In simple to understand  terms, can someone explain to me what Quantum Mechanics is?
340809
Quantum Physics tries to explain the mIcrocosm…the atomic and subatomic level of the world. Einstein focused more on the mAcrocosm; hence, his theory of relativity. Even though the equations that Einstein came up with work on the mAcrocosm (motion of planets and behavior of light and gravity)…they don’t work on the subatomic level (electrons and quasars and such). And those that work on the subatomic level, can not be applied to the mAcrocosm. BUT, and this is important: you must remember that the microcosm FORMS the macrocosm and the macrocosm can not exist without its microcosm blueprint (sort of like cells together making ‘the body’). You would THINK that the microcosm world would ‘mirror’ the laws of the macrocosm world that it FORMULATES…but apparently they don’t…and there lies the conundrum…and that is why no one so far has been able to come up with ONE equation that can apply to both worlds! For example in this mAcrocosm that you and I readily and directly experience; cause PRECEDES effect…in other words, you hit the glass (cause) and it falls and shatters (effect)…in the subatomic world, that is not the case. In the subatomic world, effect PRECEDES the cause or is simultaneous with it! Also, in this ‘BIG’ world, things don’t happen (come to being) through thought or intention alone…you must exert an effort for them to occur (like building a bridge…you have to physically carry materials and put them together…etc.) In the mIcrocosm, there is something called the ‘observer effect’ which means, depending on the observer’s thoughts / expectations (most cases the scientist observing the experiment) the outcome is determined. For example, if you observe light as a ‘particle’ it acts like a particle. If you observe it as a wave; it acts like a wave, but never both ‘at the same time’. That’s another ‘conundrum’ of quantum physics…is light a wave or a particle since it acts like both. Yes, I know! Quantum physics is a fascinating subject. I urge you read up on it. ‘Other Worlds’ by Paul Davies is a GREAT book to begin with…followed by Brian Greene’s ‘The Elegant Universe’ which is ‘slightly’ harder to follow; but both are worth the read :)
251335
It can be "explained" with quantum mechanics. If you can find the movies of the lectures given by Richard Feynmen in New Zealand, there are 4 lectures if I am correct, In the first lecture he explains it very well in Laymans terms.\n\nIt takes a fair bit of explanation so I won't attemp to relate it here.
1046533
The first website gives a good overview with no math, if you already understand light/waves/atoms skip to the part that I put in paranthesis.\nThe third site is a more advanced and goes more into the consequences.  In case we have different ideas of what laymen are.\nHere's a quick summary:\nquantum entanglement is when one photon of light is split into two equal photons of opposite polarity (direction of the wave disturbance) .  The two photons seem to be linked in a way that is currently innexplicable but demonstratable using interference patterns.  Which I hope you don't consider techno babble, but if you do, just ask what interference patterns are and I'll answer that, too.  That's a quick expanations of what's happening.\nUnless you mean why, the last site does a pretty good job of explaining that we don't really know, but we're trying pretty hard to figure it out.  There are many theories right now.  It'll go over a couple of them.(it's really an excellent paper.  I don't know what level of physics education you have, but it was perfect for me.I'm not a physicist, I'm a chemist.)
453143
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
424637
well optimization is used by companies to get the most amount for their money. (highest volume using lowest surface area). theres differential equations that model population and waves and transients in circuits. \nif you wantto be technical, then quantum mechanics describes everything using a differnetial equation (schrodinger wave eq).\num 1 of the easiest would be measuring speed and acceleration. as in if you know your position over time, then you can find your speed by differentiating and acceleration by differentiating again.\n\nlook in any calculus text book at the questions and there are a lot that give you a real world situation. i dunno. hope that helped.
264708
Science : May be uncertainty principle in quantum effect. \nMaths : Probability theory
1036198
Orbitals are solutions to the schrodinger wave equation, quantum mechanics, taking into account translation, number, and rotation, letter.  The rotational levels, s p d f, are from the symmetry of the solutions.  With lower levels of translational energy the higher symmetries do not exist.\n\nsee the source from "Solution of Schrödinger equation: Overview of results" and down for a true mathematical explaination.
836806
Are you referencing the time dependency of the Schroedinger equation?  Or are you implying quantization of time?
1047147
hmmm... \n\nWell the book that got me turned on to physics was "The source book on atomic energy"\n\nThis book starts off at newton and goes up to the nuclear reactors and basicly every thing that was known about nuclear technoolgy at the time (the book is about 50 years old).  It is not quantum mechanics, but it is modern physics.  And modern physics is the start to quantum.  It will give you ALL the backround that you need to know to start to really learn quantum. Also it is very easy to read (I read it the summer after my freshman year in college)  \n\nanother serise of book (also not quite to hard quantum yet) are the "Mr Tompkins" series.  he describes things like the atom and relitivity very well and in a hands on approch.  \n\n\nNow for quantum... I did read one decent book, but i can not remeber what it was.  Just go to your local library and do a search for quantum mechanics and pick up the shortest paper back you can find.  they are all written by very smart people and they are writen so that every on can under stand them.  \n\nI am sorry I did not help to much with a Quantum book, but the other two books that I recomended are very good and will put you directely on the right path towards understanding modern physics,  and you can not understand quantum with out understanding modern (actualy there is usualy a bit of quantum is modern physics classes)
704188
Quantum Physics is the Science and Study of Atomic Particles, the most basic of which is the Electron, the Proton and the Neutron, and the futher study of the constituent parts of those particles, Quarks, Muons, Gluons, etc etc etc.\n\nThe Standard Model is the best way to learn these particles. There is (apparently) no rhyme or reason as to the why's and wherefor's of the Standard Model - meaning that nobody knows WHY the weights are what they are, nobody knows why the numbers shake out the way they do and the particles organize themselves the way they do - this is one of the last great mysteries of Physics that modern M-Theory (String or SuperString Theory) is attempting to answer.\n\nHere's a good link or three\n\nOf them all, I would recommend the Wiki as a great place to start... Take notes, it's fairly complex, you can do it!
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
908776
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) refers to an indivisible entity of energy. For instance, a photon, being a unit of light, is a "light quantum." In combinations like "quantum mechanics", "quantum optics", etc., it distinguishes a more specialized field of study.\n\nThe word comes from the Latin "quantus," for "how much."\n\nBehind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. For example, the energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is quantized. This accounts for the stability of atoms, and matter in general
16307
Quantum physics is a fundamental physical theory that replaces Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels.  It is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. Often, it is the answer to questions when general relativity fails.
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.
767048
Random chances are the same as probabilities. If you are so interested, you should look into Quantum Theory. It describes it in depth.
10601
This is one of those wierd questions in Quantum Mechanics where there is no way to visualize the answer. Our brains, understandably, have evolved to handle falling rocks, jumping tigers, and other macroscopic objects. We have numerous hardwired responses to these things which follow classical, Newtonian Physics.\n\nOn the atomic and subatomic scales where objects behave according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics things are different. An electron can behave like a wave in this experiment, but a particle in another experiments. According the classical physics (and our macroscopic-loving brain's "common sense) nothing can be *both* a particle and a wave. \n\nSo what is an electron? A wavicle? A partiave? \n\nNope. An electron is a, well, an electron. Sometime it will behave *exactly* like a wave, other times it will behave *exactly* like a particle. Never will it behave like some intermeditate or mixed state.\n\nThe problem - to the extent there is a problem - is that we cannot visiualize this. There is no way to form a picture in our heads the same way we can form a picture of a ball flying though the air. Our brains are meant to operate on macroscopic phenomena, and subatomic phenomena just behave differently.\n\nPresumably some other alien species could have some sort of mind, or mind-like thing, for which the whole wave-particle duality thing just makes perfect sense! But presumably this aliens would be confused by what are to us the simple motions of a ball flying through the air.\n\nSo, in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there is no sense in which the "other forms" of an object change after a wavefunction is collapsed. That this seems to be a problem is more a function of our brains and how they have evolved.\n\n\n(As an aside, it should be said that it is possible to understand the mathematics underlying Quantum Mechanics. And to be able to use this math to make extremely accurate predictions of how electrons, atoms, etc. will behave. These predictions can be tested experimentally and Quantum Mechanics holds up extremely well. \n\nSo while QM is very wierd, there is an enormous amount of evidence that it is correct.)
1026939
Quantum physics underpins everything, but of course you don't need to go that deeply for many practical purposes. For instance, you would not model the architecture of a building at the level of an electron.\n\nBut quantum mechanics is central to understanding and designing all semiconductor devices (not just the newer, esoteric ones), hard drives (which use quantum tunneling), chemicals that require an understanding of the chemical bond (including modelling shapes of biological molecules in the biotech iindustry).\n\nIt is behind MRI scanning, x-rays, digital cameras (a CCD is a fundamentally quantum device), nuclear energy and weapons technology.\n\nIt is essential to cosmology and understanding the stars.\n\nThe list goes on.\n\nAnd no, it is way beyond the status of a theory.