bolha.us is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
We're a Brazilian IT Community. We love IT/DevOps/Cloud, but we also love to talk about life, the universe, and more. | Nós somos uma comunidade de TI Brasileira, gostamos de Dev/DevOps/Cloud e mais!

Server stats:

252
active users

#quantummechanics

1 post1 participant0 posts today

#Helgoland2025

Please share: If you are interested in the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, there are now again a few slots open in our upcoming conference on the island of Helgoland, in June 2025. Celebrating 100 years of Quantum Mechanics!

General information: helgoland2025.yalepages.org/
Direct to registration: indico.mpl.mpg.de/event/17/reg

This conference has an illustrious list of speakers and panelists, including people like Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, John Clauser, Serge Haroche, David Wineland, Michelle Simmons, and many many others.

@MPI_ScienceOfLight
@maxplanckgesellschaft
#Yale

How Hans Bethe Stumbled Upon Perfect Quantum Theories

Quantum calculations amount to sophisticated estimates. But in 1931, Hans Bethe intuited precisely how a chain of particles would behave — an insight that had far-reaching consequences.

By Matt von Rippel

quantamagazine.org/how-hans-be

More information about Hans Bethe:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Bet

#PhysicsJournalClub
"The Tumultuous Birth of Quantum Mechanics"
by Philip Ball

physics.aps.org/articles/v18/2

"quantum mechanics wasn’t created all at once. It took several decades and was a messy, confused process, during most of which the true nature of this revolution was obscure. In some ways it still is."

Physics · The Tumultuous Birth of Quantum MechanicsThe creation of modern quantum mechanics was a messy business in which many of the participants did not grasp the significance of their own discoveries.

#PhysicsFactlet
Do you want an interpretation of quantum mechanics that doesn't really work that well in practice, but that would look fantastic for your Sci-Fi novel? I have for you "Many interacting words" (not to be confused with the similarly named "Many worlds interpretation").
In this interpretation the universe is 100% classical, but instead of being one universe there is a VERY large number of them, all classical and weakly interacting with each other. In particular each particle is classical, but is repelled by its "copies" in the other universes. This is able to replicate a lot of the most weird effects of quantum mechanics. For instance, classically a particle is not able to overcome a potential barrier if it doesn't have enough energy to do so, but in this interpretation the particle would be repelled by its copies, so it has a non-zero chance of getting enough of a kick to jump on the other side of the barrier, producing the phenomenon we usually call "quantum tunnelling".
Another effect replicated by this model is the "zero point energy" i.e. the fact that the lowest energy a particle can have is not zero, but a bit higher than that. In this interpretation this comes to be because the particle (which is classic) would like to sit at zero energy, but so do all of its "copies", and they repel, so none of them can really sit at zero energy.
If you want, in this interpretation the very fact we see quantum effects is evidence of parallel universes!
journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/

#PhysicsJournalClub
"Testing the necessity of complex numbers in traditional quantum theory with quantum computers"
by Jarrett L. Lancaster and Nicholas M. Palladino
Am. J. Phys. 93, 110 (2025)

In classical electrodynamics the use of complex numbers is only due to to its convenience for calculations. Nobody wants to remember all those pesky trigonometric identities, so we use complex numbers to simplify calculations and take the real part at the end. You need to be a bit careful when calculating stuff like the Poynting vector, but this is well addressed ion any half-decent undergrad-level textbook.
But for quantum mechanics the problem is less obvious. On one hand we only ever measure real quantities, but on the other hand the imaginary unit appears explicitly in the Schrödinger equation, and no textbook I am aware of ever even mention the possibility that quantum numbers might be just a calculation convenience like it is in classical electrodynamics.
The question is subtle enough that you are going to find no shortage of well-read Physicists claiming that it is "obvious" that complex numbers are necessary for quantum mechanics, or that it is "obvious" that you could just use real numbers if you wanted.
This paper makes a pretty good job at explaining the problem, going through some of the history and explicit calculations, up to constructing explicitly a real-valued version of QM.
The second part, where they make an "experiment" on a IBM cloud quantum computer is (imho) less interesting, and their conclusion that you need indeed complex numbers not really supported by the evidence, but your mileage might vary 🙂
pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/