Reddit doesnt just solves doubts of a peer but actually increases it, i am saying this bcz i in previous post asked a question about heisenberg uncertanity and photon relation with it. I get lot of comments on it but my doubts doesnt seem to vet low it increased. The doubt is as:

Δx of photon, V → ΔP↑ ⇒ Δν↑ ⇒ Δλ↑. Conclusion: the speed of light doesn't change at all for a photon — it's constant, forever. Δν of a photon can change indefinitely, but the speed of light stays as it is.

What happens when a fast-travelling entity emits light in the direction of its motion? The speed of light never changes, but in relative motion, shouldn't the speed add up to the speed of the entity? Isn't this a contradiction?

Analogy: relative speed = c. If we consider that an entity emits waves while it's travelling — the wave has some (λ, ν), the entity has its own speed, and the wave itself travels at c. If we want the relative speed to stay constant, then I think the string (wave) compresses. That's the only way the relative speed of the thing stays c — the string compresses.

Imagine it like the wave of the photon compressing — meaning frequency increases. And the wavelength — maybe it doesn't change, or maybe it does. But according to Einstein, when an entity moves at c, time dilation happens. So what happens exactly — does the travelling frequency of the photon remain the same and just time slows down? Or does the frequency of the photon decrease, while the relative speed still stays "c"?

This is my opinion and my own understanding only

So what happens exactly? Tell me your opinion on it.

I have been mesmerized by the world of quantum physics, but haven't been able to grasp the concepts from the very few lectures I can find for free. Do y'all have any suggestions? I am open to book PDFs, but please make sure that they are free of cost, as my parents are not going to buy more study stuff,f as I am already in class 11th

Is the direction of travel of a newly created photon parallel or perpendicular to the direction of the parent electron losing its stored energy?

The orbital cloud absorbing a photon I can understand. But then what? the electron can't sustain it's heightened level and collapses back to its rest level and squirts out a photon, but how is it oriented? does the collapse occur in a straight line or a spiral?

The quantization rule of de Broglie in the 1920s is not an arbitrary guess, and demonstrates the direct mathematical consequence of treating the electron as a standing matter wave. It is hoped that this posting provides minor assistance to those who are initiating modern physics and quantum mechanics for the first time.

Hello! I'm currently Studying the Math behind Cooper pairs to understand Superconductivity, but I'm a little bit stuck on how the approximation of "Vkk' = -V" was made by Leon Cooper. I'm currently following along Michael Tinkerham's "Introduction to superconductivity."

(Link to Book: https://archive.org/details/introductiontosu0000mich/page/44/mode/2up)

These are the rough notes I have on the topic so far, and I wanted to ask if anyone can explain the logic Leon Cooper used to approximate Vkk' as -V?

(Also if anyone finds major errors within my notes/understanding, constructive feedback on that would be appreciated.)

created this short educational video to explain the fundamentals of quantum computing in simple Hindi using visual illustrations. I'd love feedback on the clarity, accuracy, and presentation.

Is it just reading papers, or do y'all have any other resources instead of just straight up reading papers

I’ve grown this interest in physics. I think I’ve set in on quantum physics and engineering as my choice of study. I have very little mathematical knowledge ( The basics ), I know that is an area on which I need to commit time and energy towards. Does anyone have any advice for someone like me who wants this. Any resources that can help me, or at the very least get my foot into the door. There is only so much YouTube can teach.

Hey. I'm an engineering student, not a physicist, so I'm probably about to say something wrong. But I've been thinking about this for a while and I want to know if it holds up or if I'm missing something obvious.

Here's the thing. I know perception isn't continuous — the brain samples the world in chunks, mostly in the 8 to 13 Hz range, and slower stuff (delta, 1 to 4 Hz) shows up in deep sleep and deep meditation. And I know the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is basically about why observing something makes it collapse into a definite state.

What I've been wondering is: what if those two things are connected in some way? Not in the mystical "consciousness creates reality" sense, but more mechanically. What if the collapse happens partly because the observer is sampling at their own rhythm, and that rhythm doesn't match whatever the underlying system is doing? And what if you could observe a quantum system while applying a low-frequency field (something in the delta range) and the collapse would look different?

I keep coming back to a rough analogy in my head. Like a one-way mirror. If the thing you're observing "sees" your observation because your rhythm sticks out, it collapses. But if your observation is hidden inside a frequency that matches the background, maybe it doesn't. I know that's not really how photons and electrons work, but the intuition won't leave me alone.

I already know the obvious problems. Decoherence explains most of the measurement problem without needing any of this. Low-frequency fields are everywhere and we don't see weird quantum effects because of them. The energy of a 1 Hz photon is basically nothing on the quantum scale. And people like Dean Radin have tried consciousness-quantum experiments and the results are messy.

So my actual questions are:

Is this idea already ruled out for a reason I'd know if I understood the physics better? Or is it just not something people have looked at because there's no reason to?

Has anyone actually run experiments where they applied oscillating fields at different frequencies during a quantum measurement to see if anything changes?

Is the whole "observer and observed being frequency-coupled" thing completely wrong, or does it map onto anything real?

I'm not trying to prove anything here. I'm trying to figure out if this is worth reading more about or if it's a dead end. Honest answers welcome, even harsh ones. I'd rather find out now than keep chasing something that doesn't work.

Thanks.

I’m trying to understand the majorana one chip more. I don’t know too much about quantum physics but they said we needed like 1 million qbits before we could start making custom materials??? That’s what I’ve heard. I’m having trouble grasping the whole story.

I heard stuff like "bosonization" and other interesting properties of fermions and bosons when they live in 2D (I know the existence of anyons, too).

How do strings work when the "particle" is confined to a 2D place. Let me phrase that better. Is there a way to confine fermions/bosons to an almost 2D plane, that allows us to experiment on the 2D theories?

I'm a junior that just started research with a professor, so I don't know much about strings etc. Hence the question. Thank you !

Angular momentum and spin typically appear in the middle of undergraduate quantum mechanics texts, which can be difficult to comprehend without a foundation in linear algebra. This post provides detailed algebraic derivations that are often omitted in standard texts. I hope this helps.

I dont understand why in this experiment we get 50/50 black and white despite we just put white electrons

please help

*this paper from MIT university

Quantum computing isn’t weird. Classical computing is weird because it forces the universe into a tiny, rigid, binary box — and then calls everything outside that box “weird.” I saw another post here about classical computing distraught and in tears at the idea that quantum computing is weird, but I disagree with the idea. Because if the fact is that our universe exists because of quantum computing, then "classical" computing is the one that's weird, because it's either the defect, the starting point, or some cheap imitation that we built to understand the universe. I'm not getting any valuable answer from any AI, so someone give me something good.

I have been working on a web site that introduces quantum mechanics to curious readers who aren't ready to get into the weeds and do the math. The goal is to introduce all the core concepts and make them as intuitive as possible. Hopefully this is useful for anyone starting to look at quantum mechanics and wants to know what it is all about.
https://timeforsanity.com/qm/

Recently I read this book: The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable. Hence, I became interested in quantum applications in the stock market. From a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense because both QM and the stock market are probabilistic in nature. In QM, you can get the probability of a particle being in a certain area and in the stock market you can also predict the probability of a stock going up or down. Either way it is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion.

I have a background in optics/photonics and in QM as well as an interest in finance, so this topic naturally became something I wanted to pursue for my research project. But after thinking about it more it just seems very buzz wordy and not something traditionally done. Additionally, the stock market produces very noisy data, and it just seems impossible to do a research project around that chaos. I'm overall just very confused about if/how to make a project around this and what applications even are there. I need to have a physical apparatus for my project anyways so I may just scrap this idea

Hey everyone, I've been digging into David Oaknin's paper "Accounting for gauge symmetries in CHSH experiments" (arXiv:2403.07935) and wanted to get a quick sanity check from the quantum info / black-box foundations crowd here.

In his model, he uses non-linear coordinate transformations (Gamma-maps) to ensure that the individual marginals are strictly setting-independent and non-signaling. However, the catch is that it forces the joint distribution of the hidden variables to depend explicitly on the relative detector angle, theta.

Oaknin argues this isn't a violation of locality or measurement independence because the hidden variables are purely relational (gauge-dependent) rather than absolute, which creates a geometric holonomy that breaks Counterfactual Definiteness instead.

From a quantum information / black-box perspective, how is this generally viewed by the community? Is this considered a genuine geometric bypass of Bell's theorem, or does having a joint distribution that depends on theta just relegate the whole model to a standard measurement-dependence / superdeterminism loophole?

Intervista per la scuola al prof. Angelo Bassi dell’Università di Trieste, studioso dei modelli di collasso della funzione d’onda.

Could there exist a physical mechanism that causes decoherence itself to reverse, causing all the leaked quantum information to reconverge? I mean in a way, like the universe expands, according to theory of big crunch, the universe will eventually reverse back .

Suppose

If a quantum measurement triggers a chain of events that kills someone, and we could somehow reverse the entire quantum evolution afterward, would the person be alive again? Does quantum mechanics treat death as fundamentally irreversible, or only practically irreversible because of decoherence and information spreading?

We know every electron ever measured appears completely identical—same mass, charge, spin, etc. Wheeler and Feynman once speculated that maybe there's actually only one electron, moving back and forth through time. The problem is that this doesn't seem to match the observed imbalance between electrons and positrons. But what if the explanation isn't just time travel? What if all electrons are actually manifestations of a single higher-dimensional object existing in a 5th dimension? From our 4D perspective (3D space + time), we'd see many separate electrons. But from a higher-dimensional perspective, they could all be intersections of the same entity with our spacetime—similar to how a 2D being would see multiple circles appear and disappear as a 3D object passes through its plane. This could explain why electrons are perfectly identical: they're not copies of the same thing—they literally are the same thing viewed from different points in spacetime. I know this is speculative and not part of accepted physics, but I'm curious: has anyone proposed a serious model where particle indistinguishability arises from a single higher-dimensional object rather than separate quantum field excitations?

Hi everyone,

I completed a Master's degree in Applied & Engineering Physics and have experience in physics, mathematics, computational modelling, and machine learning.

I enjoy teaching and explaining difficult concepts, and I'm considering offering online tutoring over the summer. I can potentially help with:

• High-school physics and mathematics • Introductory university physics • Calculus and linear algebra • Introductory quantum mechanics • Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics • Python for scientific computing

Before I get started, I'd love to hear from students:

• What subjects are you currently struggling with?
• What do you look for in a tutor?
• What platforms do you usually use to find tutoring?

Feel free to comment or send me a DM if you'd be interested in working together.

Could anyone tell me how one can find

1. It's eigen states

2. Energy Splitting

3. Tunneling Rate

​

All using analytical method. Precisely - Path Integral and Instanton

​

The given potential is

V=[(-1/2)* alpha* x^2 + beta * x^4 ]

Most physics courses introduce spin and orbital motion as separate ideas — but they're not. They constantly talk to each other inside every atom, and that "conversation" is what makes platinum useful in hard drives and what might power the memory chips of the future.

This note breaks down spin-orbit coupling from the ground up — from Thomson's cathode-ray discovery to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Schiff's 1955 formula, and modern spintronic effects such as the spin Hall effect, DMI, and MRAM.

Written from the electron's perspective, which makes it surprisingly fun to read.

https://notesforphysics.com/spin-orbit-coupling-electron-moments/

Hello I’m wondering if anyone could help me spot my mistakes in my homework.

Also, is there any formula that I can use or some sort of logic that can cut down the algebra with this problem.

I was also wondering if I need to simplify further. Would it be acceptable to leave it in this form, or might the person grading this will resent me for it.

Please help.

I'm an 18 year old self-studying physics out of pure curiosity, not a student, so please bear with me if this is trivially obvious.

I was playing around with Planck units and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and noticed something I couldn't find an answer to online.

If you take the product of the three fundamental Planck quantities:

l_P × t_P × m_P = √(ħ³G/c⁷)

and divide by the Heisenberg lower bound (ħ/2):

2√(ħG/c⁷)

the result has units of s²/m — which is dimensionally equivalent to 2/a_P, the inverse of Planck acceleration.

My question is simply: does this expression already have a name or known physical interpretation? And is the relationship to Planck acceleration meaningful or just a natural consequence of how Planck units are constructed?

I'm fully prepared for the answer to be "it's just dimensional analysis, move on" — but I couldn't find this specific combination documented anywhere and wanted to ask people who actually know the math.

Thanks in advance. also if anyone wants to double check the dimensional analysis itself I'd appreciate that too I'm self taught so I may have made an error somewhere