Quantum Theory

Does Quantum Mechanics explain/predict/allow that there is human free will or no free will?

I have written the following to H.Puthoff: "In the normal modes expressed in k-space, we write: alpha-dot + i-omega-alpha = (i /2eps_o N) j_trans. Usually we talk about the free-space homogeneous case with zero current on the RHS. I am proposing possible further mechanics by putting in my current terms as expressed in the photon paper. There I realize j= (-lambda^2 + rho/U) A. The latter quantity is a function of transverse (axially speaking) distance only. I got stuck doing the convolution integral but this should not take me too long when I get time to complete it. Why can we not construct further mechanics in this fashion? Reading in Cohen-Tannoudji, Atoms …

Hi All, From the very important papers that are being reviewed now in Quantum Mechanics are those of Einstein that INCLUDED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ENTANGELMENT of electrons. It says that Quatum Mechanics are describing an overall effect of the electrons upon themselves, upon small ranges. That's why he insisted upon his opinion of QM and QFT (In its early days) being a manifestation of the small range multi self-interactions between electrons, in particular (or as an example). Would anyone advise what is the common meaning of "Entangelment" that is being used widely these days? Thanks in advance.

Could quantum mechanics replace modern chemistry? Why or why not please, and thank you.

Accuracy is certainly not the only measure of a successful theory. So Kepler's laws could be used to accurately predict the orbital motion of celestial bodies but said nothing about the weight, trajectory and free-fall of obects that are not in orbital motion like Newton's laws. Also, by being a theory of natural cause and effect, Newton's account of gravity and its effects explained how the weight, trajectory, fall and orbital motion of objects is possible, and still applies today even though Einstein's account could describe gravity in more detail and explain an even wider range of gravitational effects. Then in sciences other than physics there are theo…

It's generally accepted that quarks are the smallest subatomic particles in the universe. Well, suppose you had the technology to handle a quark. Would it be possible to compress it? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.

What is the essence of Standard Model talking about Higgs bosons being responsible for mass? This makes no sense to me. If we find a reason why half an MEV worth of light hangs out about a locale electrodynamically, have we not answered the same question? Relativity tells me this is so.

I've heard of two ways to interpret the concept of "superposition": 1) particles existing in more than one place at a time, and 2) particles existing in more than one universe at a time. Is there any scientific reason to choose one interpretation over the other, or is this just a matter of philosophical speculation?

What is the smallest particle that all other particles are made of?

Hey... Im interested in Quantum mechanics.I want to do research in it.. Can u give me list of good universities for this???

Earlier I used Rule 30 as an example of a deterministic system which produces a statistically random distribution. However, Severian instructed me that Rule 30 does not use a system of non-local hidden variables which violation of Bell's inequality would necessitate. Information in Rule 30 moves no faster than "c" (one cell per second). Rule 30 is still very much a local system. However, my question would be have the Bell test experiments shown that the resulting distribution does not rely on information traveling at c? Why must it be superluminal and how has it experimentally shown to be otherwise?

OK, this is my second post! After learning a thing or two about "probability" on my first thread, I wanted to ask about "uncertainty". For starters, when it came to probabilities, it seems clear that the electron was in an uncertain place. Is this what is meant by "uncertainty" within quantum mechanics? Thanks for your patience in advance.

For a vertical spring, if we let [math] x_s [/math] be the total extension of the spring from its equilibrium position without a hanging object, then why does [math] x_s = -\left(\frac{mg}{k}\right) + x [/math]? Is this saying that the extension of the spring is changed for a vertical spring when a weight is added on? Does it follow from: [math] -kx = mg [/math] [math] x = -\left(\frac{mg}{k}\right) [/math]? Why is there a [math] +x [/math] in the [math] x_s [/math] expression? Thanks

If you take a QM view of the vacuum there is a default value of 1/2 as the ground state of possible oscillation states. Tell me if this makes sense, but certainly as a magnitude estimate, thinking about photons and the zero-point fluctuation field, if you expect an average value of 1/2 in a given photon energy state, you can say the uncertainty in the product of energy with time must be not less than [math]h/2[/math]. Given a photon energy of [math]\hbar\omega, or, h\nu[/math]. lo and behold the time such a fluctuation can be expected to last is of the order of one cyle. Aha, I was talking to an electronics whiz about building noise-cancelling headphones, after re…

hihi... new around... anyway, i juz finish reading the book "the physics of superheroes" and it is mentioned inside that the faster Flash runs, the higher his probability of running through the wall (hence, conducting Quantum Tunneling). However, i will like to ask how this is being calculated from the Schrodinger Equation. How is it shown in the equation that the faster one moves, the higher the probabilty of ending up on the other side of the barrier? Thank you very much for reading...

It is said, that entanglement of two particles can make them expose correlated results of measured observable. For example, we can entangle two electrons to have contrary oriented spins. Also we can entangle them to have spins co-oriented. We can entangle other observables, not only a spin. The question is can we entagle time also? For example, can we entangle two nuclei to decay simultaneously? Or can we make them to decay at specific moments? If we can, then how this time-relation entanglement will correspond with special relativity with it's relativism of a time?

I am reading Feynman Lectures Vol.II, p.52-11. Cobalt in a magnetic field produces beta decay with electrons preferentially going out the South pole, a striking state of affairs. This is not such a mystery, though, if you correlate the electron spin with the current sense in the magnet coils. If I am correct that electron spin has a fixed relation to its velocity vector, then there is the answer, no?

Background: Currently the most sensible procedure to me is to consider spacetime basically as defined through stochastic evolution (relating to a kind of information entropy), and that the "classical spacetime" will be reached as the "best guesses" or expectation values. Time would be considered naturally as the "most probable disturbance" given our conditional information (which could be anything btw - as long as it's correct and not just an assumption). In between measurements the information entropy either increases or is held constant, but during interactions the entropy is decreases as new information is gained. So interactions (communication) can be considered t…

Sourced from "The Australian" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AFTER nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole gobbles everything within it - including traces of its own existence - physicist Stephen Hawking has done an intellectual backflip. Next week at a conference in Dublin, the wheelchair-bound Oxford University academic will recant his controversial "black-hole paradox". It's an idea he first proposed in 1976 and involves the complicated physics of black holes, or dense objects such as what remains when some stars run out of fuel and collapse under their own weight. Leading cosmologist Paul Davies, of …

Are there any other ways of extracting zero point energy? The only one I've heard of is that cassimir effect thing, which is pretty much useless because the plates can't be unstuck. So will this ever be a viable energy source? Does science hint at a "subspace" star trek like dimension? If there was another dimension or if we could intereact with a universe made of energy (according to string theory's multiple universe/dimensions), if we use as much energy as we extract, would that bypass the laws of conservation, which says you can't "create" new energy? I'm no expert of course, so please correct me if there's anything wrong in that description.

I just read in Lee Smolin's new book about the problem with the observer in Quantum physics. He called it one one the 5 biggest problems, that you need an observer for it to work out right. Is this really a problem????? I had always assumed it was the way you explain a non-problematic but unique situation to a non-physisist. Would the whole theory really break down if we all "shut our eyes"?????

what are newton rings???????????????????? plz xplain

this is a question from another forum that i dont feel comfortable answering, (only half way through a brian greene book) so can anyone explain simply if it does or does not? ty.

Hi all, this is my first post. I've come from http://www.ilovephilosophy.com because I had trouble getting answers about the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. It had to do with existence of free will, and I realized that I needed to get a better grasp on the nature of quantum indeterminism. One of the things I read was the Wiki page on the "Bohr-Einstein debates": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates as well as numerous double-slit pages, etc. My first question is fairly simple I think: When talking about the probabilistic nature of an electron, WHERE is the electron? And I'm not talking about specifically where it is (since I …

I've seen a headline of a publication somewhere that read something along the lines of "Why photons traveling between Casimir plates don't violate causality". Back then I didn't really think much of it but now I realize that it would've been a rather interesting to read. There are phenomena where something goes FTL but not information, right? But in this case if the photons themselves are traveling at superluminal speeds (due to energy densities lower than that of "normal" vacuum), I guess it makes things a bit different? I searched for information about this but couldn't find any (thus this post). Edit: Hmm. I wonder if this is better off in the Relativity-section.