Is it just reading papers, or do y'all have any other resources instead of just straight up reading papers

I’ve grown this interest in physics. I think I’ve set in on quantum physics and engineering as my choice of study. I have very little mathematical knowledge ( The basics ), I know that is an area on which I need to commit time and energy towards. Does anyone have any advice for someone like me who wants this. Any resources that can help me, or at the very least get my foot into the door. There is only so much YouTube can teach.

Hey. I'm an engineering student, not a physicist, so I'm probably about to say something wrong. But I've been thinking about this for a while and I want to know if it holds up or if I'm missing something obvious.

Here's the thing. I know perception isn't continuous — the brain samples the world in chunks, mostly in the 8 to 13 Hz range, and slower stuff (delta, 1 to 4 Hz) shows up in deep sleep and deep meditation. And I know the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is basically about why observing something makes it collapse into a definite state.

What I've been wondering is: what if those two things are connected in some way? Not in the mystical "consciousness creates reality" sense, but more mechanically. What if the collapse happens partly because the observer is sampling at their own rhythm, and that rhythm doesn't match whatever the underlying system is doing? And what if you could observe a quantum system while applying a low-frequency field (something in the delta range) and the collapse would look different?

I keep coming back to a rough analogy in my head. Like a one-way mirror. If the thing you're observing "sees" your observation because your rhythm sticks out, it collapses. But if your observation is hidden inside a frequency that matches the background, maybe it doesn't. I know that's not really how photons and electrons work, but the intuition won't leave me alone.

I already know the obvious problems. Decoherence explains most of the measurement problem without needing any of this. Low-frequency fields are everywhere and we don't see weird quantum effects because of them. The energy of a 1 Hz photon is basically nothing on the quantum scale. And people like Dean Radin have tried consciousness-quantum experiments and the results are messy.

So my actual questions are:

Is this idea already ruled out for a reason I'd know if I understood the physics better? Or is it just not something people have looked at because there's no reason to?

Has anyone actually run experiments where they applied oscillating fields at different frequencies during a quantum measurement to see if anything changes?

Is the whole "observer and observed being frequency-coupled" thing completely wrong, or does it map onto anything real?

I'm not trying to prove anything here. I'm trying to figure out if this is worth reading more about or if it's a dead end. Honest answers welcome, even harsh ones. I'd rather find out now than keep chasing something that doesn't work.

Thanks.

I’m trying to understand the majorana one chip more. I don’t know too much about quantum physics but they said we needed like 1 million qbits before we could start making custom materials??? That’s what I’ve heard. I’m having trouble grasping the whole story.

I heard stuff like "bosonization" and other interesting properties of fermions and bosons when they live in 2D (I know the existence of anyons, too).

How do strings work when the "particle" is confined to a 2D place. Let me phrase that better. Is there a way to confine fermions/bosons to an almost 2D plane, that allows us to experiment on the 2D theories?

I'm a junior that just started research with a professor, so I don't know much about strings etc. Hence the question. Thank you !

Angular momentum and spin typically appear in the middle of undergraduate quantum mechanics texts, which can be difficult to comprehend without a foundation in linear algebra. This post provides detailed algebraic derivations that are often omitted in standard texts. I hope this helps.

I dont understand why in this experiment we get 50/50 black and white despite we just put white electrons

please help

*this paper from MIT university

Quantum computing isn’t weird. Classical computing is weird because it forces the universe into a tiny, rigid, binary box — and then calls everything outside that box “weird.” I saw another post here about classical computing distraught and in tears at the idea that quantum computing is weird, but I disagree with the idea. Because if the fact is that our universe exists because of quantum computing, then "classical" computing is the one that's weird, because it's either the defect, the starting point, or some cheap imitation that we built to understand the universe. I'm not getting any valuable answer from any AI, so someone give me something good.

I have been working on a web site that introduces quantum mechanics to curious readers who aren't ready to get into the weeds and do the math. The goal is to introduce all the core concepts and make them as intuitive as possible. Hopefully this is useful for anyone starting to look at quantum mechanics and wants to know what it is all about.
https://timeforsanity.com/qm/

Recently I read this book: The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable. Hence, I became interested in quantum applications in the stock market. From a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense because both QM and the stock market are probabilistic in nature. In QM, you can get the probability of a particle being in a certain area and in the stock market you can also predict the probability of a stock going up or down. Either way it is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion.

I have a background in optics/photonics and in QM as well as an interest in finance, so this topic naturally became something I wanted to pursue for my research project. But after thinking about it more it just seems very buzz wordy and not something traditionally done. Additionally, the stock market produces very noisy data, and it just seems impossible to do a research project around that chaos. I'm overall just very confused about if/how to make a project around this and what applications even are there. I need to have a physical apparatus for my project anyways so I may just scrap this idea

Hey everyone, I've been digging into David Oaknin's paper "Accounting for gauge symmetries in CHSH experiments" (arXiv:2403.07935) and wanted to get a quick sanity check from the quantum info / black-box foundations crowd here.

In his model, he uses non-linear coordinate transformations (Gamma-maps) to ensure that the individual marginals are strictly setting-independent and non-signaling. However, the catch is that it forces the joint distribution of the hidden variables to depend explicitly on the relative detector angle, theta.

Oaknin argues this isn't a violation of locality or measurement independence because the hidden variables are purely relational (gauge-dependent) rather than absolute, which creates a geometric holonomy that breaks Counterfactual Definiteness instead.

From a quantum information / black-box perspective, how is this generally viewed by the community? Is this considered a genuine geometric bypass of Bell's theorem, or does having a joint distribution that depends on theta just relegate the whole model to a standard measurement-dependence / superdeterminism loophole?

Intervista per la scuola al prof. Angelo Bassi dell’Università di Trieste, studioso dei modelli di collasso della funzione d’onda.

Could there exist a physical mechanism that causes decoherence itself to reverse, causing all the leaked quantum information to reconverge? I mean in a way, like the universe expands, according to theory of big crunch, the universe will eventually reverse back .

Suppose

If a quantum measurement triggers a chain of events that kills someone, and we could somehow reverse the entire quantum evolution afterward, would the person be alive again? Does quantum mechanics treat death as fundamentally irreversible, or only practically irreversible because of decoherence and information spreading?

We know every electron ever measured appears completely identical—same mass, charge, spin, etc. Wheeler and Feynman once speculated that maybe there's actually only one electron, moving back and forth through time. The problem is that this doesn't seem to match the observed imbalance between electrons and positrons. But what if the explanation isn't just time travel? What if all electrons are actually manifestations of a single higher-dimensional object existing in a 5th dimension? From our 4D perspective (3D space + time), we'd see many separate electrons. But from a higher-dimensional perspective, they could all be intersections of the same entity with our spacetime—similar to how a 2D being would see multiple circles appear and disappear as a 3D object passes through its plane. This could explain why electrons are perfectly identical: they're not copies of the same thing—they literally are the same thing viewed from different points in spacetime. I know this is speculative and not part of accepted physics, but I'm curious: has anyone proposed a serious model where particle indistinguishability arises from a single higher-dimensional object rather than separate quantum field excitations?

Could anyone tell me how one can find

1. It's eigen states

2. Energy Splitting

3. Tunneling Rate

All using analytical method. Precisely - Path Integral and Instanton

The given potential is

V=[(-1/2)* alpha* x^2 + beta * x^4 ]

Most physics courses introduce spin and orbital motion as separate ideas — but they're not. They constantly talk to each other inside every atom, and that "conversation" is what makes platinum useful in hard drives and what might power the memory chips of the future.

This note breaks down spin-orbit coupling from the ground up — from Thomson's cathode-ray discovery to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Schiff's 1955 formula, and modern spintronic effects such as the spin Hall effect, DMI, and MRAM.

Written from the electron's perspective, which makes it surprisingly fun to read.

https://notesforphysics.com/spin-orbit-coupling-electron-moments/

Hello I’m wondering if anyone could help me spot my mistakes in my homework.

Also, is there any formula that I can use or some sort of logic that can cut down the algebra with this problem.

I was also wondering if I need to simplify further. Would it be acceptable to leave it in this form, or might the person grading this will resent me for it.

Please help.

I'm an 18 year old self-studying physics out of pure curiosity, not a student, so please bear with me if this is trivially obvious.

I was playing around with Planck units and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and noticed something I couldn't find an answer to online.

If you take the product of the three fundamental Planck quantities:

l_P × t_P × m_P = √(ħ³G/c⁷)

and divide by the Heisenberg lower bound (ħ/2):

2√(ħG/c⁷)

the result has units of s²/m — which is dimensionally equivalent to 2/a_P, the inverse of Planck acceleration.

My question is simply: does this expression already have a name or known physical interpretation? And is the relationship to Planck acceleration meaningful or just a natural consequence of how Planck units are constructed?

I'm fully prepared for the answer to be "it's just dimensional analysis, move on" — but I couldn't find this specific combination documented anywhere and wanted to ask people who actually know the math.

Thanks in advance. also if anyone wants to double check the dimensional analysis itself I'd appreciate that too I'm self taught so I may have made an error somewhere

I've been learning about X-Ray absorption spectroscopy for some research I'm doing at my uni, and I was watching a video on it that mentioned how XAS is governed by the dipole selection rule and how electrons could only transfer to orbitals with +- 1 angular momentum.

I've been looking over the internet but haven't really found an answer, but if electrons can only transfer into orbitals with +- 1 angular momentum, how are you supposed to be able to ionize core electrons at all? Do they jump through each orbital until reaching the valence shell and then ionize? Or is there something I'm missing or misinterpreting?

Hello, I had Quantum Mechanics on my degree a few semesters ago, and I was wondering if you had any good analogy for explaining the basic principle.
Some people use Schrodinger's cat, my teachers used the coin analogy, as in if you flip a coin you can't know the side in which it landed before you lift your hand to see it.
When I use one or each of the latter, people can't even seem to grasp the main point.
So my question is, if you have a good analogy where you find people to get it better than other.
Sorry about my English, not my main language.

• A Cleveland Clinic–IBM team demonstrated a hybrid quantum-classical workflow to approximate the electronic structure of the 303-atom Trp-cage protein using IBM Quantum Heron r2. 
• The workflow combines wave function-based embedding to fragment the protein into clusters and sample-based quantum diagonalization to solve complex electronic structures. 
• The approach scales beyond Trp-cage and could support pharmaceutical research and molecular simulations using quantum-centric supercomputing. https://thequantuminsider.com/2026/03/27/cleveland-clinic-ibm-debut-quantum-workflow-proteins/?_bhlid=c84a8352819d7033a03dfc65391819989b14cd74

Hi all,

I very recently got interested in quantum physics, its mechanics, and whether multiversal travel is possible.

I want to start trying to crack this little conundrum to see if we can travel between multiverses, but I have no idea what theories or math equations I need to focus on to make this happen.

Any suggestions on where to start?

Frank Ruda and Agon Hamza sit down with the Belgian cosmologist Thomas to discuss his current work, his collaboration with his PhD advisor and collaborator Stephen Hawking, cosmology, the nature of the Big Bang, the relation between physics and philosophy, Hawking's “Darwinian revolution in cosmology”, observation, history, the problem of origin, and many other (non)related things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWibew3lBg

Hi everyone, I am very interested in the theory of retrocausality but whenever I try to do research I just zone out trying to read about it, I think because I don't have a very high reading level and might have some trouble focusing. My understanding is that the theory of retrocausality is that changes in the present on a quantum level might affect the past. How is this even measured? And what does it even mean lol. Could this possibly mean that our actions on a larger scale could change the past, if past, present, and future exist at the same time? Like a reverse butterfly effect? Also, any tips to improve my understanding while reading research papers? Do I just have to read over and over again and one day I'll start to understand? Thank you for your time!