It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by dzonatas
Those are the words of the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. I think he meant that even QM physicists have a hard time understanding the various aspects.
Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Great thread! I find it amazing that some scientists are seriously discussing and contemplating the multiverse theory. I have intuitively come to the conclusion that there can be no other explanation for our universes' many paradoxes.
Wave functions are now part of quantum physics. Forces are part of quantum mechanics. I've seen physicists mix the math of QP as if it were QM, so his quote is not untrue, yet it is certainly not breaking news being 50 years old.
Originally posted by plumranch
Would you or anyone like to try explaining the difference between Quantum Physics and Q Mechanics? There is a lot of confusion and intermixing the two.
Quantum mechanics, oversimplified, is not based on physics yet on forces and patterns.
Quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum phyiscs, which includes quantum electrodynamics, . . . If one is concerned about particles and particle (matter) interaction, then referring to QM is appropriate.
Quantum physics is the name for a collection of quantum theories: (non)relativistic quantum mechanics (also including quantum optics) and quantum field theory.
Just like classical physics is a collective name for classical mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity.
The way I see it is that quantum physics is more general than quantum mechanics.
Indeed ; I thought quantum theory is the conceptual framework of Hilbert spaces, operators, and all that, which you can then apply to different, more concrete, models. One such model is non-relativistic mechanics of point particles, and the result is then quantum mechanics. Another such model is relativistic fields (or relativistic point particles, which turns out to give the same result), and the result is then quantum field theory. Still another model are relativistic strings, and the result is string theory.
Originally posted by plumranch
Quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum phyiscs, which includes quantum electrodynamics, . . . If one is concerned about particles and particle (matter) interaction, then referring to QM is appropriate.
First you use QM to find if it is possible then you apply the QP to predict when it is possible.
something called Bioquantechonology. Nah... Personally, I'm into Ag-Biotech, so that's where I use it.
Originally posted by plumranch
So the QM phenomenon you use in your work (Nanotech) is mainly the Casimir Effect?
Now a new collaborative team that includes Fleming have identified entanglement as a natural feature of these quantum effects. When two quantum-sized particles, for example a pair of electrons, are "entangled," any change to one will be instantly reflected in the other, no matter how far apart they might be. Though physically separated, the two particles act as a single entity.
Again, polarization still fascinates me dearly.... oh the possibilities! Bring it on!
Originally posted by plumranch
What applications are possible?
Originally posted by plumranch
2 beams colliding with matched polarization.