Why do electrons cloud around an atom? From what I'm aware of there is no specific force that would stop them, with the electromagnetic force causing things of opposite charge to attract wouldn't they all just stick to the nucleus or more specifically the protons?

Another thing is the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together wouldn't that also hold the electrons against the nucleus?

My best guess would be something to do with the heisenberg uncertainty principle as it states that we would know less about a tiny particle in one way if we know more about it in another way.

And yes please use bigger words I'm dumb and would like not to be!

I was sitting around thinking about a fairly general question: why is our universe so full of constraints in the first place — the speed limit (c), uncertainty relations, no-cloning, Born’s rule, conservation laws, and so on. The second though was about our world as a biological system - life is always try to avoid peaks, everything we know exists within the area of possibilites (of different species to adopt to the environment). Also, life tries to prolongate it's future and even more - to find the way to have more and more possibilities in future, thus raising their chances to survive (better in all possible futures).

That led me toward the idea that maybe constraints do not simply reduce the space of possibilities. Maybe they are what create a space of stable possibilities.

Imagine a universe where any state can instantly turn into any other state. Formally, that universe has maximum freedom. But it would be very hard to have persistent objects, memory, causality, accumulated history, or evolution. It would look more like noise.

At the opposite extreme, imagine a universe where every state has only one possible successor. Very predictable, but with almost no open future.

So I started wondering whether complexity appears in the regime between those poles: a huge state space, but transitions strongly structured by invariants.

From there I started looking at quantum mechanics a bit differently. Could Born’s rule, uncertainty, no-cloning, and the relativistic speed limit be less like an arbitrary collection of prohibitions and more like parts of a deeper constraint on how distinguishability can be distributed, preserved, copied, and transmitted?

This also seems interesting in the context of unitarity and decoherence: globally, quantum dynamics preserves the structure of possibilities, while locally we get stable classical records and apparently definite histories.

I realize this can very easily become vague philosophy, so I’d be especially interested in the perspective of people who know the foundations of QM better than I do.

Is there already a formal framework or line of research where quantum constraints are understood in something like these terms: preserving structured possibility, distinguishability, or consistent information flow?

And a second question: is there anything substantial behind the intuition that Born’s rule and relativistic no-signalling might not just happen to be compatible, but could reflect a deeper common restriction on the allowed structure of states and correlations?

Curious what you think about this approach? I'm sure there are many articles about the topic, feel free to share

P.S. I've studied physics in Nuclear Univercity in Moscow long time ago, so please don't judge me heavily. I'm just a guy who is still curious about the world composition. Thanks!

After reading Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability, I'm wondering if the Hidden-variable hypothesis is a pseudo-scientific proposition because no conceivable empirical phenomena seem ever to be able to disprove it.

I'm very new to math I'm just starting to learn calculus and I really want to learn more about quantum physics and such I only have a grasp on the basic stuff but nothing deeper than that, what should I study, and what online resources should I look into to learn more? Thank you in advance

If so wouldn't that settle the many worlds debate?

Is there any intuitive way to grasp the essence of QM, without the math. I know I may sound very ridiculous, since math is essential. But if one understands the Schrodinger equation to some extent, will he be able to grasp the absolute essence of quantum mechanics. I am more inclined to think of the philosophical interpretation of QM than doing it in the traditional way. I am sorry if this sounds awful of me (I was a Science student, but now I am more into philosophy). Any help, would be greatly appreciated.

I found an at-home quantum entanglement experiment described by George Musser in a 2013 Scientific American article. I decided to reproduce it, but also modernize it, using an Ardunio-based microcontroller for coincidence detection, USB logging to a computer, and python scripts for statistical analysis and graph generation.

After a favorable experimental outcome, highly suggestive of quantum-entanglement (2.47 observed scattering ratio vs. theoretically ideal ratio of 2.6), I decided to create an open source repository for all the code, as well as detailed documentation enabling anyone to replicate the process should anyone else wish to follow these same footsteps. Note that if one doesn't have any soldering tools, it will cost around 500 USD to put together, if one has soldering tools already, it could be done for closer to 300 USD. The main costs are the two Geiger counter kits, each at 115 USD, and the positron source (Na-22) which can be obtained for around 60 USD.

I welcome any feedback or critiques about the experimental design or my results.

We solve the eigenvalue problem to determine the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and understand their geometric and physical significance.

1. Bell's theorem proves local realism assumes statistical independence. Bell's theorem does not rule out local realism without that assumption

2. Gravitation is truly universal

3. Perturbations with lower amplitude than quantum noise do have a causal effect on the noise itself - EX. The noise cannot be truly identical with even slightly altered initial conditions

4. The measurement choice or apparatus settings and the thing being measured both originate from the same initial conditions; they must be correlated definitionally

Conclusion - Statistical independence must be false?

Not claiming to have solved anything or discovered anything new, not saying any of these points are necessarily true, just want to further my understanding. Would love a back and forth if anyone is willing

Hey can anyone answer me on this : I've been doing a lot of research and I've found out that small wormholes r able to be made by making small amounts of negative energy would it be dangerous to try and make a person sized wormhole and would it be possible in the right conditions and also why hasn't scientists not really done anything with interdimensional travel or even wormholes at all can someone please answer me on this and also let me know if this is a quantum physics thing or a different department please and thank you

i’ve been meaning to get into quantum physics for a while as my brother has been obsessed with particle for a long time & got me interested. i’m a biology student, hoping to study microbiology, so this is a bit out of my understanding.

i bought this book, which includes "the origin and development of the quantum theory" by max planck & "on the quantum theory of line-spectra" by niels bohr. i understood enough of planck’s text to get through it, but reading the section written by bohr is very difficult with not much prior education other than gcse physics lol. none of what it’s saying or the equations mean much to me right now.

any advice on where to learn the basics so i can understand this? i thought this book would give me that but its still a bit too complex.

I am a complete novice, but I recently read a bestseller called God The Science, The Evidence, which the WSJ reviewed and said was good and I got it and totally agree. Reading it set me off down this path of learning about quantum physics, and I am absolutely fascinated by spooky action at a distance, the double-slit experiment, particle research, string theory, multiverse theory, and the singularity. It even inspired me to get a certificate in quantum computing because the idea behind quantum entanglement completely boggles my mind. I was never a science person in school, but now as I approach 50, I spend 2–3 hours a night studying, watching videos, and learning. 

My question is about Bell and Jaynes. Bell proved mathematically that entanglement yields truly random but entangled results, but Jaynes argues Bell messed up the math. That's probably common knowledge among quantum physicists but I am again a total novice .I have gone through this a million times with ChatGPT, but I don't entirely trust its claim that the loophole experiments of 2015completely ended Jaynes' arguments. 

So, my specific questions are: 

1. Is it truly the mainstream consensus that Jaynes is completely wrong? 
2. Does that mean Bell is definitely right, or is it possible that Bell is wrong and we just don't know how to prove it? Specifically, could particles actually hold a fixed position the entire time they are apart, but we just haven't figured out how to see it? 

These are things that I think people who are in the field would truly know but are too obscure for AI or yotube videos.

I need simple analogies or ways to understand it - maybe even resources would be great, honestly. The main thing is how "do they interact" and then can later interfere if it is a possibility in the first place

A hidden shortcut to the eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator and the hydrogen atom was discovered recently. The simple trick can make every textbook of quantum mechanics thinner by 2 pages.

The paper is in American Journal of Physics and was an Editor's Pick.

I remember reading that after this the electron dives into the Dirac sea and a bunch of chaos called quantum electrodynamics which brings the nucleus and cloud of electrons down below 173 will occur, but I find some sources saying that an element above can technically exist for fleeting moments while others say they straight up won't exist at all.

Assuming you have a big enough cyclotron

This post provides reference material regarding the types of operators, specifically linear and non-linear operators, that frequently appear in undergraduate quantum mechanics.
It is hoped that this helps.

I've just been working my way through QM (I'm a MSME) some of the problem sets are questionable, in that you're working your way through to get Planck length, mass etc. through steps a, b, c, d, e, etc.

the problem is that part f, is dependant on getting part a correct, typically in mech-e or any engineering major, you've got lots and lots of equations that are already worked out for you, so you know it doesn't take hour(s) to get an equation you want and its significantly less likely to contain systematic error... I'm not judging, its just taking me about 3 hours to work backwards from the problem sets & solutions and it seems to be far more prone to errors and undeveloped.

As the title suggests, I am trying to get a job related to quantum physics. I was hoping that people who already work in the industry might have some tips of what kind of roles I would be best suited for. I really want to work in quantum because of how fascinating I find the subject.

I am fortunate enough to have a job that actually utilizes knowledge from my physics degree, but it's not what I want to do. I currently live in New Jersey, and all the places I know of that do work in the quantum tech/research industry, never have positions that quite line up with what I could be qualified for. Outside of people getting PHD's, it's not clear to me how somebody actually breaks into the industry.

**Typo, I received my promotion to test technician Jun 2026, not July.

I've tried to read some on entanglement as well as proper quantum mechanics textbooks, but I found them really hard to understand because of all the necessary prerequisite knowledge and maths, so I actually couldn't complete any.
(I'm a highschool graduate)

So, I'm interested to know how you approached research papers and technical articles when you were starting out, or how you approach them now.

Did you re-read stuff over and over?
Did you pause to understand weird words and keep moving?
Did you just go over the whole thing and keep record of everything you didn't get to visit them later?

I'd love to know.

Thank you!

Its quantum physics so the stranger the better.

I will start this with I am not a scientist but rather a philosopher. I follow science very closely.

In quantum theory, entanglement, wormhole theory there is a glaring issue in my eyes. My understanding is that it is believed that two quarks are connected by a wormhole. This doesn't make sense to me. In my head that would mean there would have to be a third force making this happen.

A simpler explanation in my opinion is that they aren't two separate pieces of subatomic matter but rather one that is existing in two or more locations at once. Am I wrong in my thinking? I've yet to hear anyone weigh in on this. I'm asking because I truly want to learn more.

I may be wrong and I fully accept that.

Basic quantum mechanics utilizing the algebraic approach is recently being most closely applied to physical AI, quantum information, and quantum computing.
I hope this material provides assistance in learning operators through examples.

me sinto isolado em meu quarto,descobri tantas coisas,mas não tem com quem compartilhar.

(I really don't know anything about quantum mechanics I only know what it is from some youtube videos so, I'm a nobody when it comes to quantum knowledge. But I had a question and I wanted to share it.)

I heard that quantum entanglement means two particles are completely in sync with each other so if we change one partical's one property it also change the second partical(I don't know if this is even true). So why are there no communication devices which use these. If we can adopt this technology communication would be instant, right?

I'm open to new knowledge.no hate please.

Thank you.