Online research in philosophy

Proposals for quantum computation rely on superposed states implementing multiple computations simultaneously, in parallel, according to quantum linear superposition (e.g., Benioff, 1982; Feynman, 1986; Deutsch, 1985, Deutsch and Josza, 1992). In principle, quantum computation is capable of specific applications beyond the reach of classical computing (e.g., Shor, 1994). A number of technological systems aimed at realizing these proposals have been suggested and are being evaluated as possible substrates for quantum computers (e.g. trapped ions, electron spins, quantum dots, nuclear spins, etc., see Table 1; Bennett, 1995; and Barenco, 1995). The main obstacle to realization of quantum computation is the problem of interfacing to the system (input, output) while also protecting the quantum state from environmental decoherence. If this problem can be overcome, then present day classical computers may evolve to quantum computers.

You pass an electron through an inhomogeneous magnetic field (this is produced by a type of magnet, but don’t worry about the details). The field causes the electron to swerve. It is found that all electrons swerve by the same amount, and half of them swerve up, while the other half swerve down. See a video illustration of this.

A causal story of the double slit experiment for a massive scalar particle is told using quantum real numbers as the numerical values of the position and momentum of the particle. The quantum real number interpretation postulates an independent physical reality for the quantum particle. It provides an ontology for the particle in which its qualities have numerical values even when they have not been measured. It satisfies experimental tests to the same degree of accuracy as the standard quantum theory because the standard expectation values are infinitesimal quantum real numbers. Questions, unanswerable in the standard theories, concerning the behaviour of single particles in the experiment are answered.

Volume 500, 2009 On the Infrared Problem for the Dressed Non-Relativistic Electron in a Magnetic Field Laurent Amour, ...

The current status of explanation worked out by Physics for the Periodic Law is considered from philosophical and methodological points of view. The principle gnosiological role of approximations and models in providing interpretation for complicated systems is emphasized. The achievements, deficiencies and perspectives of the existing quantum mechanical interpretation of the Periodic Table are discussed. The mainstream ab initio theory is based on analysis of selfconsistent one-electron effective potential. Alternative approaches employing symmetry considerations and applying group theory usually require some empirical information. The approximate dynamic symmetry of one-electron potential casts light on the secondary periodicity phenomenon. The periodicity patterns found in various multiparticle systems (atoms in special situations, atomic nuclei, clusters, particles in the traps, etc) comprise a field for comparative study of the Periodic Laws found in nature.

The double slit experiment for a massive scalar particle is described using intuitionistic logic with quantum real numbers as the numerical values of the particle’s position and momentum. The model assigns physical reality to single quantum particles. Its truth values are given open subsets of state space interpreted as the ontological conditions of a particle. Each condition determines quantum real number values for all the particle’s attributes. Questions, unanswerable in the standard theories, concerning the behaviour of single particles in the experiment are answered.

In December 1924 Wolfgang Pauli proposed the idea of an inner degree of freedom of the electron, which he insisted should be thought of as genuinely quantum mechanical in nature. Shortly thereafter Ralph Kronig and, independently, Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck took up a less radical stance by suggesting that this degree of freedom somehow corresponded to an inner rotational motion, though it was unclear from the very beginning how literal one was actually supposed to take this picture, since it was immediately recognised (already by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck) that it would very likely lead to serious problems with Special Relativity if the model were to reproduce the electron's values for mass, charge, angular momentum, and magnetic moment. However, probably due to the then overwhelming impression that classical concepts were generally insufficient for the proper description of microscopic phenomena, a more detailed reasoning was never given. In this contribution I shall investigate in some detail what the restrictions on the physical quantities just mentioned are, if they are to be reproduced by rather simple classical models of the electron within the framework of Special Relativity. It turns out that surface stresses play a decisive role and that the question of whether a classical model for the electron does indeed contradict Special Relativity can only be answered on the basis of an exact solution, which has hitherto not been given.

En este trabajo presentamos una revision de la definición cuántica del elcetrón en relación con el principio de incertidumbre de Werner Heisenberg.In this paper we present a revision of the electron’s quantum definition in relation to the so called uncerrainty principle by Wenrer Heisenberg.

That sounds like the worst kind of far-fetched rubber science, right? No self respecting science fiction writer would even consider writing a hard SF story using such an absurdly unphysical sequence of events. (Even TV writers might think twice.) But in atoms, which in many ways behave like miniature solar systems, an event just like the one described above would not be all that unusual. It's called a quantum jump . When an atomic orbit containing an electron is vacated by, for example, a collision, another electron from a higher orbit jumps to the newly vacant orbit while emitting a photon of light to carry away the energy difference between the high and the low orbit. In this process the electron, according to quantum theory, does not move in a continuous way between the first orbit and the second; instead it disappears from one orbit and appears in the other.