has centrifugal motion been explained quantumly?
607637
Centrifugal force is  a virtual force. I wonder if it is just an outcome of Newton's absolute space. Since absolute space is not valid concept so is the centrifugal force. So You decide , whether you wanna go to find the quantum mechanical expalnation of the another blunder!
43223
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory that can describe the behavior of objects that are roughly 10,000,000,000 times smaller than a typical human being. Quantum particles move from one point to another as if they are waves. However, at a detector they always appear as discrete lumps of matter. There is no counterpart to this behavior in the world that we perceive with our own senses. One cannot rely on every-day experience to form some kind of "intuition" of how these objects move. The intuition or "understanding" formed by the study of basic elements of quantum mechanics is essential to grasp the behavior of more complicated quantum systems. \n\n\nPlease visit the below url for moe information
1058187
for a rigid rotor, the transition lines are equally spaced in the wavenumber space. However, this is not always the case, except for the rigid rotor model. \n\nfor non-rigid rotor model, we need to consider changes in the moment of inertia of the molecule due to centrifugal distortion and the effects of vibration on the rotation.\n\nthe formulas are hard to write here, better to look at the references in \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_spectroscopy\nor elsewhere.
539733
I agree with what Ritabrata said. to simplified it: centrifugation =ultra-high speed spinning. Centrifuging = using high speed spinning to separate a mixture into a few layers of particles, according to its weight. eg. cell debris, cellular components etc.
6613
Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. \n\nA minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it. If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel. \n\nThe propellor or the jet engine of an aircraft push air backwards to propel the aircraft forward. A ship or boat propellor does the same thing with water. On Earth there is always air or water available to push against. But a rocket in space has nothing to push against, and so it needs to carry propellant to eject in place of air or water. The fundamental problem is that a deep space rocket would have to start out with all the propellant it will ever need. This quickly results in the need to carry more and more propellant just to propel the propellant. The breakthrough one wishes for deep space travel is to overcome the need to carry propellant at all. How can one generate a propulsive force without carrying and ejecting propellant? \n\nThere is a force associated with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum: the Casimir force. This force is an attraction between parallel metallic plates that has now been well measured and can be attributed to a minutely tiny imbalance in the zero-point energy in the cavity between versus the region outside the plates. This is not useful for propulsion since it symmetrically pulls on the plates. However if some asymmetric variation of the Casimir force could be identified one could in effect sail through space as if propelled by a kind of quantum fluctuation wind. This is pure speculation. \n\nThe other requirement for space travel is energy. A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless. \n\nORIGIN OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY \n\nThe basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter. \n\nA useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small
874570
NO!!  If people would stop (mis)quoting half-remembered precepts here, and do a spot of THINKING, instead, we might get somewhere.\n\n1.  If a moving spherical ball directly hits an identical free, stationary ball head on in an elastic collision, the moving ball STOPS, and the previously stationary one heads off with the original velocity of the other.  So ALL of the moving ball's K.E. has been transferred to the other ball.  \n\nHere are two ways to see this:\n\n1a.  The device known somewhat indelicately to British schoolboys as "Newton's balls" (but in squeamish America as "The Swinging Wonder") provides an excellent table-top demonstration of this.  Most undergraduate physics instructors must haul this out from time to time.\n\n1b.  You can easily solve it analytically, but a thought experiment will also demonstrate it.  In the originally stationary ball's frame, let the other ball approach with speed v.  Now shift (with an appropriately directed speed of v/2) to the frame in which the two equal balls are simply approaching each other, each with a speed in this frame of that same v/2 (oppositely directed, of course)!  Clearly, from the symmetry of the situation, they'll bounce off each other with the same (oppositely directed) speeds in this frame, still of v/2.  Now go back to the original frame: the previously moving ball is now completely stationary, while the originally stationary one is haring off with speed v.  (You may need to make little sketches of what is happening as viewed successively from each of these frames, to see this; I admit that that's what I did.)\n\n2a.  A similar approach can be used to solve the general case for an arbitrary ratio of masses, m (initially moving)/M (initially stationary).  Hint: have the balls approach one another in their center of mass frame with equal but opposite momenta of mv and  MV.  They'll clearly bounce off one another in such a frame, retaining the same values of their respective (but now oppositely directed) speeds.  Then you can do the other frame-jugglings from there. \n\nHowever, this analytical approach, done accurately, is a tedious mess.  So, to appreciate the general problem more physically, consider just the following:\n\n2b.  The case of m << M.\n\nConsider the "equal but opposite momentum" frame for these two balls, in which MV = mv.  This means that if ball M is VERY MASSIVE, the speed it will have in such a frame, V = (m/M)v; that is, it's VERY SMALL compared to little puny m's high speed.\n\nSo, transforming to the frame in which M itself (the big guy) is initially stationary takes only a speed shift of O(m/M)v.  (In fact identically so.)  This only affects the speed of puny m minutely, so m's initial K.E. is still of order O(m v^2).  (There's no need to do picky constant book-keeping for these purposes.)  \n\nNow after the collision: In the original frame, Big M is now moving (and in fact at 2V if you think about it.)  But, being loose about the constants, M's K.E is only O(MV^2).  \n\nSo, the ratio (m's K.E.)/(M's K.E.) ~ (mv^2)/(MV^2)\n\n= (m/M)(M/m)^2 (since mv = MV)\n\n= M/m.\n\nBINGO!  The little bugger still carries by far the larger amount of the kinetic energy.  The massive ball (i) moves sluggishly, and (ii) because  K.E. involves both mass but also the SQUARE of the speed, the TWO POWERS of (small) speed more than cancel out the effect of its (large) mass.\n\nThis is a well-known fact in particle collision theory, that little particles basically bounce off big ones.  \n\nYou could also say that it's well-known in "space billiards": when spacecraft head close to Jupiter to receive a "gravitational sling-shot effect" that sends them off to the outermost planets.  \n\nIt's more complicated because of 3-D effects there, but analogous frame-shifting methods can be used to show that the spacecraft can pick up considerable speed AND change
852561
electron does not orbit the nuleus. this idea was dismissed long back. in fact they spin in their place in either clockwise or anticlockwise direction. \n\noption (c) is correct
217239
There is no such thing as centrifugal force, it is an illusion. The only force acting upon the earth is gravity. As you can see, there is absolutely no balance to the forces, just one force acting towards to centre of mass of the earth/sun system. (I'm ignoring other gravitational forces, such as that of the moon and other planets).\n\nNow you seem to have a little bit of a misunderstanding about what forces do. A system with balanced forces does not have to be stationary. Forces cause acceleration. Therefore if something is moving with constant velocity then it has no resultant force acting on it (forces are balanced).\n\nSince the earth only has one force acting on it (centripetal force, towards the sun) then the earth is constantly accelerating towards the sun. Because the earth has a tangential component to it's velocity (that is not affected whatsoever by the centripetal force because it is at right angles to it) it orbits the sun.
664927
First, can a subatomic particle appear to be in two places at once?\n\nAccording to Quantum Theory, the answer is yes, because in order to know where a particle is, we have to measure its position, but the very act of measuring its position will alter the particle's behavior. So in effect we can never be sure where it is exactly. So in this sense, we may get measurements that give results that says the particle is here and there (this is the Uncertainty Principle).\n\nOf course, this is NOT new to quantum theory. So what's new? Someone mentioned "quantum entanglement" and "quantum teleportation". These are some of the new topics in quantum theory.\n\nPS - there is no such thing as Aether quantum dynamics or\n Auto dynamics, and Bohr's quantum mechanics is alive and well. The only addition we've added to Bohr's theory is the concept of electron cloud (i.e. a probability cloud) around the nucleus of an atom rather than electron orbits.
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.
124077
centripital and centrifigal
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.)
566065
Only on a limited basis, though, I think you'll find a better explanation then I could give you at Anton Zeilinger's site:\nhttp://www.quantum.at/zeilinger/\nHe even includes a PDF version, from the April 2000 issue, of the cover and article in Scientific American here:\nhttp://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/sci_am/teleportation.pdf\n\nLet me know if this helps.
257269
Sounds like you're asking about a quantum mechanical phenomenon sometimes called "spooky action at a distance."\n\nIn it's most basic form, it involves two "entangled" electrons (or any subatomic particle) If you could separate the pair by some great distance--even light years--and then influence some characteristic of one electron, its distant twin would react instantly to assume the same characteristic.\n\nTry this website for a more complete explanation -->http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=138524
85757
Centrifugal force is a fact, but we call it a fictional force. We interpret what we observe as a force because we want to apply the laws of inertia and so on that appropriate for a stationary, inertial frame to a nonstationary, noninertial frame. \n\nIt has the same root as the word "fugitive", a latin word meaning to flee. So if you spin a rock on a rope, it seems to you that the rock wants to flee away from your hand, and the string is holding it back with its centripetal force (or center seeking force, again from the latin). The fleeing force or centrifugal force is not really there, it is just our interpretation of what we observing from the application of Newton's laws in a rotating frame.
609692
No. All motion is "Forward". Right down to the tiniest Particle. It can be pushed but not pulled. No matter the direction.
695246
You are trying to convert between two dissimilar units.  Pounds per square inch (psi) is a unit of pressure, which, in more fundamental units, is force per unit area.  The "centrifugal force" (or centrifugal acceleration) produced that is a result of rotation is just that -- a force (or an acceleration).  The *pressure* exerted by a body experiencing that force depends on the contact area between that body and another object.\n\nCentrifugal force is not a true force;  it is an apparent force that results from the use of a rotating reference frame.  Although it is not a true force, it is handy for analyzing many sorts of situations.\n\n----------\n\nIf it helps, the centrifugal acceleration experienced by an object located a distance "R" from the axis of rotation in a reference frame that is rotating with an angular velocity of "w" radians/sec is given by:\n\na = R*w^2\n\nNote that 1 rpm = 1 revolution/min = 2*pi/60 radians/sec\n\nNote also that "gravities" are a unit of acceleration.  One "g" = 9.81 m/s^2\n\nThe centrifugal "force" is the mass times this acceleration.