r/QuantumPhysics

I’ve grown this interest in physics. I think I’ve set in on quantum physics and engineering as my choice of study. I have very little mathematical knowledge ( The basics ), I know that is an area on which I need to commit time and energy towards. Does anyone have any advice for someone like me who wants this. Any resources that can help me, or at the very least get my foot into the door. There is only so much YouTube can teach.

Hey. I'm an engineering student, not a physicist, so I'm probably about to say something wrong. But I've been thinking about this for a while and I want to know if it holds up or if I'm missing something obvious.

Here's the thing. I know perception isn't continuous — the brain samples the world in chunks, mostly in the 8 to 13 Hz range, and slower stuff (delta, 1 to 4 Hz) shows up in deep sleep and deep meditation. And I know the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is basically about why observing something makes it collapse into a definite state.

What I've been wondering is: what if those two things are connected in some way? Not in the mystical "consciousness creates reality" sense, but more mechanically. What if the collapse happens partly because the observer is sampling at their own rhythm, and that rhythm doesn't match whatever the underlying system is doing? And what if you could observe a quantum system while applying a low-frequency field (something in the delta range) and the collapse would look different?

I keep coming back to a rough analogy in my head. Like a one-way mirror. If the thing you're observing "sees" your observation because your rhythm sticks out, it collapses. But if your observation is hidden inside a frequency that matches the background, maybe it doesn't. I know that's not really how photons and electrons work, but the intuition won't leave me alone.

I already know the obvious problems. Decoherence explains most of the measurement problem without needing any of this. Low-frequency fields are everywhere and we don't see weird quantum effects because of them. The energy of a 1 Hz photon is basically nothing on the quantum scale. And people like Dean Radin have tried consciousness-quantum experiments and the results are messy.

So my actual questions are:

Is this idea already ruled out for a reason I'd know if I understood the physics better? Or is it just not something people have looked at because there's no reason to?

Has anyone actually run experiments where they applied oscillating fields at different frequencies during a quantum measurement to see if anything changes?

Is the whole "observer and observed being frequency-coupled" thing completely wrong, or does it map onto anything real?

I'm not trying to prove anything here. I'm trying to figure out if this is worth reading more about or if it's a dead end. Honest answers welcome, even harsh ones. I'd rather find out now than keep chasing something that doesn't work.

Thanks.

I’m trying to understand the majorana one chip more. I don’t know too much about quantum physics but they said we needed like 1 million qbits before we could start making custom materials??? That’s what I’ve heard. I’m having trouble grasping the whole story.

https://preview.redd.it/wny9wrhe5cah1.png?width=670&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f1432e4ba69dd8bd54c6db81813a54271b26e66

I dont understand why in this experiment we get 50/50 black and white despite we just put white electrons

please help

*this paper from MIT university

Quantum computing isn’t weird. Classical computing is weird because it forces the universe into a tiny, rigid, binary box — and then calls everything outside that box “weird.” I saw another post here about classical computing distraught and in tears at the idea that quantum computing is weird, but I disagree with the idea. Because if the fact is that our universe exists because of quantum computing, then "classical" computing is the one that's weird, because it's either the defect, the starting point, or some cheap imitation that we built to understand the universe. I'm not getting any valuable answer from any AI, so someone give me something good.

Recently I read this book: The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable. Hence, I became interested in quantum applications in the stock market. From a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense because both QM and the stock market are probabilistic in nature. In QM, you can get the probability of a particle being in a certain area and in the stock market you can also predict the probability of a stock going up or down. Either way it is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion.

I have a background in optics/photonics and in QM as well as an interest in finance, so this topic naturally became something I wanted to pursue for my research project. But after thinking about it more it just seems very buzz wordy and not something traditionally done. Additionally, the stock market produces very noisy data, and it just seems impossible to do a research project around that chaos. I'm overall just very confused about if/how to make a project around this and what applications even are there. I need to have a physical apparatus for my project anyways so I may just scrap this idea

Most physics courses introduce spin and orbital motion as separate ideas — but they're not. They constantly talk to each other inside every atom, and that "conversation" is what makes platinum useful in hard drives and what might power the memory chips of the future.

This note breaks down spin-orbit coupling from the ground up — from Thomson's cathode-ray discovery to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Schiff's 1955 formula, and modern spintronic effects such as the spin Hall effect, DMI, and MRAM.

Written from the electron's perspective, which makes it surprisingly fun to read.

https://notesforphysics.com/spin-orbit-coupling-electron-moments/

I have been working on a web site that introduces quantum mechanics to curious readers who aren't ready to get into the weeds and do the math. The goal is to introduce all the core concepts and make them as intuitive as possible. Hopefully this is useful for anyone starting to look at quantum mechanics and wants to know what it is all about.
https://timeforsanity.com/qm/

Hey everyone, I've been digging into David Oaknin's paper "Accounting for gauge symmetries in CHSH experiments" (arXiv:2403.07935) and wanted to get a quick sanity check from the quantum info / black-box foundations crowd here.

In his model, he uses non-linear coordinate transformations (Gamma-maps) to ensure that the individual marginals are strictly setting-independent and non-signaling. However, the catch is that it forces the joint distribution of the hidden variables to depend explicitly on the relative detector angle, theta.

Oaknin argues this isn't a violation of locality or measurement independence because the hidden variables are purely relational (gauge-dependent) rather than absolute, which creates a geometric holonomy that breaks Counterfactual Definiteness instead.

From a quantum information / black-box perspective, how is this generally viewed by the community? Is this considered a genuine geometric bypass of Bell's theorem, or does having a joint distribution that depends on theta just relegate the whole model to a standard measurement-dependence / superdeterminism loophole?

I'm a neural physicist and need a programming language that can handle super positions. Python is very fast but, lacks the ability to run simultaneous operations which means, no superpositions. C language seems like the best option but, it's very heavy.