can we combine boundary conditions in quantom mechanics?
110904
No. you may count yourself lucky to have these conditions because with these you are able to get an unique solution ψ.\nBut there are 4 main conditions:\n\nNorm: |ψ| := 1\n\nContinuity of ψ\n\nContinuity of ψ'    (only for finite potentials)\n\nLimit: ψ(x) -> 0 for x -> ∞
499857
The quantum for sound is called a phonon. It represents a vibrational state of your system.\n\nYour first phrase 'H is the quantum of energy time' is gobbledegook. Usually, H denotes the hamiltonian and is the energy operator and the infinitesimal generator of time translations.\n\nNext, being quantized and having a quantum are not the same thing. The mass states are quantized, as in comming only in discrete values. There is not a single particle that all the rest are mad eout of. In fact, most quantized quantities do not have corresponding particles.
121167
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/surten.html
161194
Biot-Savart Law. Look it up.
31466
Mit has open courseware on their website.  They've been videotaping the classes, but they don't have this for the quantum physics classes yet.  If you just want basic information, then you can check out some of the other physics.
1138753
This is a natural question if you think in terms of classical physics.  In fact, it's an even bigger problem than at first glance because, in classical physics, a charged object which accelerates will radiate energy.  So, in classical physics, all electrons would be expected to spiral in to the nucleus.  This puzzle cannot be addressed without quantum mechanics.\n\nHere's a very simple explanation.  It's not mathematically exact, but it carries the important concepts, and does give an answer fairly close to the mathematically correct one.\n\nFor simplicity, we'll consider hydrogen.  A single proton, no neutrons, and one electron.  There are no competing electrons to push each other apart, it really looks as if the best situation is for the electron to be squeezed right into the proton.\n\nRecall that in quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves.  Let's look at the electron that way.  What's the wavelength of this electron wave?  Well, we can't really say exactly, but a good approximation would be the wavelength is about the same as the width of the space in which you constrain the electron.  Put the electron in a large space, and it has a large wavelength.  Put it in a tiny space, and its wavelength is much smaller.  Ah, but remember, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, and the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.\n\nNow, you have two competing effects.  If the electron goes in very close to the proton, and stays there, then it will be lowering its electrostatic energy.  But to do that, it has to confine itself to an extremely small volume, which will give it a very high "wavelength energy".  It seems natural that there's a middle point somewhere such that if the electron got closer to the proton, its wavelength energy would increase faster than its electrostatic energy would decrease.  This sets a minimum distance for the electron from the proton.  It actually needs more energy to get closer to the proton after that.  So, the place the electron winds up is actually its lowest energy state, it's stable there, and doesn't require any injection of energy to maintain this position.\n\nAs I said, this is very non-mathematical, but it gives you an idea of what's happening in the quantum mechanics which explain the effect.
943753
Inorder to relate brain mechanics to physics you would have to use the quantium electrodynamics or the theory of electrostatic "Like studying how the processor works" but instead of electrons you can use neurons (how various sections of the brain handle data or signals and what part of the body they affect if signal transmission is ineffective) \n\nRealy hope you find an answer I would realy want to know your progress good luck!
353539
For recent physics and maths preprints, try here\n\nhttp://lanl.arxiv.org/\n\nor one of it's mirror sites
509589
Yes, there are. If you move an object by half an atom's width, the smooth movements added together still make a quantum leap. If there were no quantum leaps, then there could be no space-time, since everything would be constricted to nothing.
443144
you should try this site http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/SolvingProblems.html
247359
Mass interacting with gravity
36589
That previous answer is wrong.  The reconciliation between classical physics and quantum mechanics is intrinsic to quantum mechanics itself.  One thing we require of quantum mechanics is that, in the limit of large quantum numbers, we recover classical mechanics.  Schrodinger, Ehrenfest and some others demonstrated from the outset that quantum mechanics does indeed give rise to classical mechanics in such a limit.\n\nString theory is, rather, an attempt to reconcile the general theory of relativity with the standard model for particle physics.  For the most part, string theory is an attempt to do two things: 1) Provide a quantum theory of gravity 2) Provide an account of physics which explains both gravity and the standard model of particle physics (when dealing with particle physics at our current level of understanding, we have to introduce the effects of gravity by hand.  The standard model of particle physics and the general theory of relativity are completely separate theories right now).\n\nBefore going further, it's probably a good idea to make sure that everyone understands what a dimension is.  Think of a piece of thread with a black dot painted on it somewhere.  To find that dot, I really only need to know how far it is from the end of the thread in inches.  It requires one number to find anything on a piece of thread, so we say that the thing is one dimensional.  A piece of paper has length and width, so it's two dimensional.  To find something on a cube, for example, I need 3 coordinates.  Finally, if I were to ask you to meet me for dinner, I'd need to supply you with a location (which takes 3 numbers) and a time (which is another).  At first appearance, our universe seems to be 4 dimensional.\n\nIn string theory, we define something called a Planck length by taking the sqaure root of the quantity obtained by multiplying the gravitational constant by Planck's constant and then dividing by the cube of the speed of light.  We actually know all three of these, and we obtain something like 1.61 x 10^(-33)cm as the Planck length.\n\nNow, once the mathematics behind the central hypothesis of string theory have been developed, we can actually derive values for the gravitational constant.  As a strange artifact of the mathematics, this value changes based off of how many spatial dimensions the universe is made out of.  There is no comparing, for example, a four dimensional gravitational constant to a five dimensional constant because their units are different.  We can, however compare Planck lengths, which always carry units of centimeters.  I'll come back to this in a second.\n\nIn order for this superstring business to work, someone had to work out the way they vibrate.  For whatever reason, they use the Ramanujan function to do this, and it spits out the number 10 as the number of dimensions required for string vibrations.  As for your question, the 11 dimensions were part of a previous theory (called supergravity), and it has since been roundly disproven.  The current developments of string theory call for 10 dimensions.\n\nThe problem is the Planck length... it's one we get out of four dimensional spacetime, not 10 dimensional spacetime.  If string theory is right, then somehow our universe is 10 dimensional, and looks 4 dimensional.  How can this be?\n\nThink of a cardboard tube, but one that's actually hundreds of miles long.  Up close, you need two numbers to tell where a small dot of ink might lie on the surface of this tube.  From far away, though, you wouldn't really be able to distinguish between a tube and a very thin piece of string, and you'd begin to talk only about where something lies with respect to the end of the tube, and you'd only need one number.  It's possible that space has this kind of topology, with several small dimensions, and that's why it looks 4 dimensional, but might actually have more dimensions than that.\n\nThere is no experimental verifi
505660
I guess that the simplest answer to this would be: 'Yes, everything is quantized.' However, unfortunately this is one of the biggest problems in modern physics. No-one is really sure how it should be quantized but the idea of quantized time as well as quantized space and quantized gravity is part of the elusive theory of quantum gravity
47937
"god does not play dice" has been attributed to eintein but he was in fact misquoted on that issue. quantum mechanics and relativity being unified is the most important thing physics has been looking for since the discovery of quantum mechanics.It is unnerving that one set of laws applies to all matter but at a microscopic level a completely diderent set of "rules" apply
215021
Quantum mechanics is the wave particle duality.  \n\nQuantum mechanics defines particles as waves that are governed by the schodinger wave equation.  (or Dirac equation)\n\none of the results of quantum mechanics is that if you define a particle to exist at a single point then in a few moments it will begin to spread out in to a wave such that it exists over a small volume.\n\n\nNote added after seeing the answer below... \n\nThe Heisenberg Uncertanty Principle is found as a consequence of quantum theory
512226
If there is a quantum for time, it must be on the order of 10 to the minus fortieth power seconds, the time required for the smallest particle interaction between two particles that are separated by the theoretical diameter of the smaller of the two-- in other words, they are already nearly touching. Nothing shorter than that could be measured. Whether time is quantized, that is, whether it goes in discrete steps, multiples of the above unit, we do not yet know.
836806
Are you referencing the time dependency of the Schroedinger equation?  Or are you implying quantization of time?