adapa

Ok smarty pants, whatever you say... I cannot process a word fo this stuff!, but I will decode it for you no problem...

 

Quantumn entanglement is caused by cross talk between the waves. If there was a bit of cross talk you could use fibre optics insulated in a grains of sand insulator, like about three centimetres thick.

 

But yuo want to use it for communication? Thatis a good notion I must say! If you were to prepare the communication by making it all 'coherent' you could have a lot of corssed lines and see it work. This would need you to make each wave, electronically, communicate with each other on the same format. If you were to write a format that includes all things into it it would work, but, that would take time and money, so...

 

If you were to use quantaumn entanglement to regulate the communication, I suggest you take the 'cross communication' and bring it closer together and then it will be compressed and fully interwoven so it will wokr better, eventually entangling like a rope made out of coiling it together.

 

I hope that helps you, and please tell me if I am on the wrong track...

I'm no expert but if 2 particles are entangled, then altering the state of one (in an attempt to encode information) would cause it to become disentangled from the other. In other words, the encoded information would not reach the other particle. This makes FTL communication impossible.

im relatively new to the whole quantum mechanics and quantum physics and everything, i was wondering if anyone had any ideas for books i can read or websites i can look at to help with my basic knowledge of this whole broad subject. im trying to teach myself the basics, and i apologize if i put this in the wrong forum

I am new too but at 60 years old I can tell you that I have had some problems understanding the math and the theories. There is no way for me to tell the difference between the crack-pots and the scientists - and i have been accused of being a crack pot because of it. I think I have come to an aceptance (and partial understanding) of the expansion of space. I still have problems with why... or how but I stay close to these forums and ask lots of stupid questions - sometimes i get help - on other forums I get more accusations than help.

Try not to make assumptions and word your questions as well as you can. Then ignore the crap and just try to follow those willing to help.

good luck to us both!

I'm a self teacher too. Here is a resource that I find to be useful: http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/DE.aspx

This one is great for brushing up on the math. If you follow along with the exercises, he makes it very understandable. Pay close attention to the sections on Matrices and Eigenvectors because operators in quantum theory act like matrices on states which are similar to vectors. Also, basis states are similar to unit length eigenvectors. This site also has links to calculus so that you can brush up on integration if you need to.

Also as previously implied, Leonard Susskind is an excellent teacher and has some great video lectures on quantum mechanics here :http://newpackettech.com/Resources/Susskind/PHY25/QuantumMechanics_Overview.htm

I think that you will get the most out of these lectures if you take ample notes. Also, I find that using the rewind and the pause buttons helps considerably.

The "C's" do not have to be eigenvalues. They measure the probability of that state being chosen in the wave function collapse.

Thanks. That makes perfect sense. I am going to try to find some reading on the subject now. It will probably take me a couple of days before I know enough to have any further questions. I sincerely appreciate your help.

That is right for finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. It becomes more difficult for infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, but thankfully in general our intuition about finite dimensions holds.

Thanks again for answering and please pardon my interrogation.

When I had the misconception about the wavefunction being a sum of the products of the eigenstates and their eigenvalues, would it have been more accurate to say that each state is a linear combination of the mutually orthogonal basis states?

In other words, when I said that [math]\left|\psi\right\rangle=\sum^{n}_{i=1}C_{i}\left|\phi_{i}\right\rangle[/math]

Would it have been more accurate if [math]\left|\psi\right\rangle[/math] is the state, and [math]C_{i}\left|\phi_{i}\right\rangle[/math] is the product of the [math]i^{th}[/math] basis state and its coefficient? Or is this also just as wrong?

Thanks again for answering. Pardon the rust.

I do not think in general that it is true that you can write any vector as the sum of eigenvectors for some operator. I think this is a postulate of quantum mechanics.

Thanks for answering.

I obviously need to improve my understanding of this part.

Also, I have a question about operators. I understand that the operator can be represented as a square matrix. Now is a self adjoint operator described as one where the operator is equal to the transpose of the complex conjugate of itself? Or is that a different concept entirely?

Let [math]A[/math] be a linear operator on some vector space [math]V[/math] over complex numbers. (don't worry about if it is a topological vector space or anything like that).

 

An eigenfunction of the operator [math]A[/math] is an element [math]f \in V[/math] such that

 

[math]Af = af[/math]

 

with [math]a\in C[/math].

 

In quantum mechanics, eigenfunctions correspond to states that have exactly the property that measuring the observable corresponding to [math]A[/math] gives the value [math]a[/math]. (which must of course be real, but I am not sure how much we want to push this right now).

 

 

 

 

 

Probably, one is thinking of electrons in shells surrounding the nucleus, rather than the states of the neutrons and protons in the nucleus.

 

But yes, nucleons can change state giving rise to gamma rays.

 

 

 

This sounds like a interpretation of Feynman's sum over all histories. So, ok but I am not sure if I would take this interpretation too far. Without a it of quantum field theory, it is hard to say too much about particles and antiparticles.

Hi. It's been a couple of decades since I've done anything that is physics related and I am trying to re-activate that part of my brain so please pardon my ignorance if I ask any silly questions.

From what I remember, I understand that wavefunctions are represented as vectors in a mathematical manifold called Hilbert Space. I also understand that the wavefunctions are the sums of the products of its eigenstates and their respective eigenvalues, and that these eigenstates are represented as mutually orthogonal unit vectors in Hilbert Space. Is that correct?

For example:

[math]\left|\psi\right\rangle=\sum^{n}_{i=1}C_{i}\left|\phi_{i}\right\rangle[/math]

Where [math]\left|\phi_{i}\right\rangle[/math] represents each eigenstate and C[math]_{i}[/math] represents each eigenvalue on n-dimensional Hilbert Space.

So I understand (or at least think I do) that the system is in a state of superposition whenever more than one of the eigenvalues is non zero. I also believe that the wavefunction is considered collapsed when there is only one eigenstate with a non-zero eigenvalue. Is that correct? If not, please feel free to steer me in the right direction.

Thanks for answering:-)

Although I am no expert in plasma physics, I am quite fascinated by the topic and I do have some questions. The first question that I have is:

Is the temperature of the electrons or the ions in a small volume of an anisotropic plasma better expressed as a rank 2 tensor or a rank 1 tensor (vector) as opposed to a scalar?

I know that the magnitude of the temperature should always be a scalar. However, I think that the temperature of the electrons is related to the velocity as in K[math]^{ }_{b}[/math]T[math]^{ }_{e}[/math]=M[math]^{ }_{e}[/math]V[math]^{2}_{e}[/math]

Where K[math]_{b}[/math] represents Boltzmann's Constant

Because the velocity of the particles in an anisotropic plasma have a directional bias, it would also seem that the temperature would also have a directional bias and give different readings when measured along different axes. If the directional bias favors an imaginary surface, then it seems like a 3 dimensional rank 2 tensor would give the most accurate description of the temperature.

I am only asking this because I honestly don't know the answer. Thanks:-)

Hi,

I am not an expert in any field (except maybe flying). However, I am quite fascinated by many fields of science and I am interested in learning more.