according classical view ,above mentioned values is calculted but I would like to know these values according to quantum.
119121
proton radius = 2 x 10^(-16)m\nelectron radius = 2.817940285 x 10^(-15)m
363019
I found X.  It is right in front of the ?\n\nI think that what you believe to be the value of X is also what I think about the imagination of the people who posted the following.  Thanks for adding to my list.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=Apmq_.hERAjJ7oLEmCZLdsEjzKIX?qid=1006040601312\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=ApehPmyXrBDiVbvXoaAUoBkjzKIX?qid=1006012405311\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AuYvVkm2FuuEnkXAxhv7H6ojzKIX?qid=1006042414796\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AlTkJo2lkPejzTI0bDnkMqIjzKIX?qid=20060909154312AATEBpz\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=ApN9sEMM28MHkA_vH6XK7EsjzKIX?qid=1006013010415\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AvL4qWl22bVT.6SvRkNL20MjzKIX?qid=20060611231741AAT6Umg\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=ArIrpvEbLZGe10UGUcyX9q8jzKIX?qid=1006040513133\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=Ai_Yp3YVHrIv_sps8mrdsLkjzKIX?qid=20060619124924AA9y7ww\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AqY3p57fbV4YRC3z699c0hUjzKIX?qid=1006031514517\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=Antx58lvGy6USSq04b69FeEjzKIX?qid=20060803070419AASqp83\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AlG2R1zJEQCH0g5yYcd5PrQjzKIX?qid=1006020706760\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AjIAz7nYxFNt.XaEnu5tWlsjzKIX?qid=1005122402394\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AlfQ2T5Xx9CHgdTXkSAn1ZQjzKIX?qid=1006032008690\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AuGVJPrZ6F29eC5Lnw9x3KIjzKIX?qid=1006052329295\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AjINH6a1jmravo6q54cc2awjzKIX?qid=20060710114620AA81Ct6\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AnYtW.lJ5J9QXOzeKl45kVgjzKIX?qid=1006043024244\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=Am8k.X_YPy6SVRVlDrJW6hgjzKIX?qid=1006021106437\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AsxKyvTJCJ2Mri0WyG78AhsjzKIX?qid=1005123102716\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=As_4eOB6Pa1Swe1QKRzbZfEjzKIX?qid=1006040309767\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt=AqNb7svYM7Da9CiRp9XqlocjzKIX?qid=1006031501175\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoPVIBF8CgzpqJddQ2pukzEjzKIX?qid=20061016171444AARISR0\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsDfFnkfbBEhvwdO2UhNiksjzKIX?qid=20061020201152AANV3K4\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvUMyPB.Mvhb6iz0xUxTT3IjzKIX?qid=20061019071741AA6ATaj\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoR_pWjmV7AR17DYIJubGJgjzKIX?qid=20061029115414AAgQRAd\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap_fN_LiwUl8IlZzaZXa_8QjzKIX?qid=20061101174924AAsjnZf\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjtBGiC9otkPClr4WKAGjhMjzKIX?qid=20061030085926AA47rRt\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtDzRP73zG4NaEJcxpePkVsjzKIX?qid=20061031225359AAesSen\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkTtldS_TFLncSM9gkKrIIwjzKIX?qid=20061103122304AAyFLKJ\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhiSBmKy.HqSbNOspH.w9kYjzKIX?qid=20061107013950AAKInc4\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuGYkAWzTWZN_N3lws_fXugjzKIX?qid=20061106133704AAp1Q4V
493301
You might try asking this question under "Mathematics."
496459
Try here for the basics on quantum weirdness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics\n\nHowever, if your boyfriend knows the basics I'm sure he would be happy to teach you! For some reason, smart guys love teaching beautiful girls things.\n\nDon't feel bad if it does not quite make sense; it probably never will (and does not ake conceptual sense to most people who work on it: most have to use advanced math to figure out what will happen). You may find this paradox an interesting topic to think about and impress bf with: http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html\n\nAlthough I don't recommend that link if either you or bf are animal lovers.
51367
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29\nfor the significance of e and how it is used, use this link
375970
Wow, I have a test on this tomorrow =D\n\nWell, ground state is basically saying that it is a nuetral atom.  Are you stating for the location of the electron, so for Calcium -\nStarting from the beginning...\n\n1s^2\n2s^22p^2p^2p^2\n3s^23p^2p^2p^2\n4s^2\nOr the Abbreviated [Ar] 4s^2\n\nEdit -  I guess I should clarify what each symbol means...\nThe first quantum number is the energy level, going from 1-7\nThe second quantum number, or in this case, letter, states the type of orbit that the electron follows, the letters are s p d f\nThe third quantum number is an extension of number 2, basically, there is always s (1), ppp (3) , ddddd (5), ffffffffffffff (14), and refers to the different orientations of that orbit, so for f, there are 14 different ways it can be presented around the nucleus,\nThe Fourth quantum number states how many electrons are present in the orbit. So the 4th is the 2 in 1s^2, saying the level is full, for there can only be two electrons occupying each energy orbit.\n\nFor absorption, an electron enters the excited state, where it jumps an energy level, when it recieves energy.  This is absorption. For emission, it occures after absorption, in which an electron leaves the excited state, through emitting a photon, a kind of energy, thus why it is emission.  It then drops an energy level, eventually to the ground state.\n\nFor the light spectrum, the black lines show the photon signature that the electron releases.  When it releases the energy in the form of a photon, it can be seen as light on the spectrum, and if the wave length of the emission is correct, it can be visable. The black lines just indicate the wave length of the emitted photon. For example, when electron in potassium leave the excited state while burning, they give off a purplish pinkish light. That's their signature.\n\nFor the excited state, that's explained in emission and absorption.\n\nThe flaw in Bohr's model? Well, electron do not travel in set paths.  Bohr's model illustrated exact paths according to energy levels. the flaw was that it was only possible in the Hydrogen atom. In other atoms, the electrons' negative charges oppose each other and throw the other out.  It only works in hydrogen because there only is one electron.  In truth, electron travel a more random path within their energy levels, more sporadic, but in a basic area, or orbit.  This pattern is called the electron cloud, because of the uncertainty on where an electron will be at any given time.\n\nWoo, thanks for the warm-up on my test tomorrow. Good luck!
246963
Don't understand your question. Did you proof read it? I bet you didn't, did you? \n\nDo you mean 'is quantum theory able to define a quantum of a quantum?'?\n\nIf so, the answer is no. A quantum is by definition the smallest step unit. The smallest unit of energy is h bar, which equals h over 2pi.
24896
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
228331
A good website on quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics\n\nAlso, if you are intrigued by the cosmological theory of the universe, The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin is an excellent read.
297417
You're question seems a bit confused, but I'll try to answer what I see you as asking. First, if the Pauli principle doesn't hold, the particles are Bosons. This means that they will tend to congregate in the same state, subject to the requirments of statistical mechanics (temperature is relevant).\n\nNext, the classical equilibrium will correspond to a range of quantum states. These will be populated to various degrees. The distribution will be determined by Bose-Einstein statistics. Any *other* distribution of states will be a non-equilibrium situation. So, no, the system is not always in equilibrium. The fact that the particles are indistinguisable individually doesn't mean that they are in the same state.
866
C = A - B = infinity - infinity = undefined :-), not 0.\n\nIf you have the specific series for A and B, then you could technically substitute them into C and figure out C for different {A,B}.\n\nThe short answer is this: not all infinity series are the same, so their difference is really not zero.
584028
Yikes, I'll try, but it's tricky even for me!  And I've read a lot about it because it fascinates me!\n\nOK, the idea is that you have a cat in a box.  The cat is not visible to you, the experimenter.  In this box is a small amount of radioactive material and a geiger counter.  If one atom decays even the tiniest amount and the geiger counter catches this, a tiny flask of poison is broken and the cat is killed.  The "weird" part (hah) comes in here.  Whether or not the atom decays is strictly a probability issue.  However, using quantum mechanics, the cat would neither be alive nor dead until someone opened up the box to give it a "label" - to observe it and quantify it as alive or dead.  It would exist in a state of "alive/dead"ness, sort of.  \n\nSchrodinger used this as a way of pointing out that sometimes quantum mechanics just doesn't work for a given situation.
444551
hi\np=(qm)/n\ny=x+(b/m) or x+(bq/np)
657133
maybe this can help\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Learning
541345
1) heinsenbergs uncertainity principle\n2)paulings exclution principle\n3)photons(i think so)
407085
that would be if it was an indefinite integral\nbut in the case of definite one, it would be the difference of the values of the function at the limits of the integral.
360761
Say---you could hurt someones brain with a question like that. ROTF-----Good luck hope you can find the real answer. seems like an unknown value without some kind of meter.