Quantum physics question....?
918873
If it were posible for the neutronium to exist in a plane, then yes, I think so. However, neutronium is so dense that its own gravity will pull it into a sphere. If you got close enough to look at it, it would pull you in and you would be a (very thin) stain on the surface.\n\nNeutron stars are supposed to be made mostly of neutronium. If two collided or got close enough for their tides to pull one apart, then small pieces might be left. But neutronium is supposed to be very unstable. It is only its own gravity that binds the electrons and protons together so that they merge and lose their identities. \n\nFor very massive neutron stars (just short of being black holes, I guess) their inner layers are supposedly a quark-gluon soup. \n\nFor very small ones or pieces broken off, if that is possible, if there is not enough gravity to keep the particles together, the electrons and protons will regain their identities and the nuclear interctive forces will reassert themselves, and the mesons will begin to interact between the electrons and protons again,. What would happen is that the small piece of neutronium would erupt in a burst of energy and high energy particles. \n\nS/F writers like H. Beam Piper (in the 60's) postulated that we would learn to control nuclear forces like we learned to control electricity and have (what he called ) 'collapsium' plated spacecraft, where the outer shells of the electrons were in contact with the nuclei (what we would now call 'degenerate matter'.) Such a plating (a tiny fraction of an inch thick) would protect like several feet of lead shielding. It would also weigh more than many feet of lead shielding! (He also proposed that we would have antigravity by now.)\n\nTheoretically, a sphere of neutronium would be perfectly reflective, and the noted s/f author Larry Niven used that feature in his classic story There Is A Tide (1968, Galaxy magazine.)\n\n15 NOV 06, 1632 hrs, GMT.
419016
Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta to relate that movie to it, well, it could be used as a inside joke, if you touch my back , well you in heat, if you get my point.
39599
I would suggest you use wikipedia...\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
34932
how about quantum information theory?  this encompasses some of the cool research that's going on currently, including quantum entanglement, teleportation and the 'quantum parallelism' that you get by using quantum bits in a superposition of states.  \n\nhttp://www.imaph.tu-bs.de/qi/concepts.html\nhttp://www.qubit.org/index.html\nhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/\n\ngood luck!
937754
Something involving atomic spectra.  For example see\nhttp://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/StreetLampSpectra/StreetLampSpectra.html
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
1137063
There is a problem in quantum mechanics known as the "measurement" problem. Quantum mechanics shows us that particles only have a chance of being found within a certain region, they don't have a definite location.\n\nThe problem is that we have absolutely NO idea how the particles "decide" where to be when we measure them. There have been alot of serious proposals for a solution, but no one is sure.\n\nOne solution is termed the "Manyworlds" scenario, in which a particle is found at -every- location, in an infinite number of "parallel" universes.\n\nSince quantum mechanical effects started taking place as soon as matter was formed (an unimaginably small fraction of a second after the big bang), the Manyworlds theory suggests that since then, and infinite number of alternate universes have been and continue to be formed at every moment in time.
498367
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.
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.
950937
You're in luck.  I teach physics and I know exactly how to answer this question (it's based on the work-energy principle).  It's pretty simple, really.  But it would be best if we discussed it by messenger.  Yahoo Messenger me, my ID is\nfortitudinousskeptic\n\n- Kevin
1182496
Yes it just depends on what you beleive in and what you don't.  This kind of science is called quantum physics.  Check it out some time, it's very interesting.
453143
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
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.
267019
Given:\nh = Planck's constant = 6.626*10^-34\nf = frequency = 7.5*10^14\n\nBinding Energy = h*f = 6.626*10^-34*7.5*10^14 = 4.9695*10^-19 Joules\n\n============================================================\nGiven:\nh = Planck's constant = 6.626*10^-34\nf = frequency = 7.5*10^14\nc = speed of photon = 3*10^-8 m/s\nWavelength of photon = 366 nm = 3.66*10^-7 m\n\nFrequency of photon = c/wavelength of photon = 3.3*10^-8/3.66*10^-7 = 0.090163934 /s\nEnergy of photon = h*f = 6.626*10^-34*0.090163934 = 5.97426*10^-35 Joules\n\n============================================================\nSorry, I'm actually at work. Not being able to concentrate too much on it.\n\nEnergy of photon should have been bigger than the B.E. of electrons. Try to figure out, why its not.\n\nDifference of the two energies would be the energy of the realsed electrons from the surface.\n\nWhen I'm done with work I'll check back and try to finish it up.\n\nHope you understand.
697869
One of the key differences of quantum mechanics as compared to classical mechanics, is the probabilistic nature of the universe.  A fundamental concept in the theory is the affect of measuring anything.  We cannot measure something without changing it.  Therefore, the property we are trying to measure always changes when we attempt to measure it.  \nFor example, we can never know the exact postion of an electron in orbit and its momentum (mass, speed and direction) at that position.  We can measure either one, the position or momentum, but never both.  The 'act' of measuring itself will change these properties.  Quantum mechanics, therefore takes a probabilistic approach to the universe.  Going back to the example of an electron in orbit, with classical mechanics you would visualize this as a solid electron floating around its nucleus, almost like a moon orbiting a planet.  Quantum mechanics takes a statisitical approach, since you can never know the exact position and momentum of an electron, you can't picture the electron orbit simply and exactly as classical mechanincs would.  In quantum mechanics one would visualize the electron orbit as an electron density cloud.  Quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic result rather than a deterministic result.  Quantum mechanics can't tell you the exact position and momentum of the electron, but it gives you the probabilty of finding the electron at a given position.  This is pictured by an electron density cloud.  The denser the cloud is at a specific point, the more likely it is that the electron will be at this point.  The theory is not really saying that the electron exists in all these places at once, but instead says here are all the possible places that the electron can be and gives the probability of the electron being at each given spot.  This is a fundamental difference from the exact result we are used to getting from classical mechanics.
693887
Imagine you have have a source that emits pairs of electrons. Quantum Mechanics now states that one can not describe the behaviour of each electron separately, but only the pair as a whole. \nFor instance, if the spin of the first electron is pointing up, than the other must point down and vice versa.\n\nBut QM also states that the exact state of an electron (up or down) can only be known if we measure it and not before. But once we measure the spin if the first electron (say, it's up) than we know immediately the spin of the second one too, although it might be lightyears away. And if some distant observer measures that spin he will find that it is down. So somehow, the information of the fact that we performed a measurement on the first electron, has travelled to the second electron. And at a speed, faster than light.\n\nThis is the EPR paradox.\n \nBut the story is not complete yet.\nSpin must be measured relative to an axis, be it x, y or z.\nBell's equations described how a measured along one axis on the first electron is related to measurements along the two other axis performed on the second electron.\n\nSee here for a more complete explanation:\n  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
994144
You mean quantum teleportation? I can point you to some layman's sites explaining how it works. . . Keep in mind, you are only teleporting the state of the "matter" (the experiments I am aware of only move photon states, though in principle you could apply them to electrons and protons), not the energy itself. Also, entangling macroscopic quantities of matter with some stream that could teleport its state (making a copy at the other end) is currently an intractable engineering problem.