eCosmology

How does quantum field theory explain static electromagnetic fields? According to quantum theory, a photon's energy is associated with its wavelength. Since electric/magnetic fields are static, what then determines their force?

How much math needed to study Quantum Field Theory? I know classical mechanics(Newtonian, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian), Electrodynamics, and Quantum Mechanics. I know Calculus, Linear/Abstract Algebra, ODE, some PDE, and I'm starting topology. But how much more mathematics do I need to start reading a standard QFT text?

What is the difference between Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Field Theory? Qualitatively. I believe QED is a special case of QFT is this correct? Does QFT describe the Strong Nuclear Force as well?

What does infinite conformal symmetry in two dimensional quantum field theory mean? One of my friends wanted me to ask this so I am asking it hear and wondering if any of you guys know what it is and if so, what does it mean in simple english?

Why is Quantum Field Theory considered more fundamental than General Relativity? I understand it is generally thought that because big things are made of small things that understanding the small things leads to an understanding of the big things, but is this necessarily so?

How much success has Quantum field theory achieved?

quantum gravity and quantum field theory? is quantum gravity theory and quantum field theory the same thing, if not, what is their differences

How does Quantum Field Theory explain attractive forces? E.g. if a photon is emitted by a positive charge towards a negative charge, shouldn't the negative charge move away from the positive charge to conserve momentum? I've heard that force carriers should simply be thought of as "messenger" particles, but that sounds like hand-waving to me.

What is Fock space in Quantum Field Theory and what is its physical interpretation?

Quantum field theory and electron spin? Could someone please explain electron (or any partical for that matter) spin in terms of quantum field theory. I am well aware of the classical interpretation: a rotating sphere inducing a magnetic field. Don't tell me to go to wikipedia, I am looking for a first hand explaniation from another physicst.

What books will help me understand quantum field theory? Can anyone recommend a path to getting to a basic understanding of QFT through self study? Is a complete course in Quantum Mechanics a prerequisite? My guess is that there are a lot of details in introductory Quantum Theory courses which are not absolutely essential in order to understand the basics of QFT. I have studied introductory quantum mechanics but I get lost early in books like Lee's QFT. I'm looking for the book to fill the gap. Maybe its a classical field theory book? I suppose Im wondering if you can get to an understanding of the essentials of QFT, WITHOUT having first studied ALL the details of Quantum Mechanics. Thanks! Typing error - I meant Zee's QFT book, not Lee's QFT book. Any intermediate book recommendations would be really helpful. Thanks!

Is Field Theory in mathematics related to Field Theory in physics? So, to study Field Theory in physics, does one have to use Field Theory from mathematics? What type of math is used in Field theory? I know there are two Field Theories, Classical field theory and Quantum field theory, but I don't know much about them.

what is laser physics, mathematical physics, quantum field theory, quantum field theory???

Summarize quantum field theory? without wikipedia reference please a general framework would be nice, i'm just wondering since i'm gonna have to take it in a few years

What else do i need for quantum field theory??? I have: -high school phyiscs (duh) -calc based phyiscs 1 + 2 (duh) -calc 1 2 and 3 (duh) -linear algebra + diffeq (duh lol) -vector calc -one sem of upper level mech -two sems of upper level electromagnetism -two sems of quantum mechanics (not including "intro to modern phyisics") so ive looked a little bit into QFT, and it seems like i can follow the equations (with a little bit of trouble with the abstract index notation), UNTIL they start pulling equations and algebraic relations out of their a*ses from commutation relations. And im sure theres going to be more things that I would have trouble with even if I did know how to magically make information out of commutation relations. what else do i need as prereq?

How to learn about string theory? I'm 14 and have been reading The Elegant Universe, which is about quantum theory and relativity and its starting to get complicated about Quantum Field Theory. So my question is this: Can you recommend any books that explain these things a little better?

What are all of the Math, Physics, and Quantum Theory branches? I know what the College courses are. I started from Pre-Algebra but I am now taking Trigonometry. 1) Pre Algebra 2) Algebra 1 3) Algebra 2 4) College Algebra 5) Pre Calculus/ Trigonometry (Not the same semester though) 6) Calculus 1 7) Calculus 2 8) Calculus 3 9) Linear Algebra (Engineering majors/Phys/Sci) 10) Differential Equations (same) 11) Partial Differential Equations (same) Now, even though I'm majoring in Mechanical Engineering, I've taken an extreme interest in Quantum Theory. This suggests that my major will no longer require math and I will be given a choice to either quit math, or continue for no credit. First of all, Engineering is the best way for me to make a living. However, it seems that if I go beyond Engineering math my potential income decreases. Almost as if to say, "the dumber you are, the more money you'll make." Please correct my thinking if this is not true. Also, what are the possible roads I could follow in math? It brakes off into hundreds of branches and seems to get pretty useless for what I'm doing. (ie. Finite Mathimatics, Statistics, etc.) However, I'd still like to know what they are. Is there a chart in the internet that tells you every possible branch of math and physics and what they are used for? Now, the most important question for me to ask is what road should I take if I want to get into the deepest workings of Quantum Field Theory or even Unified Field Theory? I just have so many questions about math but none of them are how math works. They're all about how math is used and what it's use for. I'd really be grateful if someone can give me a resource that will help me understand what I need to do and how math will fit in my life. Maybe that's most of the math classes, but what I'm talking about are the physics classes. Where do they fit? When do you take unified field theory. Plus, that's not even close to all of them. There are a bunch of math classes that IUPUI alone offers that I didn't mention.

Is the Quantum Aether Dynamics theory one of the basic proofs that the Aether is a field of dark matter? My Spheron Theory of the Universe The Aether that Democritus was alluding to. It has not changed.

Why do so many Christians not understand what a scientific theory? One of the many talking points I have seen from anti-science Creationists is that evolution is "just a theory". Why is that considered a bad thing? From wikipedia: "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory" A few examples of scientific theories: atomic theory, Big Bang, germ theory, evolution, relativity, quantum field theory, string theory, plate tectonics, electromagnetism, gravity. Why do Creationists have problems with some of these but not others? While we are at it, why don't they understand that "proof" is not a science term, it is a math term?

String Theory versus Quantum Gravity? String theory predicted ten dimensions, but as it got more and more complicated (five theories instead of one), it became clear that what was really need to unify them was eleven dimensions, which had been predicted by another theory, quantum gravity. However, now that both have evolved into M-Theory, that brings me to a basic unanswered question. Is M-Theory really a "unified field theory?" Does it bring gravity into the equation by invoking that extra dimension? If so, how does it unify the electroweak, strong and electromagnetic forces with gravity? I've never heard a simple explanation that didn't require a Ph.D. in Physics.

how can mechanical engg. go into research field for relativity theory and quantum physics?

If you reject the Theory of Evolution due to it's "Theory" status, do you also reject? Cell theory? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Electromagnetic Theory? Kinetic theory of gases? String theory? Theory of special relativity? Theory of general relativity? Quantum field theory? Acoustic theory? M-theory? Antenna theory? .....and the list goes on. after all, these are all "theories" but I hope you realize without them, we wouldn't have much of the cool gadgets we have today, such as....the internet.

What Universities have current Quantum physics or String Theory research? Do any of you have suggestions for colleges that have current graduate research in Quantum physics, string theory or related fields? I'm looking for a place to spend my undergrad years that might offer the opportunity to get in on that research.

Do you feel that quantum physics and theory is on an eventual course with paranormal phenomena? Is the quantum physics field slowly melding with the paranormal?With all the quantum theories out there,like alternate dimensions,dark matter,dark energy,and the idea that there is alternate infinite universes all occupying the same space just different vibrational levels.Will this melding bring the paranormal to the normal and science to the paranormal.Will we have basically a new field?Personally I feel they are on a collision course,but what do you think.Respectful answers only,feel free to elaborate your thoughts!! I'm gonna give this one a little more time.

String Theory? Perturbative finiteness seems to be the only reason for it, but even in quantum field theory problems fixed at the perturbative level are known to return nonperturbatively. Is this what happens with the nonperturbative eleventh dimension, which is described by nonrenormalizable membrane theory? String Theory: a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics.

How do the fields of Metaphysics, the Paranormal, Quantum Theory etc. relate to this category? Peace and Love

Quantum Mechanics and Reality? I am struggling with finding the appropriate answer to a few questions. I am not a scientist or a philospher, so I need some help please. 1. Quantum Field Theory - would it convey reality as a manifest of a network of interactions and relations OR a composition of subatomic particles. I would think that it's the interactions, but it could be both imo. 2. Would Quantum Mechanics be an ex of Pragmatism or Materialism? I think Pragmatism, but then again materialism deals with matter and it's motion. 3. Golden Ratio - is there evidence of the Golden Ratio? I know that "The Last Supper" and the Egyptian pyramids are examples that some use to say there is evidence. But are these just theories? Thanks. I have been going over these questions and I just can't seem to narrow the answers down. Any help, info, suggestions appreciated. Thanks. I should have said in reference to the Golden Ratio "is there any evidence to support that it is true?". These are just a few of many questions in my Philosophy class and I can see how, in especially #'s 1 & 2 , they could go either way. But unfortunately I have to give 1 answer and I am stuck.

Explaining the electric fields of particles? haven't taken any course in quantum field theory or read any advanced books about it, but I would like to make what I think is a deduction. An electric field can be explained by changing magnetic field. Provided that some property of this changing magnetic field was met, the electric field may correspond to the electric field produced by a subatomic particle. So far, I don't know of any other type of field that would generate an electric field other than a changing magnetic field. Do the quantum physicists explain the electric field of subatomic particles this way? Do they know the changing magnetic field that would be necesary to generate the electric potential of the proton for instance?

What are the gravitational effect? What are the gravitational effects, if any, of the immense (possibly infinite) vacuum energy density seemingly predicted by quantum field theory? Is it really that huge? If so, why doesn't it act like an enormous cosmological constant?

If a physicist discovered how to “united” the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Would these be tantamount to an “end of learning” in that world? e.g., if to reconcile, unite, whatever, these two fields, what would significant would be left to be discovered or could not be explained by this new theory?

I am fascinated by "The String Theory" and "Quantum Mechanics" What are your thoughts on the matter? I watched a show over the holidays about parallel universes. Anyone educated in this field care to share your thoughts?

How do we identify and define the margin between quantum envirement and our 3-d experience? Quantum envirement is all those individual atoms with protons, electrons, nutrons, photons, quarks etc. We do not experience them. We see and touch surfaces that are the macro collection of those smaller parts. Where does quantum end and our emperical surroundings begin in a scientific definable way in matter, space, energy, and dimensions with time? Understanding the margin between dimensions helps determine how constants and laws fit in a broader unified field theory of physics.

what's up with energy-time uncertainty? I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics (the idea being that uncertainty arises from the failure of two operators to commute). however, energy-time uncertaintly doesn't seem to fit that framework, since time is not an operator. does energy-time uncertainty exist in quantum mechanics, or does it only arise in quantum field theory, where it's really energy/momentum-spacetime uncertainty? and what does energy-time uncertainty mean for practical purposes? something like "the better we know the energy, the less well we know when it happened"??

I need ideas for my physics project on path integrals.....? I'm doing a project on Feynman path integrals for part of my degree and need to use them for a real calculation. Any ideas for good systems that I use? Some aspect of quantum field theory would be good although I would like to direct it towards quantum gravity if possible.

Who is an expert On Virtual Particles? Who would know or be an expert in quantum field theory and virtual particles? Do they travel faster than light? im confused becuase this website says they do: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Why didn't Einstein win the 'Nobel' for his theory of Relativity once it was validated? Einstein: The Real Story of the Man Behind the Theory syas that although not a 'vague' or genral theory, but a very specific, calculation oriented 'pass/fail' equation about the position of the stars, the theory was discounted by two teams of photographers, and validated by one other earlier American team. did the 'controversy' leave the question 'un-answered' or where they concerned about bias affecting the outcome from the American Astronomer Caldwell? Albert Einstein From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Albert einstein) "Einstein" redirects here. For other uses, see Einstein (disambiguation). Albert Einstein Albert Einstein, 1921 BornMarch 14, 1879 Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, German Empire DiedApril 18, 1955 (aged 76) Princeton, New Jersey, USA ResidenceGermany, Italy, Switzerland, USA CitizenshipWürttemberg/Germany (1879–96) Stateless (1896-1901) Switzerland (1901–55) Austria (1911–12) Germany (1914–33) United States (1940–55)[1] EthnicityAshkenazi Jewish and German FieldsPhysics InstitutionsSwiss Patent Office (Bern) University of Zurich Charles University in Prague ETH Zurich Prussian Academy of Sciences Kaiser Wilhelm Institute University of Leiden Institute for Advanced Study Alma materETH Zurich University of Zurich Doctoral advisorAlfred Kleiner Other academic advisorsHeinrich Friedrich Weber Notable studentsErnst G. Straus Nathan Rosen Known forGeneral relativity Special relativity Photoelectric effect Brownian motion Mass-energy equivalence Einstein field equations Unified Field Theory Bose–Einstein statistics Notable awardsNobel Prize in Physics (1921) Copley Medal (1925) Max Planck Medal (1929) Person of the Century Religious stanceSee Main article Signature Albert Einstein (pronounced /ˈælbərt ˈaɪnstaɪn/; German: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪ̯nʃtaɪ̯n] ( listen); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a theoretical physicist. He is best known for his theories of special relativity and general relativity. Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect."[2]. Einstein's many contributions to physics include: The special theory of relativity, which reconciled mechanics with electromagnetism The general theory of relativity, a new theory of gravitation obeying the equivalence principle The founding of relativistic cosmology with a cosmological constant The first post-Newtonian expansion, explaining the perihelion advance of Mercury Prediction of the deflection of light by gravity and gravitational lensing The first fluctuation dissipation theorem which explained the Brownian movement of molecules The theory of density fluctuations in gasses and liquids, giving a criterion for critical opalescence The photon theory and wave-particle duality derived from the thermodynamic properties of light The quantum theory of atomic motion in solids Zero-point energy concept The semiclassical version of the Schrödinger equation Relations for atomic transition probabilities which predicted stimulated emission The quantum theory of a monatomic gas which predicted Bose-Einstein condensation The EPR paradox A program for a unified field theory The geometrization of fundamental physics Einstein published more than 300 scientific works and more than 150 non-scientific works.[3][4] He is often regarded as the father of Modern Physics and the greatest scientist of the 20th Century. In 1999 Time magazine named him the Person of the Century, beating contenders like Mahatma Gandhi and Franklin Roosevelt, and in the words of a biographer, "to the scientifically literate and the public at large, Einstein is synonymous with genius."[5] Contents [hide] 1 Early life and education 1.1 Marriages and children 2 Patent office 3 Scientific career 3.1 Physics in 1900 3.2 Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physics 3.3 Thought experiments and a-priori physical principles 3.4 Special relativity 3.5 Photons 3.6 Quantized atomic vibrations 3.7 Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables 3.8 Wave–particle duality 3.9 Theory of Critical Opalescence 3.10 Zero-point energy 3.11 Principle of equivalence 3.12 Hole argument and Entwurf theory 3.13 General relativity 3.14 Cosmology 3.15 Modern quantum theory 3.16 Bose–Einstein statistics 3.17 Energy momentum pseudotensor 3.18 Unified field theory 3.19 Wormholes 3.20 Einstein–Cartan theory 3.21 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox 3.22 Equations of motion 3.23 Einstein's mistakes 4 Collaboration with other scientists 4.1 Einstein-de Haas experiment 4.2 Schrödinger gas model 4.3 Einstein refrigerator 5 Bohr versus Einstein 6 Religious views 7 Politics 8 Death 9 Legacy 10 Effect on popular culture 11 Awards 12 Honors 13 See also 14 Publications 15 Notes 16 Further reading 17 External links

What is renormalization? Could someone explain renormalization in quantum field theory? You may assume that I have a (very) rough understanding of what quantum field theory is. And no wikipedia excerpts please!

New media research degree, photography and human energy, help? I've picked a tough one, but my research focuses on how photography can address spiritual human energy & interconnectedness, such as: healing energy; sense of someone who isn't present; how we are all part of a sea of energy and information gets exchanged without us even speaking! (Zero-point field in Quantum theory). I'm having toruble piecing it all together.. any ideas would be appreciated.

AP Chemistry Help needed Urgent: Quantum Theory Problem? a.What are the electron Configurations of S and S^-2 b.Which one is more likely to be attracted to a magnetic field. Why? c.Which one's radius is bigger? Why? d.Which is more likely to attract electrons, S^-2 or Ar? Why? Thank you

what is the name given to a physicist who study theory of relativity? Is it called a quantum physicist? Sorry but I don't know which sub-field of physics theory of relativity is catagorized in.

can someone help me understand the physics term renormalization? basically break it down in lay terms, thanks? the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers. Quantum field theory, which is used to calculate the effects of fundamental forces at the quantum level, began with quantum electrodynamics, the quantum theory of the electromagnetic force. Initially it seemed that the theory led to infinite results. For example, the electron's ability constantly to emit and reabsorb “virtual” photons (i.e., photons that exist only for the time allowed by the uncertainty principle) means that its total energy and its mass are infinite. However, by redefining the mass of the “bare” electron to include these virtual processes and setting it equal to the measured mass—that is, by renormalizing—the problem is removed. Quantum electrodynamics has been the prototype for other quantum field theories. In particular, the highly successful electroweak theory, which incorporates the weak force together with the electromagnetic force, has proved to be renormalizable. Also, quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, appears to be renormalizable. However, a renormalizable theory that includes all the fundamental forces, in particular gravity, remains elusive.

should we throw out these scientific theories too? since evolution only attempts to explains the diversity of life, and thus cannot explain what created life, creationists argue that it must be a lie and therefore should not be taught. here is a list of other other scientific theories which cannot explain what created life. i think if we're throwing one out, we should throw them all out: big bang theory atomic theory circuit theory chaos theory acoustic theory theory of relativity cell theory kinetic theory of gases quantum field theory etc. none of these theories can explain what created life. shouldn't we thefefore conclude that they are lies as well?

Does this categorization of physics look right to you? ? Newtonian mechanics, Lagrangian mechanics --> General relativity Quantum mechanics --> Quantum Field Theory --> Quantum Chromodynamics --> Conformal Field Theory --> String theory?

Could submolecular envirenments have a different balance of constants than classical physics, quantum bubble? ? Quantum mechanics are different than classical physics. If you think of sub-molecular environments as a miniature universe in a quantum bubble, maybe the relation of constants, energy, mass, and time as well as relativistic limits are different within the bubble. Maybe this is the reason Heisenberg principles do not allow statistical simplification in observed data causing some unexplained enigmas. You are observing across the margin between our empirical environment and the quantum one. A complete field theory would need to suggest the why phenomena occurs, not just what occurs. Einstein got the Nobel for describing what was happening in the photo electric affect but, never explained why it occurred at all.

Would you add to the Chaos theory? THE CHAOS THEORY In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Chaotic behavior has been observed in the laboratory in a variety of systems including electrical circuits, lasers, oscillating chemical reactions, fluid dynamics, and mechanical and magneto-mechanical devices. Observations of chaotic behavior in nature include the dynamics of satellites in the solar system, the time evolution of the magnetic field of celestial bodies, population growth in ecology, the dynamics of the action potentials in neurons, and molecular vibrations. Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and climate. There is some controversy over the existence of chaotic dynamics in the plate tectonics and in economics. Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. A related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Recently, another field, called relativistic chaos has emerged to describe systems that follow the laws of general relativity. As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorenz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Bounded chaos is a useful term for describing models of disorder. Chaos theory is applied in many scientific disciplines: mathematics, biology, computer science, economics, engineering, finance, philosophy, physics, politics, population dynamics, psychology, and robotics

How do I find out my real IQ? Hello, my name is William, I am 14 years old and a few weeks ago a took the WISC IV test and attained a near ceiling score. However, since I kept "topping out" on the subtests, the psychologist administering the test supplemented with the Stanford Binet IV (which to me seems pointless because they both have the same ceiling, 160). The psychologist doesn't use the Stanford Binet L-M, so there was no way of finding out my real IQ. However, I am really interested in doing so. I know my IQ isn't a mere 160, as I am fluent in ten languages (learning a lot more as well), can read a few books a day, can understand and do PhD level math and physics (String Theory, Quantum Field theory, Algebraic Topology, Loop Quantum Gravity are my favorite) and have many more diverse interests. I really want to know what my real IQ is. But how?

IQ test ceilings and what to do next? Hello, my name is William, I am 14 years old and a few weeks ago a took the WISC IV test and attained a near ceiling score. However, since I kept "topping out" on the subtests, the psychologist administering the test supplemented with the Stanford Binet IV (which to me seems pointless because they both have the same ceiling, 160). The psychologist doesn't use the Stanford Binet L-M, so there was no way of finding out my real IQ. However, I am really interested in doing so. I know my IQ isn't a mere 160, as I am fluent in ten languages (learning a lot more as well), can read a few books a day, can understand and do PhD level math and physics (String Theory, Quantum Field theory, Algebraic Topology, Loop Quantum Gravity are my favorite) and have many more diverse interests. I really want to know what my real IQ is. But how? I actually do realize that "IQ" does not accurately measure all aspects of one's intelligence. But it does measure to some extent memory, verbal and numerical aptitude, and spatial ability. While a significant amount of my mental ability lie outside of the narrow and limited cognitive aspects that intelligence tests measure, I have the utmost confidence in my "testable mental strengths(IQ)" as well. Yes, it is claimed that Marilyn Vos Savant (the journalist) possesses the highest IQ in the world. However if everyone were content with knowing that their score were "at least 160", Marilyn Vos Savant would not have her "title" in the first place. I want to have a more accurate view of what my IQ is. Please only answer this question if you know how I can do so. Thank You.

What are my chances of being accepted into a top university? I think I have an average shot at my schools of choice, but I'm not so satisfied with my extracurriculars. I don't feel I go beyond what any accomplished student could do. What do you think? Freshman/Sophomore unweighted/weighted GPA: 3.72/4.22 Junior unweighted GPA: 4.0/4.85 PSAT as a Freshman/Sophomore: 211/240 SAT/ACT: haven't taken yet SAT Subject Tests: haven't taken yet Depending on my GPA this year, I will be in the top 5%-15% of my class. Honors Courses taken/taking: English 9/10 Honors, Advanced Algebra Honors, Advanced Geometry Honors, Precalculus Honors, Biology Honors, Physics Honors, and Chemistry Honors. AP Classes taken/taking: AP US History, AP Physics C, AP Calculus BC, AP European History, AP Biology, AP English and Literature, and AP Statistics. Extracurriculars - Science Olympiad (regional and state gold medalist), BBYO, Independent Film Club, Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and varsity track/cross-country. Volunteering - aside from BBYO, I have spent roughly 3 years working in a local VFW hall and my city's public library. Leadership Positions Held: BBYO - chapter president/vice president, regional vice president, aspiring to become regional president and international vice president. Independent Film Club - executive officer. Council for Exceptional Children - vice president. Academic programs/competitions: USAMTS, AIME qualifier as a sophomore, potentially attending RSI at MIT (depending on how my research in quantum field theory evolves). I will be working very intensely to become a member of the USA Math Olympiad and Physics Olympiad teams. I have conducted lab research in physics (quantum field theory) and virology (the reemergence of phage therapy in conjunction with antibiotics). I hopefully will take my work in QFT to the Siemens Competition, Intel Competition, and ISEF. I'm greatly satisfied in my accomplishments. However, I've seen many people with qualifications similar to my own not get accepted into their school of choice. I'm also displeased with my Freshman/Sophomore GPA. My top choices are MIT, University of Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, and University of Michigan. I'd like to double-major in physics and mathematics and potentially minor in philosophy. When I finish undergrad, I'm interested in uptaining a masters and PhD in physics. After that, I'd like to enter the US Army as a CO and help to design defensive warfare ordnance stratagies.

If religion is the opium of the people shouldn't we seek to abolish religion as well as narcotic drugs? Let's face it it's really hard to understand modern science. Modern physics, the science that seeks to explain physical reality, is intensely mathematical and very difficult to fathom. Relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics, atomic and subatomic particles, quarks and quantum chromodynamics, superstrings, twistors, branes, etc., etc., etc. It isn't so much the more you understand the more you see, it's more like the more you see the more there is to see but it's all very difficult to grasp and takes a lot of effort. Religion is much less demanding. You can become a messiah overnight. All you need is to skim through some sort of a holy book, e.g., the mishmash of Hebrew and Greek scripture commonly known as the Bible, persuade yourself that you understand the words of the deity and can therefore interpret his/her/its will, in human terms, on behalf of all others on Earth and you’re done! What an easy way to gain power and influence over people without any need to demonstrate your quality, attainment or qualifications. Then all you need to do is to draw enough gullible people into your fantasy with you and you become a religious leader! Would you allow an unqualified fantasist to carry out a surgical procedure on someone you cared about in an operating theatre or would you prefer to put their life in the hands of a properly qualified and experienced medical practitioner? So why are so many men and women willing to have their behaviour, morality and lifestyle dictated by a religious fantasist who has stated, without evidence, that they have a special dispensation from the godhead to reveal mankind’s divine purpose? If religion was outlawed in the same way that drugs have been outlawed human beings would be much more likely to adopt a more humanistic outlook which would undoubtedly improve and extend humanity's future as a species that has evolved on Earth and is confined, at present, to live only on that one planet in the solar system. For the sake of our species I believe we should abolish religion and God as soon as possible. What do you think? EDIT 1 Interesting. To everyone who has responded I offer my sincere thanks. Can I invite readers to submit their opinion on the following hypothesis: People become religious because they are inherently too stupid to understand modern science? EDIT 2 hOlly – Don’t let anyone dim the light in your eyes; question and subject to analysis everything you read or see or hear from any source. batgirl2good – I’m not really much like Hitler; in point of fact he was a Catholic. I consider myself a humanist. Here’s the link you asked for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people You really must have bats in your belfry if you haven’t heard of Karl Marx! You should refrain from commenting on questions when you are clearly so dippy and clueless. Stop hanging upside down from the rafters! Too much blood will go to your head! Lizzy – Congratulations on getting your two point for a completely irrelevant answer. You are funny however and made me smile. Sadly I despise the Jonas Brothers almost as much as sectarian religion and its mass of puffed up pontificating prophets and preachers. I’m Ron Burgundy – Ever heard of suicide bombers? I rest my case. righteousJohnson – Shouldn’t that be self-righteousJohnson? Here’s Marx’s actual quote in the original German: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes” You get zero marks - or even Marx - for translation of languages in this test! Virtuous – I cannot thank you enough for your compliment. What an honour to be compared to the author of that great book “Letter to a Christian Nation”. Thank you. And I mean that most sincerely. Personally I think it’s more likely that some kind of religious zealot - Christian, Islamic or otherwise - would order nuclear weapons to be used against a civilian population. Stalin was logical? That’s news to me. Pardon my scepticism but you’ve got so many other points wrong in your answer that I think there is a high probability that you might be wrong about Stalin logicality based on your previous track record. I’m gonna sing the doom song – Despite your incomprehensible lunatic alias I have read your answers to Yahoo! questions and believe you to be a tolerant, intelligent and well-balanced individual. I’m not religious myself but I am kind of fond of pagans in general and wiccans in particular, so I’m not going to critique your answer. Just leave your broomstick in my parking garage next time you visit and not by the kerb or you may incur a penalty! bmat_2255 – You sound like you’ve been smoking too much weed to me man. Cut down on the herb until its smoke leaves you brain and your head clears. sculptorclay and vambo the forth – What you say is true when abolition creates a vacuum that remain unfilled by something better. I’m suggesting that any vacuum created sans religion could be filled with a more principled logical and scientifically rooted morality and system of ethics. Of course the population would have to be intelligent enough to understand the new paradigm. Socraticmethod15 – Your sweetness, simplicity and dignity is disarming. You are historically incorrect in one or two of the points you make but I’m not going to argue with you because if I do I’ll feel like a bully. Hopefully I may get more responses before this question expires but I confess that the answers so far have been interesting

Are colleges looking for a well rounded person, or a person that is absolutely stellar in one or two areas? Time and time again, I have heard high school counselors and teachers state that well rounded students have the best chance of getting accepted into an elite school. However, I fail to see logic in this. Any person can be in 5 clubs, and most people can eventually hold basic leadership positions in those clubs. However, I feel that it takes a special individual to to excel in one specific area. I have only been involved in one "club" that I feel I have excelled in; but I have done tremendous things to the organization. I have held positions in both the chapter and regional levels, and aspire to move onto international board positions. However, my real passions lay in physics and mathematics. I've pursued both since I was a young boy, and I have sacrificed a lot of time and effort into research conducted in both areas. I am currently helping to conduct a physics study in Quantum Field Theory at an acclaimed university, and in the event that my team is successful in our aspirations, we will be able to take our results and provide a valuable contribution to the world of Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. I love physics as much as I love any of my family members, because physics and mathematics (science in general) serve as my own personal image of God. I feel that I have done things in these subjects that not many people could have at my age. But while everyone around me appreciates what I have done and what I hope to do in the future, they feel that it is not enough because it entails a strength in one category instead of a strength in many categories. On the same note, I am not a socially-awkward individual. My social skills are very well tuned; I just merely associate myself in subjects that most people would find confusing and therefore insignificant. Like I said before, I am involved in extracurriculars, and I am pleased with my GPA, current test scores, and classes taken. I just want some reassurance that my philosophy isn't incorrect. If that was the case, I would find myself in a huge dilemma.

did anybody give a physical explanation for POTENCY OF HOMEOPATHY MEDICINE? ONE CAN MAKE USE OF QUANTUM FIELD THEORY TO EXPLAIN THE POTENCY OF HOMEOPATHY MEDICINE.A SET OF MOLECULES OF MEDICINE DOES HAVE ITS OWN STATE FUNCTION..WHEN UNDERGOES SECOND QUANTIZATION THEQUANTIZED STATEFUNCTION FIELD IS RIPPED OFF FROM THE SET OF MOLECULES AND AN INDEPENDENT EXISTANCE IS ACHIEVED.THIS QUANTISED STATE FUNCTION FIELD COULD BE STIMULATED TO RAISE THE POTENCY OF MEDICINE BY PHYSICAL MEANS WHICH MAY INCLUDE MECHANICAL SHAKING AFTER TRANFERRING TO FRESH MEDIUM.sudhakarang@hotmail.com (author of gr-qc/0106029 in xxx.lanl.gov)

What is the geometric interpretation of supersymmetry? I recently had the opportunity to attend lectures on mathematical physics by Cumrun Vafa and Edward Witten, and one idea that they both alluded to explains supersymmetry in terms of a geometric formulation of the standard model. I guess the idea is that the electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields are realized in quantum field theory as principal U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) bundles respectively, so that the standard model has structure group (gauge group) U(1)xSU(1)xSU(3). I am also acquainted with the notion that Maxwell's equations can be formulated in this context as the Bianchi identity for the curvature of a certain connection on the principal U(1) bundle in question, and I gather that one can obtain similar results in this fashion for the weak and strong nuclear forces. The idea that Vafa and Witten both kind of mentioned in passing is that to properly choose a connection on the principal U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) bundle in such a way that matches physical observation one must take energy as a free parameter and that supersymmetry is the statement that something geometrically special happens at a certain (high) energy level. Does anybody know the full story, or at least have some references? I am coming at this from a mathematical background, and I have a lot of trouble with physics language (for example, I have no idea what a particle actually is, let alone fermions or bosons). I also posted this question in the physics area. Thanks!

Physics & Math Checklist, what am I forgetting? Hi I'm trying to write a list of the math and physics I would learn if I went to study theoretical physics, can you help me out and mention anything I'm forgetting, and maybe a link, I'd like to research it. Thank you :) Math: Pre-Calculus College Algebra (not the Abstract/modern variety) Calculus I - III Ordinary Differential Equations Partial Differential Equations Non-Euclidian Geometry Real & Complex Analysis Abstract/Modern Algebra Physics; Introductory Mechanics/Thermodynamics E&M & Special Relativity Mechanics ala LAgrange & Hamilton General Relativity Quantum Mechanics Quantum Field Theory Particle Physics ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why is Evolution upsetting some Christians when 'Structure formation' spontaneous symmetry breaking in physics? Structure formation, spontaneous symmetry breaking , discount bible's version of creation much more so than evolution. Why aren't Christians uprising against structure formation from simple systems, in Condensed matter physics, Cosmology, Quantum Field theory? All these strongly assert complexity arises from simple systems and arises very very late in the Universe. This is entirely against bible's teachings more so than evolution no? miguel, early universe was super symmetric. supersymmetry was spontaneously broken to create matter. energy condensed into matter. from there began formation of structures. into more complex structures -> protons -> atoms -> stars - galaxies -> heavier elements -> planetary formation The entire chain is on simple systems creating structure and complexity. not the other way around. Biological systems are a direct consequence of downline structures. It's the same story. You ultimately start with low complexity to higher structured order including life.

Hadronization, energy, particle physics? During the process of hadronization, baryons and mesons are broken apart in a particle accelerator into single quarks. However rather than existing as single quarks, and partially due to strong nuclear force (gluons) , new quarks and gluons are formed out of the vacuum to produce new baryons and mesons. I am aware that the process of particle acceleration takes energy, but is additional energy used when new hadrons are created? What creates them? Apparently they're from a vacuum so not photons, or any other kind of force carrier. Is all energy carried by force carriers? I have heard in quantum field theory that there is energy associated with the vacuum of space, known as zero point energy. This energy isn't carried by force carriers? How does this energy exist and can it relate to the process of hadronization? If not then how do particles appear from the vacuum? If I have mistaken anything than any insight would be appreciated.

How do we know that "something cannot come from nothing"? The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the casimir effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect ) It certainly doesn't violate the conservation of energy, momentum, or charge. Do we understand the properties of a universe containing nothing enough to state it, or is it just our intuition, which may be helpful in daily life, but is often wrong in different contexts? Genghis K: you must have missed the TWENTY FOUR references in the article. r_u_really_that_scared - you have completely failed at understanding the question. It's very strange that you give the EXACT SAME ANSWER to completely different questions.

What equations describe the act of annihilation? I know the Dirac equation has predicted the existence of antimatter, but did the physicists suspect the effects of its reaction with matter? I think annihilation must have been quite a surprise if they did not! I expect that the description of how annihilation proceeds belongs to quantum field theory since it means transforming one kind of particles into another. Unfortunately, I don't know much about QFT... Could you please tell me names of some equations which contain it as a solution? Dirac's and the other equations hold for one particle, don't they? I can't imagine how perturbation can make them describe an interaction of two spin-1/2 particles transforming in two spin-1 particles... I can imagine the Feynman diagrams you told about, but I have never been told of how to USE them :-( So the answer is really just Dirac with some perturbation? I write too slowly... An explanation appeared before my submission. That seems to be it :-) I must confess we had a two semestral course in QFT at our school but I cowardly left it in one half :-( The approach was kind of weird... I'll try to try it once more with another professor the next year. (above: in the undergraduate course ;-) ) I admire your memory, Mistress Bekki, citing my very first question here. That one was originally meant to settle the validity of the claim that no information can be transmitted through wave function collapse even if we consider it instantaneous.

Why are engineering students so pretentious? I'm one year away from submitting my PhD thesis for a degree in astrophysics - and everytime I talk to an undergrad engineering student, they seem to think that they are using ADVANCED physics and mathematics!!! It's as if they're in their own little world that hails itself as the most intellectual community in earth, when most of them don't even understand some pretty mid-level physical/mathematical concepts, such as quantum field theory or Hamiltonian operators. They just push stretch Newtonian mechanics as far as possible, and consider it advanced. I don't get it. Where does this mentality come from?

When something comes out of nothing, is it always the Christian god that causes it? Is it always a miracle? From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Casimir effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect ).

A question about causality in physics The concept of causality lies at the root of all modern physics, e.g. consideration of it lead to special relativity and in quantum field theory it is also fundamental, although you wouldn't be able to tell from most text books. In fact, hardly any even have a single reference to it in their index. With the exceptions of Dirac, Sakurai, and Jackson, I can not find any references anywhere in any of the books I have; not even in Feynman's Lectures. Why is this? Specifically, what troubles me is that some particles are described by nonlinear wave equations, such as the Higgs particle; how can you be sure that such equations don't have solutions that violate the causality principle? To roberts b: I will check your link later. Right now I have no access. To Bekki: I have Zee - I agree , nice book, fun to read, and you still learn a lot from it. About your suggestion: evalulating (space-time: r,t;r',t') correlation functions or commutators can be done only if you have the complete time-dependent basis set of solutions of a linear set of equations (e.g. Maxwell's in the case of the EM field, or the field Hamiltonian). I don't even know where to start if your field equation is nonlinear. It's hard enough to find just one solution. Beyond that, it's sure odd that the topic of causality, which has a rigorous definition in modern physics isn't mentioned anymore. A matter of curiosity: Max Born's Waynflete Lectures "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" (1948) might be an interesting place to look into, but it won't answer my question. James Joyce said somewhere that he expects his readers to devote their lives reading his books. I hope that Yahoo.answer fans don't get the same impression of my questions. All time in Hell may not be enough to answer some like this one, and even given that, some might choose to spend the time doing someting else. (Unlike some other places, I assume there is free will there). To Frank: You may take for granted that causality is a fact, but not that a given theory will satisfy causality. For example, the classical theory of radiation damping leads to a 3rd-order d.e. that has solutions that are advanced in time (the accelerated charge "knows" the force that will act on it a little ahead of time). That is no big issue since it is likely merely a consequence of perturbation theory. Even so, that is an interesting issue to me, since it shows that we don't have a very good solution to that problem (of radiation damping). To Bekki: I know how to do the problem you state in electromagnetics, I've done it even for fields with sources, and in nonlinear optics, and published about 5 papers on this. ( Interestingly, I remember now that this also ran into "apparent" causality problems, which I was able to resolve). A scenario I foresee, is that some nonlinear wave equation blatantly violates causality: For example a source sends out a signal that propagates faster than the speed of light, or worse yet, that has some really weird solution that you have to interpret as turning around in time and starting to propagate backward in time. I will have to look in the book you mention, but the ones I have don't discuss such matters.

Do atheists have any evidence for their dogma, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell"? Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?" P.S. Do any atheists in Y!A recognize that it is inappropriate to post an anti-religious argument next to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene, during the Christmas season? Why not a symbol of atheism in some other public place at some other time? http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29928 Metal Dog, your argument might be a good defense of agnosticism ("I don't know if God exists") but not of atheism ("There is no God"). Please see the Paul Davies quote above.

Can you recommend a book on EPISTEMOLOGY? Preferably one that is a broad survey of the field, is reasonably recent, and isn't ignorant of quantum theory and neuroscience.

Why do you think it is that no one is making any important new discoveries in the fields of science? Maybe I have it wrong, but it seems like there are no new discoveries being made. Did the age of discovery end with the theories of quantum mechanics? Development of technology is not the same thing. For instance, cell phones have been developed and continue to develop over time, the same is true with computers. But the concepts that those things were made from were discovered a long time ago. I'm talking about things that no one knew existed before, that changes how we approach our world.

Would i be wrong to assume that our consciousness is based around the electromagnetic pulse(EMP)? I've been doing some research, and have found that physics and psychology seem to cross at the point of quantum theory and cognition/intuition. The zero point field is a good read in all of this. If we are all made of just atoms and energy, and if all we technically can't see is this energy in it's vast form, then am i wrong in thinking consciousness (if implicated in such a way) can be seen as an individual part of a vast sea of energy? If MRIs, X-Rays, brainwaves/the conscious being's intuition, are evidence of EM's usefullness and power, Then does this mean we are all connected on a similar level somehow??Maybe to this pool of energy???

Expanding on the question:smartest adherents? Get Real? Are you saying Agnostics and Atheists through thier intelligence has advanced mankind? If so who are they? FAMOUS PEOPLE OF FAITH Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism; believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church) 2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish 3 Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran 4 Charles Darwin Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian 5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic 6 Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious Jewish; Atheist; Freudian psychoanalysis (Freudianism) 7 Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic 8 Antoine Laurent Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic 9 Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran 10 Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest) 11 Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory Sandemanian Max Born Quantum Mechanics Jewish Lutheran Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics Catholic 35 Leonard Euler Eighteenth-Century

Atoms! Fact or Q theory? For those whom "know", please forgive this simpleton Question. Do we actually know for a fact via visual magnification that atoms and protons etc. are real? Or are they Quantum theory?. And following on from this, but not related, why is Q theory so trusted?. To me it seems as irrelevent as UFO theories. Mathematical equations in QT are all guess'. Where is the proof that QT is fact? Proof is everything, and the fact that fields medal winners can't prove their equations outside QT; to me says they are wasting time and money on fantasy. Surely physical facts must be proved physically to be fact! I realise QT is "widely" acknowledged to be fact, but until it is actual fact, why is it so relied upon? All arguements welcome. P.s. For ten points you will need to answer all questions.

Does the soul exist (Atheists)? The past unable to develop a unified field theory because people refused to consider the possibility of interaction between consciousness and objective physical reality. Quantum physicists have not constructed a unified theory because they see quanta as the ultimate reality--even though they recognize the necessity of observation to complete the picture. Infinite continuity does not suffer from these shortcomings. Based on sound logic, empirical evidence and the assumption of infinite continuity, consciousness is involved and quantum phenomena are the result. Quanta of matter and energy in time and space are abstracted from the underlying infinitely continuous reality by the conscious act of the drawing of distinctions.

How to open this file ? I need to view or download the book in this link. http://tinyurl.com/3af3np But somehow i cant view the book.Since it is in djvu format I have installed the Djvu browser plugin. Still no use. I need this desperately to prepare for my oncoming exams. Can anyone suggest any method so that i can view the book ? I would be really thankful. It is a book titled. "Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics" by Robert M wald. Or If anyone happened to have a working link or the ebook itself please email me at goutham112@yahoo.co.in

Theory of mutable gravity? If one alters the parameters of gravity, one makes an energy key that opens doors to supporting fields in the quantum vacuum, or zero point field. Then key and field merge, becoming one. Gravity depends upon it's relationship to the zero point field--if it is a more local energy, the field will respond in kind. If gravity becomes a more non-local energy, the field responds to support it also. Keys open up individual spacetime niches by using this process. Gravity has the ability to become a transdimensional mutator, moving into higher or lower dimensions. It is fed by the supporting environment, the zero point field. One alters the parameters of gravity by spreading it's effect more thinly or thickly across dimensions. This is done by injecting the gravitational energy with gaps from the quantum vacuum, (expanding it, making it thinner) or by further localizing it's essence by compression (making it thicker and more stubborn).Once the key opens the door the resultant field resonates As John Mayer said, "I'm more than my body gives me credit for".... Gravity is a transmutator. Epidavro: it doesn't seem to make physical sense because it is on the fringe of normal physical experience. Check out David Hutchison's experiments with levitation.... His experiments prove that atoms and mass do not account for gravity. Therefore, he has changed the nature of gravity within an object. Here's the link to some of Hutchison's work... http://youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE Opps! His name is John Hutchison, not David H. I was confusing him with David Hudson, another trailblazer in paranormal science.

Can you prove the Universe is contingent? We know the visible universe is; can you prove it for the cosmos? That is -- Under inflationary theory, the quantum field (aka Inflaton) is non-contingent, and the mathematics for inflationary theory are quite internally consistent. The Big Bang/Inflationary Era is contingent on events in the Inflaton, so the visible universe (small 'u') is contingent on the Inflaton, which comprises the Universe (big 'u'). So... let's see the proof. Do so in a mathematically rigorous manner, and you'd convert every agnostic and atheist on the planet to Deism at the least. Show me that the Cosmos/Inflaton/Universe is contingent. Jon W: Tad defensive are we? It is a philosophical question, nothing more. That I point out the consequences of answering it does not invalidate the validity of the question itself. Jon W: You do realize I'm an atheist? Why would I try to proof the existence of a deity?

Will String Theory Ever Be Provable This Century And By Who? As it stands, string theory is unproved, and perhaps unprovable, as it involves interactions at energy levels far beyond any we can handle. But to those versed enough in the language of mathematics to follow it, it is beautiful. And in its beauty, string theory is the heir to Einstein's primitive first attempts to produce a unified field theory. It is multidimensional and some versions include as many as 26 dimensions, with 15 or 16 curled up in a tiny ball. It is geometrical: the interactions of one multidimensional shape with another produces the effects we call forces, just as the "force" of gravity in general relativity is what we feel as we move through the curves of four-dimensional space-time. And it unifies, no doubt about it, in the math, at least, all of nature from quantum mechanics to gravity emerges from the equations of string theory.

Thoughts are a "Field of Energy" and so, with this premise...? it seems to me that Burma and China got exactly what there thoughts are expressing: outrage and imprisonment by their OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP GOVERNMENTS! The weather shows the emotinal turmoil of its citizens. If you've read any of the Quantum theories about energy, you'll agree. So if China didn't treat the world so badly--the number one polluter in the world, and their treatment of their people is slavery--it's no wonder they made the earth quake! Agree or disagree? Please give a real reason. I do not they are conscious of their thoughts and so they hurt themselves out of ignorance to being an enlightened, self aware individual--hence a nation of peoples. On Mother's Day the weather all over the world was a torrent? Why/ Because mothers has lost their way--working instead of mothering children; taking on male roles because men don't; and so on. Interesting premise....?

Some research is showing that QUANTUM PHYSICS Sunspots, Disappearing BEES? Is a possibility of CLimate Changes coming from the SUN. Honeybees and Sunspots may be interacting in November of bees mysteriously disappearing. Not just one or two, but entire colonies of tens of thousands of bees at a time. As temperatures have warmed and it has become safe to open hives, the extent of losses is grave: Sunspots follow an approximate 11-year cycle, corresponding to increases in solar activity. This solar activity causes geomagnetic effects during the peaks, but effects on earth’s magnetic field also occur during the minimums. Using these observations, scientists have predicted that the next solar maximum, expected to peak in 2010 to 2012, could be the most intense ever if this were not enough, the results imply that bees can perceive quarks, thereby interacting with the quantum world without disturbing it in the ways both observed and predicted by quantum theory QUANTUM Conscious Observer that manifested reality? GOD.... Thoughts?

Quantum numbers are.......................? A.) numbers that specify the properties of atomic orbitals and of their electrons B.) the property of a substance whereby it is weakly repelled by a magnetic field. C.) a strong form of paramagnetism, resulting from all of the atoms in the ferromagnetic substance becoming oriented with their like magnetic poles in the same direction. D.) the quantum-theory equivalent of the Bohr orbits.

How do I find out my real IQ? Hello, my name is William, I am 14 years old and a few weeks ago a took the WISC IV test and attained a near ceiling score. However, since I kept "topping out" on the subtests, the psychologist administering the test supplemented with the Stanford Binet IV (which to me seems pointless because they both have the same ceiling, 160). The psychologist doesn't use the Stanford Binet L-M, so there was no way of finding out my real IQ. However, I am really interested in doing so. I know my IQ isn't a mere 160, as I am fluent in ten languages (learning a lot more as well), can read a few books a day, can understand and do PhD level math and physics (String Theory, Quantum Field theory, Algebraic Topology, Loop Quantum Gravity are my favorite) and have many more diverse interests. I really want to know what my real IQ is. But how?

Are many in the Physics community too quick to embrace M-theory as the much sought after T.O.E? Doesn't it have serious problems in some or all of the following areas : testability, the virtual infinity of Universes that inhabit the string theory landscape, the paradoxical background dependence, the excessively difficult mathematics, the absence of a guiding principle such as the Uncertainty principle or the Principle of Equivalence and it's heavy use of highly abstract maths to explain its key features eg. p-branes, supersymmetry, curled-up dimensions, holography,dualities,... amid a dearth of experimental support.Finally, isn't it the case that other contenders notably Loop Quantum Gravity have to progress in it's shadow? Even if only some of this is true isn't it quite unsatisfactory? A bit like the 21st century version of the ether...Apparently for the experts in the field it's beautiful but does that make it true?

Quantum Chemistry? The energy levels of the H atom in an external magnetic field can be solved exactly. Assume that this is not the case, and solve for the energy levels using first order perturbation theory, assuming the magnetic field is in the z direction. Calculate the splitting or energy difference (in cm-¹) between two adjacent 3d levels of the H atom for a field of 10 Tesla. I really don't know where to start on this problem if someone could help me, it would be wonderful!! THANK YOU SO MUCH! Love, Mary ♥