Quantum Theory

Visible light is packets of photons. The only difference between visible light and the rest of the spectrum is frequency and wavelength. Does this mean that all electromagnetic radiation is comprised of photons?

In the mockumentary "what the beep do we know!" the idea that people could theoreticly do things like walk on water, if things worked out at a quantom level. I know this is not statisticly posible obvously, but im wondering is it theoreticaly posible? and if it is what are the odds (pleese express simply in scientific notation) of an average person taking one step onto water, would this be configurable?

I think this is appropriate in QM and not CM, since it deals with atoms and waves. Can someone please explain to me how resonant frequencies work in atoms, and what happens when atoms encounter their resonant frequency? Thanks.

Whats the best summery of all basic info that could be found at a liberary.

same as topic

is anyone here capable of deriving the schorindger equation, or at least know why it is the way it is? I tried googleing briefly and couldn't find anything really.

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what a wave function Ψ is, and how you can derive from Ψ n, l, ml and how it can be graphed, along with \its importance with respect to Schrodinger's model of the atom?

Can anyone comment on this article: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/11/3 in which Messons seemed to have violated Bell's inequality. The article says: "The inequality was violated by three standard deviations in experiments with B mesons at the KEK laboratory in Japan"

So, I was assigned this homework problem about Hamiltonians, and I have no idea where I should begin to even attempt to solve it... Problem: A simple one-dimensional problem in physics is dropping an object of mass m from a height Xo under the influence of gravity, for which the Force=-mg, and the well-known trajectory is X=Xo-(1/2)gt^2. Find the Hamiltonian for this problem by explicitly evaluating the potential energy V, taking V=0 at X=0 (ground level), and show that dH/dt=0, or that H=E (total energy), a constant. Potential Energy V= mass*gravity*height or in this case V= mgXo

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010 The Universe from Scratch R. Loll, J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz 30 pages, 5 figures; review paper commissioned by Contemporary Physics and aimed at a wider physics audience Report-no: SPIN-05/28, ITP-UU-05/34 "A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one could probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the 19th-century founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that a piece of empty space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the naked eye might have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale. Our vastly increased understanding of the phys…

Regarding Quantum Entanglement and superposition, I am wrong somewhere, I want to know where! 1) I thought that to entangle 2 particles you set it up in a special way so that one would have an up spin and the other a down spin. 2) I have been told that when a particle is in a superposition it is in both states at once, only once the particle has been observered does this wavefunction collapse, the superposition is destroyed and we know the true spin of the particle. Now I see a problem with that. If the two entangled particles (which are currently in a superposition) are both in 2 states (up/down) at once, then when you measure particle 1 and discover it h…

what is quantum conscienceness or however you spell it?

Sorry, I didn't know where to post this, feel free to move it though. I have a paper to write which is mainly based on WiFi frequencies and wave propagation (or something like it). The aim of the experiment is to investigate how the structure of an obstruction can alter radio wave propagation at different frequencies and wavelengths. Upon reaching results, applicable theory will be used in order to demonstrate and explain the phenomenon. Lastly, investigations will be made into how data transfer speeds are affected by this phenomenon as well. I need to know why exactly less interference is caused with shorter wavelengths. I’m going to conduct the exper…

Ok, if you're not already familiar with the 'hafnium reactor', read a little about it here.. Now, as for it's x-spectrum amplification property, does it actually work via an induced gamma decay? I'm pretty sure they use the metastable isomer hafnium-172 because it has a high atomic number. But it seems like all the requirements for gamma decay demand is that the nucleus be excited to the point to where it releases a photon. Are both the Nuetrons and Protons releasing a photon, or is it really a positron emission that will soon after annihilate into gamma rays (probably the latter)? Even so, can somebody explain how the nucleus emits a photon and which partical is…

I think that this idea opens up a new possibility of a new era in the comunications sector a magine being able to use this principle for instant comunication no matter what the distance. this principle states that certain pairs of subatomic particles enven when seperated by considerable distances can each instantly 'know' what the other is doing.

I readed in scientific american that something like 99% of the mass of the proton come from the rotational motion of its constituents quarks, that the mass of the quark are realy small. Can we extend that to the quark and tell that the mass of the quark are 99% motion of it constituent (I know that the standard model consider the quark fundamental) At the end can it be that the only real thing is motion ?

Or is Planck length as small as they get.

how do you accelerate a electron? i think i know, but im not sure. so im asking. im asking a simple question, don't bite my head off.

I picked up Brain Greene's book "The Elegent Universe" a few days ago (I'm on page 236 for those who have the book) and something just hit me. The graviton seems to be coming a pretty acceptable concept. But what I wondered is how the graviton (actually, as I'm writing this I realized any of the four force particles could be put in here) accounts entirely for gravity. As it's a particle and, according to string theory, made of a string, then they wouldn't be in infinite supply. If they aren't, how can everything be assured of being affected by gravity? Could it ever be that two objects pass without gravitational influence because the gravitons didn't hit each other? And a…

I readed that the electric force is mediated by photons. Can somebody explain that to me ? For example two positively charged spheres repel each other. How photons exchanged between the spheres make them repel each other ? If you now have a positive and a negative charged spheres how does the same photon exchange mecanism make then attracted to each other ? Thanks for your answers.

Me and mi el buddies were talkin at work today and I brought up the Quantum thing and one of me el buddies whos perty smart told me that the main theory behind quantum mechanics is that a particle can be in two places at one time Is that right mi amigos

here is a nice pdf file that gives an overview of QCD: Quantum Chromodynamics Overview And here is another link for those without a strong math/physics background: QCD made Easy! One more link: More on Lattice QCD Download the Part I for free of Andrei Smilga's outstanding graduate text here: LECTURES ON QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS

Can anyone tell me is IR and Heat the same

what causes particles to be put into pairs, like a "pair" of photons (one will pass through a polarized sunglasses and the other will do the exact same thing?

Before we begin I'd like to provide a little background to facilitate this conversation. I am asking what everyone has hypothesized through the sum of their life experience (or if you haven't yet, what you would). This isn't a particularly scientific approach, to be sure, but I don't think we yet have enough data to really answer these questions... Anyway, let's begin... agree/disagree! I'm numbering so you can agree or disagree on individual points. A one word answer is fine, and if you want to expound upon that, that's great too. The probabilistic nature of QM is merely an artifact of the observational nature of our inquiry into its inner workings. Becau…