Talk:Quantum/Archive 1

Archive 1

NOT birth of Quantum Mechanics

Deleted caption titled "Birth of Quantum Mechanics" and last sentence of following paragraph because QM was not developed until the 1920s.

What Plank discovered may properly be termed Quantum Theory. --NCDane (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition of History and Discovery Section

Hi! I added a section and moved around some of the material already posted so that the page would be easier to navigate. I also added some references to make this page more authoritative.

Booknotes (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Booknotes

No such quantity

The article should make it clear that a quantum is not a unit - that is, that different quanta are of different sizes. Preferably in the lead. I'm not enough of a physicist to phrase it correctly. Also, a brief mention of quantization in matters other than energy - such as the knots mentioned above, or proposals for quantum time.--Homunq 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that the quanta are of different individual sizes, but that the quanta value involves a varying number of energy carrying entities, with each carrying the same amount.WFPM (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Planck's discovery

In Ultraviolet Catastrophe, it explicitly says that Planck's theory of quanta had no relation to black body radiation at first, being very vague and saying that it is "too complicated for modern audiences" or something like that. But in this article it mentions Planck's 1900 discovery as being directly related to black body radiation. Is there an error in one of these? If not, can someone please clarify it for my own curiosity? 128.101.184.50 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See Einstein's explanation in the article.WFPM (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantum concept

I am curious to understand the relationship between the quantum concept as presented here and that which relates to mathematical ideas like quantum topology (for instance, certain invariants of knots like the Jones polynomial and Khovanov homology). Anyone have a reference? Orthografer 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

When you get to the definition as to the value of a quantum being equal to a magnitude number of Planck's constant energy (mvsquared) or actually action (mvsquared times time), you're led to the concept that we're talking about a discrete number of energy entities, which are acquired during a short time period. Then, if you want to quantize the energy entity, you can assume it to be a particle with planck's constant worth of kinetic or some other kind of energy when it's moving at the velocity of light. If you assume it to be a material particle, you're led to the concept of a (polarizable) material particle with a mass of approximately 10 to the -47 grams of mass.WFPM (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In this context the word Quantum can be considered of the category of (a small amount), rather than an individual entity. Kind of like a score, or a squad. In Lucretius' poem (On the nature of things), he apologizes for the poor ability of Latin to adequately describe natural phenomena, and this may be one of it's problems.WFPM (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First use of the word quanta/quantum

Did Planck and his colleagues use the words quanta and quantum? Or was this word applied later? Carcharoth 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From my knowledge, Einstein and Planck used the term quanta/quantum but "photon" is a more modern word. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The word Photon has the connotation as being an amount of energy, and the type of container is not specified. But in the particle versus wave controversy, you're required to decide between how much versus how many, with the time element having to be factored in. But I think it's more about how many than how much. See above discussion.WFPM (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

new book to add

Albert Einstein didn’t prove that the photon exists. He did theorize the quantum effect and received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect. Arthur Compton did the experiment to prove that the photon exists in 1923. In 1927 is when he received the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of the photon. Read the Nobel Prize paper in which Arthur Compton mentions for the first time the photon as a particle and the experiment that proves it. The book X-rays and electrons An outline of recent X-ray theory By Arthur H. Compton Ph. D. Copyright 1926 By D. Van Nostrand Company This book includes papers from 1923 on and uses the word photoelectrons for the one particle and electrons for the other. He shortened the word photoelectrons to photon by eliminating electro. The new particles thus became the photons from a shortening of photoelectrons. Read the book. The term’s used for electrons from the many papers are: • photoelectrons • recoil electrons • beta rays The term’s used for photons from the many papers are: • x-rays • x-ray quantum • light • light darts • electromagnetic waves • radiation • radiation quanta • radiation quantum • quantum He used photoelectrons a lot for the electrons but for the photons there was no common term. 68.171.143.254 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Planck found truth?

"After his theory was validated, Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for his discovery."

Does "validated" mean Plancks theory is truth and will not turn out false as e.g. happened to Newtons theory of gravity? Darsie42 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell Planck ...

"In the attempt to bring experiment into agreement with theory, Maxwell Planck postulated that electromagnetic energy absorbed or emitted in discrete packet, or quanta."

I believe this should rather mean:

"In the attempt to bring experiment into agreement with theory, Max Planck postulated that electromagnetic energy is absorbed or emitted in discrete packet, or quanta."

Changing ... Darsie42 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Quantum theory was validated"

Quantum: "After his theory was validated, Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for his discovery."

Is it appropriate to say a physical theory is validated? Does this mean, the theory is correct? I thought, it is possible to falsify a theory, but not to validate one. Have Newtons laws of gravity been validated before being superseded by the theory of relativity? Darsie42 (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)#

Quantum value quantum is a very unique value it is the smallest unique amount of energy that is able to create a unique change to a unique quantity of matter. current knowledge indicates this as a unique quantity of energy contained in a unique structure referred to as boson. this unique quantity of matter being predicted by higgs is currently begining to be excepted as a unique unit of structual mass. The greatest current problem physics runs into is a brick wall because of its inability to reconcile quantum and relativity and this is because physics does not understand energy transfer as quantified by a einstein. E=Mc2 can only represent a unique amount of energy contained in a unique area of space at a unique point of time. YES Quantum is a unique amount of energy that creates change within a unique area of space at a unique point in time. However if physics is to mathematically progress. There is a need to utalise this unique amount of energy within this unique area of space at this unique point in time to create the next unique amount of energy in the same unique area of space in the next unique point in time and there is only one mathematical system that can evaluate this unique structure of energy transfering over time "COMPOUND MATHEMATICS". E=Mc2 is a unique amount of energy and mass creating matter in a unique area of space at a unique point in time. this unique energy and mass creating matter acording to thed first law of thermodianamics cannot be created or lost only changed. This unique energy and mass creating matter must be capable of creating equal and opposite force equal to exactly its exact value. This unique energy And mass creating matter must be capable of increasing its energy value by another unique energy source increasing it velocity. within these basic laws of physics you have the ability to predict the next energy/mass value at the next point in time by evaluating the interaction between the 1st and 2nd unique energy sources at this unique point in time.Cubedmass 21:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bozos?

The first sentence states "...and of photons and other bosons (plural: bozos)." I'm not a physicist, but I think the plural of "boson" is "bosons." Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.64.154 (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- If you search for 'boson' in the Article, you find the word isn't there. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New Quantum supercomputer technology

Headline: "NSA seeks to build quantum computer that could crack most types of encryption"

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html

Very interesting reading. With the revelation, there has been a lot of coverage. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Headline: "Video: A first look inside Google & Nasa's quantum computing lab"

• http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/video-a-first-look-inside-google--nasas-quantum-computing-lab-8879787.html

"Six-minute short film introduces us to the D Wave quantum computer housed by NASA, and the questions we might one day ask it." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Website heading: "NASA: QuAIL, QUANTUM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY"

• http://www.nas.nasa.gov/quantum/

"NASA’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (QuAIL) is the space agency's hub for an experiment to assess the potential of quantum computers to perform calculations that are difficult or impossible using conventional supercomputers." (Google Inc partners with NASA.) — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Website heading: "D::Wave — The Quantum Computing Company . . . Press releases"

• http://www.dwavesys.com/en/pressreleases.html

These corporate press releases came out in June-2013. — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Magazine: "Google and NASA Snap Up Quantum Computer D-Wave Two"

• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=google-nasa-snap-up-quantum-computer-dwave-two

"The machine will help the agencies work on artificial intelligence problems" — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct? "The energy of an electron bound to an atom"

I'm nervous about posting this - because I can't believe, with all the science-savvy people on here, that no one has said anything / corrected the error - and that's why I did not edit the page.

(Second paragraph, beginning with "A photon is a single quantum of light")

It goes on to state that "The energy of an electron bound to an atom..."

The whole thing is called an atom. Shouldn't that be "The energy of an electron bound to the nucleus" - or maybe "The energy of an electron (in/of) an atom"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMOTH (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Quantization (physics)

The article Quantum is a WP:DICDEF: it discusses the same concepts as Quantization (physics), but shorter, and adds an etymology. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually different. Ridiculous suggestion. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

Merge proposal has been withdrawn. Advice often given to editors is: don't edit an article unless you have a good understanding of its subject-matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Definition of "the quantum" as "the causal link of causal set theory"

A "causal set" is any structural formation generated by a causal successor relation. The "causal successor" relation may also be termed a "temporal successor" relation. The causal set theorists call it "the causal link." A causal link connects one "element" to another, establishing the time order of the two elements. Those are the only two primitive entities in causal sets-- the "elements" and the "causal links." Causal links chain together (and not just in serial fashion,) composing structural formations of discrete cause-and-effect order. Since the dyadic causal successor relation is perfectly generic, it does not differ from the dyadic temporal successor relation. Time order and causal order are conflated. The notion of time, as used in physics, is stipulated by causal set theory to be discrete next-to-next succession (not continuous.) Furthermore, temporal stepping is not restricted to purely serial structure. (Forking and convergence are allowed.) Such "time" can be called "causal set time." It may be more natural to call it "temporal succession." The advance of time, in the case of temporal succession, takes place by virtue of discrete steps of time, and these steps are the causal links. The "elements" are the moments of time, and serve as specific locations of the 4-D manifold. Some causal sets contain inherent frequency ratios. The simplest such causal set has a diagram of 3 arrows, depicting a "time triangle." In the time triangle, two separable paths share a common start-point and a common end-point, indicating that the two pathways transpire in the same amount of time. Two causal links transpire in the same amount of time as the third causal link. Thus, a frequency ratio is formed, of two causal links in ratio to one causal link, over a common period of time. Thus, temporal succession can account for frequency ratios. Frequency ratios, in turn, can serve physics as energy ratios, in accord with E=hf. For two specific energy values, we have E1=hf1 and E2=hf2. Forming ratios, we have E1/E2 = f1/f2. Planck's constant has dropped out. The frequency ratios inherent in causal set time can thus be used to define energy ratios. The countable units of the ratios are the causal links, or steps of time. Thus the causal links are the quanta of energy ratios. With the "second" established as an arbitrary de facto unit of time, and with all quanta assigned duration in ratio to "the second," we can define "the quantum of energy" as "the causal link."

  Causal set constructions, using arrow diagrams to model physical entities, are thus quantum schematics, with each arrow depicting one quantum.  The common particles have been modeled as causal sets, yielding quantum schematics of the electron, electron-neutrino, proton, and neutron.  The mass-ratio of proton-to-electron is then derived from arithmetic of the models to match the experimental value of 1836.  All constructions are relativistic, since causal set theory is a discrete version of Special Relativity.  See the "Talk" section of the Wikipedia entry for "causal sets," for more information.  97.116.82.74 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Carey R. Carlson

Article appears to be written by someone with a layman's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics

For example, the article states "The fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization".[1] This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only certain discrete values."

The second sentence is simply wrong: Observables in quantum mechanics take values in the spectrum of the corresponding operator. Sometimes the spectrum is discrete, but this is by no means always the case. This is explained in every single modern physics textbook on the subject, although some confusion is inevitable if one looks at the earliest outdated papers from a century ago, when the theory was first being developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.1.186 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

rewrite

The lead is essentially unreadable. "Entity of a quantity"? What? It also seems to be in error: surely not all quanta have "the same units as the Planck constant" (or do they?). And the third paragraph is about quantum mechanics, which is another article altogether. It needs to be simplified. Something like:

According to quantum theory, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the smallest quantity of a physical property (energy, electric charge, angular momentum, etc.) that a system can be observed to possess. Higher values of the property are observed to be discrete multiples of the basic quantum with no intermediate values.

--Quarkuar (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sentence " Higher values of the property are observed to be discrete multiples of the basic quantum with no intermediate values" is simply false.

173.79.1.186 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

physical chemistry

Why does Na loose 1 electron to get stabilise in presence of chlorine  ? Give details about the stability of atom after loosing the electron

Amolkurhe (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This question could be posed at WP:RD/S, but please do your own homework. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Quackery

Is it worth mentioning that the word "Quantum" in any commercial product's name/description is usually a sure sign of quackery? -- Fnlfntsyfn (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum cryptography is not at all quackery, nor are quantum true random number generators. 173.79.1.186 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Quantum#Misuse. It's worth mentioning what the scholarly consensus says about it, cited to reliable sources. El_C 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation of Latin 'quantum'

The translation of 'quantum' is given as 'how small' or 'how great', depending on the edit. Shouldn't it be simple 'amount'? Leschnei (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an example where things are lost in translation. None of the suggested translations really fit, and neither can I think of an appropriate English word. Another example from Latin is "altus". It can be translated in various ways depending on the context, but the concept in Latin is the same in those contexts. A tree (arbor) can be "alta" (tall), but a hole (lacuna) can be "alta" (deep). Put them together in a sentence (such as "a hole and tree altae [...]"), and the best you could do in English is the wordy "a hole and tree, both with a relatively large vertical dimension, [...]". Giving a precise meaning for quantum would be a bit of a challenge for similar reasons. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)