-classical behavior, and because of this any attempts to simulate the brain using neural networks that treat the brain as a purely classical system will fail (an example of which is the BlueBrain project) Contrary to this opinion is this Max Tegmark paper, which argues just the opposite, specifically in relation to mechanisms hypothesized by Penrose: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 So, again, for those of you who study this sort of thing, is that paper credible, or is it much like Penrose trying to use quantum p…

I'm writing a paper on the "basics" of quantum mechanics, and I'd like to start a thread to ask questions on the subject. First of all, I'm trying to explain how the quantization of energy (and the idea of the photon) explain the photoelectric effect. Based on what I've read, I'm lead to assume that an electron can only obsorbe one photon at a time. I understand that an increase in the frequency of the incident radiation correlates with a greater amount of energy carried by the photons that make up that radiation. I also understand that an increase in the intensity of the radiation correlates with more photons making up that radiation. So, if it's only the frequency o…

I have a question about observance. I am reading a book called "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin, and he adresses a "problem" with Quantum Mechanics: The point that you put a boundary between you and the observer by being the observer, which is usually ok exept for the fact that your observing has an effect on the experiament itself, and I think the point he was trying to make was that if you expand the observation to someone watching the experiament then they become the observer and the person doing the measurements and the atoms themselves become the sytem onserved. I guess he has a problem with a theory that is based on what effect we have on something, and ther…

Is anyone familiar with the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's the interpretation that says particles don't exhibit wave-like properties at all, that they remain point-like all along, but that there is a "pilot wave" that accompanies and guides their position and trajectory. According to the wikipedia article, the Bohm Interpretation is deterministic - presumably because the pilot wave determines exactly the position where the particle will be found. But this seems to be somewhat of a vacuous claim. It doesn't exactly elaborate on how the pilot wave determines where the particle will be found, and thus no predictions can be made. Insofar as measuring the p…

Concerning the souble-slit experiment with one particle fired at a time... If we put a detection device in one of the slits so that we can detect the presence of the particle or not, can it be setup so that the particle still passes through the slit, or does the detection device essentially block the slit entirely?

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2007/09/watching_wavefunctions_collaps.php This is some really nice experimental results in quantum optics which were published in NATURE in August but which are available to subscribers only. Happily a physicist blogger named Chad Orzel extracted the gist of it for us, together with some nice pictures, and put it on his blog. Here is the abstract of the technical piece in Nature which is pay-per-view http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/abs/nature06057.html Chad does such a good job of presenting and explaining the gist of it that one hardly misses the original article. The lead author is Christine Guerlin. The …

I found these interpretations of QM from http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html. Would the QM experts at SFN say these are pretty accurate?

Ok, this is going to be a very complex question, so bare with me... I've been delving pretty deep into quantum physics lately, and I'm particularly interested in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. After researching it a bit, I'm starting to get the impression that there's an "early" version of it and a "later" version, and I want to know if I'm onto something here. The early version seems not to break from classical mechanics too much, although there is some "fuzziness" to it, and the later one seems to be in the thick of quantum indeterminism in a more matured and established overview of what quantum mechanics comes down to us as today. The early version c…

Could someone explain to me the basic idea of quantum physics and quantum theory. I tend to find complex analysis's of the subject on the internet, and what I have understood, is that it is the physics of atomic and subatomic particles. In other words, very small particles - which have a very different physics from the normal physics we learn about of normal large objects. Basically, it shows that most of the stuff we learn in school about atoms etc. is not true, and we are introduced to quarks, mesons, baryons and the like. I'm still in 10th Grade, so I still in the "learning the wrong stuff" stage, but I would like to understand the concept of quantum physics, and what …

I am having trouble finding out how to figure out this question..... A beam of electrons with a speed of 3.50 x 10^4 m/s is incident on a slit of width 200 nm. The distance to the detector plane is chosen such that the distance between the central maximum of the diffraction pattern andthe first diffraction minimum is 0.50 cm. How far is the detector from the slit? If someone could steer me in the right direction it would be much appreciated

Hopefully someone can help me with this question because I am not sure.... Calculate the energy radiated by a spherical blackbody of radius 0.75 m at 1500K per second. What would the radius of a spherical blackbody at 2750 K be if emitted energy at the same rate as the blackbody of radius 0.75 m at 1500 K? Any help would be great! Thanks

I was wondering if anyone could help me with this question.... What is the maximum number of electrons that can be emitted if a potassium surface of work function 2.40 eV absorbs 3.25 x 10^-19 J of radiation at a wavelength of 300 nm? What is the kinetic energy and velocity of the electrons emitted? I really have no idea so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks