Does quantum mechanics deal with massles particle as opposed with particle masses?
373953
Quantum mechanics deals with anything that can come in fixed quanta, which is basically everything if you get small enough!\n\nMass comes in its fundamental particles, but you have other fixed packets of energy that can be treated with particle behaviour.\nA photon is a packet of light.\nA phonon is a packet of vibrational energy.\nEven magnetic flux in a superconductor has a magnetic flux quantum.
63744
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.
1154260
Yes! in the Sub Atomic particle. Photons behave the same way.
465906
The state m=0 is only true of a photon, of which Electromagnetic Waves are made, if it is at rest and unmoving. While photons are considered to have no inherent mass, mass is imparted by the velocity of the wave. Why isn't it taken into consideration? The "relativistic mass" of an object is really just the same as its energy, and there isn't any reason to have another word for energy: "energy" is a perfectly good word. For those who would insist that photons have no mass, I can only quote Einstein's  E=mc2. Since photons are energy carriers, and mass is one of the integral components of the equation, then the velocity at which the photons are moving (c) must impart mass to the photons or there would be no energy (E).
443065
because according to general relativity E=mc^2, so you can say that energy is a form of mass, but when you include this to the uncertainty principle it's incorrect to say that void has no energy (x & v = 0) so you have to go the other way, since there's a lot of void out there you should have the equivalent mass, and since mass is gravity we should be seeing the BIG CRUNCH right now, obviously that ain't happening, so one of the two theories must be wrong, but scientists prefer to say that both of 'em r parcially or entirely wrong
703674
Actually there are lots of instances of energy being converted into mass. The simplest case is pair production, when you have a high energy gramma ray pass close to an atome there is a chance that the photon will interacte at create an electron poistron pair. In doing so the photon losses energy equal two the combined mass of the two paricles,1.022 MeV.
744739
Impossible.  There's no layman's equivalent to the concept of an object with no radius (true point) having angular momentum.  Nuclear particles have electromagnetic radii, but their mass is not distributed over that spherical area, so gravitationally subatomic particles are true points)  \n\nNot only that, but instead of having a continuum of possible momenta, subatomic particles can only have a small number of precise momenta (hence the "quantum" in quantum physics)\n\nSo you need to picture a point in space that behaves like it's spinning around a center of gravity, but it has no center of gravity because it has no radius.  And it spins at three speeds: -1, 0, and 1.  (some particles are + and - 1/2)  But there's no in between, and transitions are literally instant. \n\nThe bottom line is, what makes quantum physics so difficult conceptually is that it has very little to do with the physical world we are used to.  The rules are completely 100% different at that small of a scale, and since we will never be able to shrink down to that level to actually see it, all we can do is describe our observations mathematically.  But there's no way to accurately depict this stuff visually because it's like nothing we've ever seen or will ever be able to see.\n\nIt's the mystery of the quantum universe!
504085
no since the photons are mass-less, they have no inertia.\n\nand BTW Quantum mechanics and QCD as well as QED, have nothing to do with oscillations, they deal strictly with the emission and absorption of subatomic particles, it is String theory that deals with Oscillations.
750132
The major differences are two concepts: 1 Wave mechanics.\n2. Probability, that is , uncertainty.
805822
Technically yes, because electrons do have mass, but it is negligible.  An electron has a mass of 9 x 10^-31 kg.  Still, if you had an infinitely sensitive measuring device, a negatively charged object would be heavier than an identical object with no charge.
361537
the entanglement can only exist if the wave function is undisturbed, so yes. if particle a is observed as having spin +1/2, particle b will be observed as having spin -1/2.
416146
yes in the quantum world. hey and if no one reads this answer have i really typed it??
651150
no, minimum size and maximum energy particles can be derived from uncertanity principle, which is finite. nothing is infinite but only uncertain which cretes an illusion of infinity which is only a distribution of probability, as can be explained by quantum mechanics.
697707
Quantum mechanics is fascinating, as Einstein's famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe" is turned on its head.  The random nature associated with the inner workings of atoms and quarks is astonishing when one considers that despite all of the unpredictability of subatomic activity, things in the macroscopic world follow predictable patterns that seem to defy common sense.
362081
Not much;  quantum mechanics is pretty much taken for granted (by physicists, NOT philosophers!) as the framework of almost all of modern physics (but gravity's another story...).  In that sense almost all physics research these days is "quantum" physics.  However, there is still some interesting work being done with phenomena that are distinctly quantum mechanical, such as Bose-Einstein condensation, quantum entanglement, and the like.\n\nI'd just like to point out that in the past 100 years since quantum mechanics was "born", no experiment has been performed whose results are not consistent with quantum mechanics.
841978
Yes, if a particle is massless, it has no volume.\n\nAn electron is considered to have no mass. It actually has a mass of around 1/1600 of a proton. A neutron is that much heavier than a proton.
753404
Yes...thus far, it IS the simplest and best explanation of gravity...quantum mechanics doesn't explain gravity at all.  What is NOW needed is a theory of "everything" that can link relativity to QM so that they're BOTH compatible.