Quantum Theory

my question is this. how can any scientist seriously consider this theory to be true? it contradicts the very fundamentals of physics, i.e. the laws of conservation of energy and matter. we know these laws to be true so how could sumone even try to contradict these, as did hawkings?

I honestly do not believe quantum mechanics (QM) is first principles enough, in the philosophical sense. QM deals with probabilites and unstrapped the desire (or at least is currently incapable as of now) of aiming to describe the particle behavior and motion of small particles and systems and their interactions. Rather it tries to justify its current inabilities to understand actual particle dynamics because the excuse is that statistical means as an 'best alternative' is actually sufficient. However, physics in general, philosophically can only do so much as to describe natures laws because physics is surposed to define the most fundamental and the idea of 'facts' i…

I know there is a big difference between anti-matter and the hypothetical exotic matter. we might not know enough yet to tell, but regardless, i was wondering if exotic matter, strange as it may behave, would be dangerous to interact with normal matter the way antimatter is very dangerous to interact with matter?

Hi I watched a programme about the particle accelerator underneath the city of geneva. It was near completion when it was aired. I have searched the internet but cannot find any information on what happened when they ran the machine. Has it been run? Am I in the wrong forum? Rob

I think I understand that Aspect, and later The Gisin Team in Geneva, showed that Bell's inequality was violated and that therefore there were no EPR ‘hidden variables’. However, and according to Relativity, it seems that ‘messages’ could have been sent between the entangled particles, without invoking an especially ‘spooky’ interaction Supposing the detectors were separated by a light year when one of the two randomly positioned detectors detected a particle:- As follows it might seem that the other detector could simultaneously take an equivalent reading when a light-speed message travelled between them, while no time would pass for the message on the trip From…

Hi Everyone I feel like I need to put a disclaimer before my actual question. I am not a physicist; I just have interest in the subject. I am not specifically religious; that is to say that I am a deist for most intents and purposes. There is no agenda in my question beyond the question itself. Now that I got that out of the way: It is my understanding that wave functions need consciousness or an observer to collapse. I recently heard someone say that since consciousness or an observer are required, that the universe as we know it could not exist without some greater consciousness that collapsed the wave functions, or that the universe did not exist in a definite …

How does a photon gets its energy to travel at light speed? And if a photon can do it, why cant we?

is there anything that we know of today in the laws of nature which would rule out one day inventing star trek replicator technology, assuming the technical hurdles could be overcome? basically on the show these devices reassemble local atoms of any kind into say a piece of chicken, water, or clothing, to name just a few examples. it involves basically rearranging somehow protons neutrons and electrons of various local substances into the atoms and molecules in the thing u are trying to replicate.

Are there any quantum particles created at the centre of the earth and if so are there any of those particles able to make it to the surface of the earth and fly out into space.

The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both a particle's velocity and location simultaneously. But I discovered a possible loophole in this principle; quantum entanglement. Suppose there were two particles that came from the same point, each going in the polar opposite direction of its partner. Now, according to the quantum entanglement theory, these two particles would both have identicle velocities. Let's say that their velocities are 179 000 miles/sec. Now, since the uncertainty principle forbids us from accurately measuring both the velocity and position of the individual particles, all we could do is accurately measure one or the other. Ho…

This is a thread from another thread in which a member thought I should make a thread out of the question I posed in the other thread. So here is the question. From what I understand of QM there seems to be a lot of chaos in general. So what I would like to know is basically how does something orderly, such as chemistry derive from what appears to be such an random system. In that I don’t know of bonded elements arbitrarily dissociate for unknown reasons, and bonding in general seems to be rather regular. Now I know that QM is a rather small domain overall(subatomic), but I think it would apply very easily to chemistry.

I am really confused about how to interpret refraction from a QED standpoint.

After watching a numerous amounts of documetarys about the string theory, I have understood it but I never quite get the point of combining gravity with the strong, weak N force, and EM. I'm not good at physics by far so maybe you guys can help me with this one. Kinda break it down. Explicate it so a person with 1% physics knowledge would understand.

are there any current theories that explain why electron orbits are the shape that they are?

Can anyone explain to me, the significance of the wave equation such that I can understand it. From what I gather (and do correct me), the wave equation is 'something' who's squared (i.e. something^2) is a good enough description of the probability density of finding the particle in a bound state. The founding of the wave equation and the use of the wave like nature of particles to describe particle systems is nothing but luck , hope, and messing around with mathematics that magically seem to work. In that nobody knows the underlying theory or understnading of why particles behave as waves in the first place or why mathematical wave equations and operations can be…

So hey, yeah, I'm a layman, but I'm interested in the debate amongst the scientific community which I am far too tangential to be a part of. So let me ask the following questions: Which theory has put out the most papers YTD? Which theory is presently the most progressive? Which theory is presently the most predictive in terms of real-world phenomena, or presently on its way to publishing a paper which may make it predictive?

physics is the study of the interaction between particles, or singular units of mass. would a unifying theory, then, be required to include descriptions of the interactions between people? is this a topic of debate in the science community, especially with regard to string theory?

I realise this a is little bit of a basic question, but how does quantum cryptography from entanglement *work*? I mean, I know the general idea. Sharing a key without someone observing it, the two quanta to be observed having opposite but undetermined states, but what I mean is, in practice, how are the various steps carried out? Breaking it down: 1/ How does Alice actually go about creating her two entangled particles? 2/ How does she send one of them without them being observed? 3/ When sent (and this is the part I just don't get) what do she and bob actually do *exactly* to transmit the info? What would you measure in a real system, and what info would she…

You know I have heard so many explanatios of gravity but most are meerly descriptions of its effects. I've heard people talk about space time and how it is warped by massive objects. But no one can explain how or why massive (aka matter) warps space time or what space time is if it can be warped. Given how much science has explained and how much we know it seems a bit rediculous that we know so little about what actually causes gravity. Gravity is relative to mass. Great how? Why do more massive objects exert more gravitational force? Because it bends space time more? Ok How does it bend space time more? What is space time if it can be bent and what does mass have…

The term ‘Force’ (‘F’), as it relates to and represents gravity, has never been comprehensively defined or understood in physics, until now. This is because ultimately, contrary to popular dogma proclaiming four: there are only two forces in the Universe - gravity and inertia (including large and small, weak and strong forces) - What Fritjov Capra correctly calls ‘Tao’; neither of which has previously been identified. They are unified herein as results of the 4, 5 and 6 dimensional space-time continuum of gravity, electricity and magnetism. - K.B.R. THE CONFLUENCE OF CONTINUITY & DISCONTINUITY The solution for Total Continuous Field Theory, including the i…

I heard something about adiabatic invariance in quantum mechanics.So I try to search for information about it,but I can't find it. Would you told me?

the hypothetical exotic matter that has been proposed as a means to construct wormholes is said to possess "negative mass". How would a 3-D mind that is so used to positive mass digest such a concept in a tangible way? Does it mean it has "normal" mass (i.e. has volume and consists of particles), only wat makes it unique is different properties concerning the way such mass interacts with the rest of the universe? Or does negative mass mean something even more radical: namely while positive mass has substance, and zero mass is nothing, negative mass is basically less than zero, or in other words, the universe sucked in on itself at point XYZ where the negative mass mate…

The Aharanov-Bohm effect predicted the phase-shift of electron interference patterns from a split beam passing either side of a magnetized iron whisker. It is supposed that there are no magnetic fields present outside the solenoid, since we can make them arbitrarily small with a "longer" solenoid or whisker. I claim we can Lorentz-transform the problem and show that in the electrons' frames of reference, what was a charge-neutral stack of circular current (solenoid), now has an electric dipole field which clearly acts on the passing electrons! Consider a slice of the solenoid looking down at the circle. We assign current circulating CCW, and consider electrons passin…

since we have discovered gluons and W and Z bosons, which control the strong and weak nuclear forces, what is stopping us from lording over them in terms of applied technology, just as we "lord over the photon" and electromagnetism has such an impact on our daily lives because of how we channel it? wat kinds of technology could we invent if we were able to control gluons and w and z bosons, thus manipulating strong and weak forces? thx

The two discussions, Quantum Mechanics/ Photoelectric Effect/Particle Theory, and, the subject of relativity and field theory are generally considered antithetical/contrary-to each other... The discontinuous fork in the formerly continuous road through theoretical physics. In 1900, theoretical physics was near to recognizing, utilizing and pursuing continuous field theory to its fullest extents; when Max Planck's discovery of the 'constant h factor' emerged - a discontinuous, invariably uniform value (of 'photons') that the continuous field could be (and is in fact) reduced to (re: 'black body radiation'). This discovery deterred any further vigorou…