Quantum - Science topic

The Schrödinger equation, as foundational as it is in quantum mechanics, fails to adequately describe the true nature of quantum particle motion, as demonstrated by my recent research ( DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633). This raises the critical question: What alternative frameworks can we use to better understand quantum mechanics? Given that the current models have been proven insufficient, it becomes crucial to explore different ways to model the behavior of particles. Can we ever truly predict the motion of quantum particles accurately, considering our limited understanding of both the inner workings of matter (with medical science only scratching the surface of human biology) and the physical universe (with only 7% of the observable matter understood)? The complexities of quantum motion are so vast, and our scientific knowledge so constrained, that predicting exact particle states may well remain unattainable.

This query invites the ResearchGate community to propose alternatives to the Schrödinger equation. What would a new model look like, and can we develop a formula that predicts quantum motion in a way that better aligns with the complexities and limitations of our current knowledge? Given the undeniable limitations of modern science, can we ever predict the precise mechanics of a particle? Your insights and suggestions are welcome.

If the concept of superposition can ever challenge our understanding of space-time in general relativity..

I.e. it does so by introducing scenarios where objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously, having indefinite positions and being in a mixed state

which conflicts with the classical view of spacetime, which is deterministic and absolute.

I.e. if massive bodies are in superposition, it raises questions about the validity of Equivalence Principle as their gravitational effects could vary depending on their states[1].

On an am even more subtle level, superposition suggests that spacetime itself may also be in a state of superposition, meaning it is not the clear cut thing we expect but an emeregent effect of more fundamental ontologically same or not entities,

thus complicating the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity[2], indicating that our classical notions of spacetime may be emergent rather than fundamental, necessitating a reevaluation of how we understand gravity and quantum phenomena. This idea captured scientists in early 2000s (Smolin, Markopoullou) while some like Rivelli continue to enertain it.

Citations:

[1] Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein's Equivalence ... https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.01405

[2] Marios Christodoulou: Spacetime in Superposition, in the Laboratory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MGU6o6pIgo

Are you ready to dive into one of the most revolutionary fields of technology? Quantum computing is transforming how we think about computation, and now's your chance to learn the fundamentals!

🎥 Watch my latest video on Quantum Computing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU2UiplskHI

Quantum Computing Video

In this video, we’ll cover: 🔹 What is Quantum Computing? 🔹 Quantum bits (Qubits) and their power 🔹 How quantum computers differ from classical computers 🔹 Potential real-world applications

Whether you're a tech enthusiast, student, or professional, this video will provide a clear, beginner-friendly introduction to quantum computing concepts.

👉 Don’t miss out! Watch now and join the future of computing.

#QuantumComputing #Technology #AI #MachineLearning #FutureTech #Innovation #Education #ProfessorRahulJain

In the last two days, headlines have been buzzing about Google's unveiling of a "mind-boggling" quantum computing chip—a supposed leap into the future of technology. 🌌 But here's the hard truth: this entire field might be built on a fundamentally flawed foundation. 🔍 My research (DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633) reveals that the Schrödinger Equation, the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, is inherently unfit to describe the correct motion and state of quantum particles in their entirety. While it may work under controlled or specific conditions, it cannot define quantum particle mechanics universally. If the very basis of quantum mechanics is incorrect, how can quantum computing—which relies on these principles—ever succeed? 💡 Quantum computing is, by design, attempting to solve problems using flawed science. Billions of dollars, decades of research, and the world’s brightest minds are pouring resources into something that is fundamentally broken. This is science’s biggest illusion—a dream sold as progress but rooted in a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics' true limitations. 🌟 Instead of chasing illusions, it’s time to redirect our efforts and resources toward areas grounded in reality, such as improving classical computing or exploring new scientific paradigms that align with solid fundamentals. Let’s not let this “quantum rush” distract us from what truly matters. 🤔 This is the right time to pause, reflect, and choose a better path—one that doesn’t invest in an area that is doomed at its core but instead prioritizes technologies with true potential. Let’s spark the debate: Is quantum computing science's biggest scam? Share your thoughts below! 👇 #QuantumComputing #QuantumMechanics #SchrödingerEquation #ScienceDebate #Innovation #FutureTech

Hello,

I have an issue,while band structure calculation using quantum espresso.While running scf calculation for band structure of my antiferromagnetic compound the error arises as

Error in routine pzpotrf (1):

problems computing cholesky decomposition

Kindly,suggest me solution.

thanks in advance

The tunnel effect is not only a quantum mechanical phenomenon but rather a statistical phenomenon which precisely obeys Cairo statistical techniques.

The statistics of Cairo techniques show that quantum tunneling exists and its description formula by the classic Schrödinger PDE is also correct.

The difference is that the description of Cairo techniques is understandable, while Schrödinger's classic PDE is not.

This is indeed the case.

In the pursuit of human progress, science has undeniably transformed the material aspects of life—advancing our health, wealth, and technology. Yet, there remains an uncharted territory: how can science be leveraged not just for physical abundance but to elevate the very essence of human existence, fostering prosperity, happiness, health, and even spiritual fulfillment? Can we scientifically engineer a model of living where every individual experiences bliss, vitality, and peace, while also nurturing the collective well-being of society?

The concept of "blissful living" is deeply rooted in ancient wisdom, yet modern scientific advancements in neuroscience, quantum physics, psychology, and social behavior offer unprecedented opportunities to explore this ideal. How do the principles of neuroscience—shaping our understanding of the brain and emotions—align with quantum physics' potential to transcend the limitations of material reality? How can social sciences bridge the gap between individual flourishing and collective harmony?

This vision calls for an integrative approach that combines the best of both the material and spiritual dimensions, enabling us to understand and cultivate abundance, health, wealth, and happiness not as separate pursuits, but as interconnected aspects of a higher state of existence. A holistic, scientifically grounded pathway to blissful living could revolutionise how we approach human well-being on a global scale, offering a framework for not just surviving, but thriving in a way that fosters a deeper connection to self, others, and the divine.

What is the role of gold nanoparticles and quantum materials in sensors?

in E.P.R. Bell like experiments it is usually assumed the standard stationary poisson Ian statistics of single photodetection ; the measurement process may induce non perturbative deterministic vacuum fluctuations which may violates this assumption of an ergodic process beneath quantum detection .We develop in a recent paper the hypothesis that vacuum fluctuations caused by apparatus induced thermal spin currents may violate Bell like inequality explaining experimental data by infinite dimensional hidden variable fields models.

What is the role of silver nanoparticles and quantum materials in predictive analytics for healthcare and solar cells?

Except from not extendibg to relativistic effects, Bohmian mechanics is equivalent to standard mechanics.

In BM the guiding equation contribute to non-locality in Bohmian mechanics.

The guiding equation in Bohmian mechanics contributes to non-locality by establishing that the trajectory of a particle is influenced by the wave function of the entire system, not just local interactions. Specifically, the guiding equation dictates that a particle's velocity is determined by the spatial configuration of the wave function, which encompasses all particles in the system.

It highlights Bells work, saying

This means that changes to one particle can instantaneously affect others, regardless of distance, thus violating Einstein's principle of locality. Consequently, Bohmian mechanics explicitly demonstrates non-local correlations inherent in quantum phenomena, making it a stronger assertion of non-locality compared to standard quantum mechanics, where such effects are often more implicit and contextual

The tunnel effect is not only a quantum mechanical phenomenon but rather a statistical phenomenon which precisely obeys modern statistical techniques.

Statistics from modern physics techniques (classical physics plus transition probability) show that quantum tunneling exists and that its description formula by the classical Schrödinger PDE is also correct.

The difference is that the description of classical physics techniques is understandable, while Schrödinger's classical PDE is not.

This is indeed the case.

General Relativity and quantum. Mechanics are famously incompatible. But there 2 points of conpatibility

**theoretical - The Macaldena Ads/holographic principle correspondence (1988). It is considered the only relation "link" between tge two theories established in over ahundred years of both theories existence! with a lot of community engagement /consensus but still no more than speculative/highly imaginative results and implications and no development for further bridgement

**theoretical derived experimentally verified Hawking radiation (small lengths(QM)/ curved space(GR) considetation

Small times ("Planck time" ) early universe theorization have yet to make Testable predictions but its the most prominent next overlapping point

I was wondering if the problem has to do with the introduction of Time as a fourth dimension. In the metric introduced by Minkowsky in his paper SPACE AND TIME, with the complex plane, it is possible, to define a minimum Basic Systemic Unit, based Euler's relation that has the most remarkable property of remaining the same in spite of change, so it is a mathematical expression of a Quantum, so that "spooky action at a distance", is not the point in this case, as a Quantum does not change, as it constituted by two Totalities that cannot be separated, they are joint in the complex plane in a indivisible unit, just as that ancient Taoist Symbol(Yin-Yang) as was found in the Ottawa University in their experiment of with the Quantum entanglement.

For those interested in that experiment about Quantum entanglement in the Ottawa University you can find it:

and here you can find the correspondent paper

Interferometric imaging of amplitude and phase of spatial biphoton states - Nature Photonics

Edgar Paternina

To confirm the experiment of the quantum jump of the electron through a contraction in the fabric of space-time, an experiment must be conducted to prove the validity of the equation by using combine two experiences, one by David Jeffrey Wineland and the other an attosecond experiment. If we use rapid observation using attoseconds of the electrons during the quantum jump, just as David Jeffrey Wineland used high-energy ultraviolet radiation to detect the jump. The electron does not move from its place, not because time has stopped, but because space-time is what acquires energy. This is the explanation of (the quantum Zeno effect). After the space-time fabric gains energy, it contracts and causes wave interference between the two levels by contracting the higher energy level to the level occupied by the electron. That is, the electron will remain fixed in its position.

What are the effects of plasmon coupling in increasing the output quantum in quantum dots?

An alternative interpretation of the dissonance between classical physics and quantum mechanics

Quantum confinement of nanoparticles ?

Solve the equation of quantum relativity theory on the hydrogen atom.

Could coherence thresholds in atoms offer a quantifiable link between the quantum and classical worlds, revealing an underlying pattern that governs stability across all scales of reality? If coherence scales predictably with atomic complexity, could we unlock a new framework for understanding how reality stabilizes from the quantum level to the macroscopic?

Explore the theory further in my research paper, "Scaled Coherence and Stability: A Scalable Probability Model for Atomic Structure and Quantum Field Interactions."

This relationship shows that although we cannot measure what happens when an electronic quantum jump occurs. This law also shows that there is a relationship between the energy of the photon and the fabric of space-time, even if it is not measured by measuring devices. Because measuring devices are considered primitive devices when making the process of measuring the quantitative world. What is being measured are the spectra of the elements being measured, not what happens to the electron when the quantum jump of the electron to the higher level. Second, Maxwell told Rutherford that the electron changes direction as it orbits the nucleus, so it must lose energy to cause a collision with the nucleus, which it does not. My equation tells me the electron moves in a large circle around the nucleus. A body moving in a large circle whose direction of motion is in a straight line. Thus, the electron moves in a straight line. Newton's law states that an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an external or internal force. Likewise, an object in motion stays in motion unless an external or internal force affects its movement, the electron does not lose energy.

Dear colleagues,

I’ve created a video on YouTube simulating diffraction phenomena and illustrating how it differs from wave interference.

I hope this visual approach offers a clear perspective on the distinctions between these effects.

I am thrilled to announce that I have joined the Journal of Quantum Computing (JQC) as the Managing Editor! 🎉

At JQC, we are dedicated to advancing the rapidly evolving field of quantum computing, covering areas such as quantum algorithms, quantum cryptography, quantum information theory, and more.

While JQC is still in the process of being indexed by major databases, we have ambitious plans to achieve SCI indexing within the next two years. As we work towards this goal, we are eager to invite esteemed scholars to join our editorial board and contribute their expertise to shape the future of our journal. We also welcome all researchers to submit their work to JQC, where there are currently no publication fees!🎈

Additionally, we are recruiting members of the editorial board, if you are an expert in this field and are interested in contributing or joining our team, please feel free to reach out!

Let's collaborate and drive the future of quantum computing together! 🚀🔬

Macro Coherence refers to the application of quantum decoherence principles to the macro realm. It suggests that multiple potential realities in the macroscopic world stabilize into a singular, observable one, similar to how wave functions collapse in quantum theory. This concept implies that, much like in quantum systems, the possibilities in the larger world 'solidify' into a single reality as coherence is lost, giving rise to the observable universe.

The solution to the explanation of the quantum leap is that it is space-time that acquires energy, not the electron, according to this law of quantum relativity. If this is true, then the world of physics and chemistry will be modified according to the new concepts.

Crystal defect and yield Quantum?

A number of Python modules exisit for modelling the quantum outputs of quantum optical systems. With only one or two optical components and simple quantum states, system outputs can be calculated by hand. However, when the complexity increases, the benefits of having a Python module to check results or just save time is obvious. With quantum comms, computers and sensors being investigated seriously, the complexity is already high.

The availability of symbolic algebra programs in Python and Octave certainly are valuable for checking algebra, so you could start from scratch yourself to build somethings. However, in the case of quantum optics there are more rules for how things like creation operators and annihilation operators, hamiltonians etc act on states, so building from scratch is far from trivial.

Given a number of Python modules exist for performing this symbolic algebra, would there be any kind of consensus as to which one might be the best and most versatile to use, with the greatest number of users?

many thanks,

Neil

In the realm of physics, the relationship between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics has long posed a significant challenge. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) offers a fresh perspective, allowing us to rethink the implications of quantum events and their potential connections to entropy.

1. Fundamentals of Many-Worlds Interpretation

According to the Many-Worlds Interpretation, when a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into multiple parallel universes, each corresponding to a possible outcome. This viewpoint emphasizes the diversity and uncertainty inherent in quantum phenomena, challenging the classical understanding of measurement and observation.

2. Defining Entropy and Its Increase

Entropy is a physical quantity used to measure the disorder of a system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system, entropy will naturally increase over time. The growth of entropy signifies the randomization of energy distribution and the reduction of usable energy within the system.

3. Analogy Between Many-Worlds Interpretation and Entropy

If we regard the "multiverse" as a closed system, the emergence of new universes with each quantum event can be seen as an increase in the states of the system. This point bears a certain similarity to the growth of entropy, as each universe split represents the addition of new possibilities and outcomes, thereby enhancing the overall disorder of the multiverse.

4. Impact of Quantum Events on Entropy

The occurrence of quantum events, especially in interaction with the external environment, leads to the phenomenon of decoherence, whereby quantum states become classical and more disordered. This process is closely related to the concept of increasing entropy, as the complexity and uncertainty of the system rise with the occurrence of quantum events.

5. Reconsidering the Physical Framework

Incorporating the Many-Worlds Interpretation into the discussion of entropy prompts us to rethink the boundaries between quantum physics and thermodynamics. In a sense, this line of thinking breaks the traditional physical framework, enabling us to find new relationships on both macroscopic and microscopic levels.

Conclusion

The exploration of the intersection between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics remains a promising area in contemporary physics research. The relationship between Many-Worlds Interpretation and entropy offers a new way of thinking that fosters a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe. As scientific technology continues to advance, these discussions may inspire further inquiries into the principles governing the workings of the universe and potentially lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of physics.

2) How is the formation of the universe?

The universe, at its most fundamental level, appears to operate according to the principles of quantum mechanics, where uncertainty and indeterminacy play key roles in shaping its evolution. In classical computational theory, Turing’s Halting Problem demonstrates that it is impossible to predict whether a system will reach a final state or run indefinitely. This raises profound questions about the nature of the universe: could it, too, one day halt, reaching a state where no further evolution is possible? However, the inherent unpredictability of quantum mechanics—through phenomena like superposition, quantum fluctuations, and entanglement—may offer a safeguard against such a scenario. This paper explores the intersection of quantum mechanics and the Halting Problem, suggesting that quantum uncertainty prevents the universe from settling into a static, final state. By continuously introducing randomness and variation into the fabric of reality, quantum processes ensure the universe remains in perpetual motion, avoiding a halting condition. We will examine the scientific and philosophical implications of this theory and its potential to reshape our understanding of cosmology.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

The evolution of the universe, from the inflationary epoch onwards, is described by classical, not quantum, gravity.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

Turing's halting problem doesn't have anything to do with the subject of cosmology, or any subject, where the equations that describe the evolution of the system under study are known.

In particular the answer to the question of the evolution of the universe is known: It's described by the de Sitter solution to Einstein's equations, that is its expansion is accelerating, although with a very slow rate. The question, whose answer isn't, yet, known is what happened before the inflationary epoch. It is for this question that a new theory is needed, that can match to classical description of spacetime and the quantum description of matter that emerged from it.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

That quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic description isn't particular to it. Classical mechanics, also provides a probabilistic description, since classical systems are, typically, chaotic and integrable systems are the exception, not the rule. The only difference between a quantum system and its classical limit is the space of states.

Dale Fulton added a reply:

Turing's Halting Problem comes from computer sciences and the study of such systems. The question is whether nature obeys any of our "halting" knowledge and our myopic perspective of the universe. Likely not.

Javad Fardaei added a reply:

Dear Abbas We must realize that our universe is a complete entity that it is running billions of galaxies and place billions solar systems in each galaxy in most accurate way is not result of accident big bang, or run mechanically as our past icons (quantum mechanics, or any mechanical entanglement) stated it. Our universe like anything else (inside of it) has born and it has a natural journey. If you accept this fact, then we are in right track as far as knowing intelligent atom, not mechanical atom.

Unfortunately science believes someone imagination of collapsing our mechanical physics into nature (atom)

Reading this unprecedented articles might help your view of this magnificent universe of ours.

1-Article Universe's Rotation and Its Benefit:

2-Article Intelligent Atom:

2) How is the formation of the universe?

The universe, at its most fundamental level, appears to operate according to the principles of quantum mechanics, where uncertainty and indeterminacy play key roles in shaping its evolution. In classical computational theory, Turing’s Halting Problem demonstrates that it is impossible to predict whether a system will reach a final state or run indefinitely. This raises profound questions about the nature of the universe: could it, too, one day halt, reaching a state where no further evolution is possible? However, the inherent unpredictability of quantum mechanics—through phenomena like superposition, quantum fluctuations, and entanglement—may offer a safeguard against such a scenario. This paper explores the intersection of quantum mechanics and the Halting Problem, suggesting that quantum uncertainty prevents the universe from settling into a static, final state. By continuously introducing randomness and variation into the fabric of reality, quantum processes ensure the universe remains in perpetual motion, avoiding a halting condition. We will examine the scientific and philosophical implications of this theory and its potential to reshape our understanding of cosmology.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

The evolution of the universe, from the inflationary epoch onwards, is described by classical, not quantum, gravity.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

Turing's halting problem doesn't have anything to do with the subject of cosmology, or any subject, where the equations that describe the evolution of the system under study are known.

In particular the answer to the question of the evolution of the universe is known: It's described by the de Sitter solution to Einstein's equations, that is its expansion is accelerating, although with a very slow rate. The question, whose answer isn't, yet, known is what happened before the inflationary epoch. It is for this question that a new theory is needed, that can match to classical description of spacetime and the quantum description of matter that emerged from it.

Stam Nicolis added a reply:

That quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic description isn't particular to it. Classical mechanics, also provides a probabilistic description, since classical systems are, typically, chaotic and integrable systems are the exception, not the rule. The only difference between a quantum system and its classical limit is the space of states.

In quantum mechanics, the wave function collapse describes how a particle's uncertain, probabilistic state solidifies into one measurable outcome upon interaction or observation. But what if we could extend this concept beyond the quantum realm, applying it to the macrocosm? This thought experiment proposes a revolutionary idea: just as quantum particles exist in superpositions until a collapse occurs, could reality itself exist in a kind of cosmic superposition, solidifying into the version we observe through large-scale processes?

This opens up a fascinating question: what if the macrocosmic collapse of reality could be reversed, revealing hidden layers, alternate timelines, or parallel worlds? Let’s explore several key ideas that could extend this quantum principle to our universe at large.

A theory making just such a claim was recently published by Mark Kristian van der Pals (me) in a trilogy of papers in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations (IJQF).

Suppose for the sake of argument that the theory were correct—that the world really is analogue rather than digital on a fundamental level, despite the evidence to the contrary. What would it mean for the search for a quantum theory of gravity? Would it mean that the search is fundamentally misguided? Or would that depend on the details of the theory?

If the latter, perhaps some experts out there could take a close look at the proposed theory (and at what it says about quantum fields) and let me know? The second of the three papers, ‘A Note on a Possible Solution to the Measurement Problem’, IJQF 10, 1, 2024, uploaded onto my profile in ResearchGate, contains all the relevant details for the purpose of the present question, including how the theory evades the various no-go theorems owing to its retrocausality. (The other two papers of the trilogy are 'What Is It That “Waves” in Wave Mechanics?’, 9, 4, 2023; and ‘How Come the Quantum? A Deeper Principle Behind Quantization’, 10, 3, 2024.)

I was thinking about how elements on the periodic table... Metals never act as non metals and non metals never act as metals... But under the right conditions semiconductors can act as both even though they possess one characteristic initially... What if quantum objects are actually neither particles nor waves but actually something "in between" which is why they can exhibit both characteristics at the right conditions

2) How is the formation of the universe?

The universe, at its most fundamental level, appears to operate according to the principles of quantum mechanics, where uncertainty and indeterminacy play key roles in shaping its evolution. In classical computational theory, Turing’s Halting Problem demonstrates that it is impossible to predict whether a system will reach a final state or run indefinitely. This raises profound questions about the nature of the universe: could it, too, one day halt, reaching a state where no further evolution is possible? However, the inherent unpredictability of quantum mechanics—through phenomena like superposition, quantum fluctuations, and entanglement—may offer a safeguard against such a scenario. This paper explores the intersection of quantum mechanics and the Halting Problem, suggesting that quantum uncertainty prevents the universe from settling into a static, final state. By continuously introducing randomness and variation into the fabric of reality, quantum processes ensure the universe remains in perpetual motion, avoiding a halting condition. We will examine the scientific and philosophical implications of this theory and its potential to reshape our understanding of cosmology.

Currently i am dealing with a QB out of the Heisenberg spin chain, say XX, and for certain particular values of spin-orbit coupling, I am getting negative ergotropy, and the initial state i am assuming for the QB is Gibbs thermal state.

I dont find literature on this issue on how it can be possible, and from the computational point of view, i can safely say the calculations are right, but I can't say anything about the occurrence of negative ergotropy.

How Penrose - Hameroff theory is crucial to answer this question?

Where does a linear oscillator in its highest quantum state get its energy from?

We assume that if the scalar energy density U(x,y,z,t) is expressed in a discrete 4D unit space then it acquires the properties of vectors,

div .U = ρ(u) . . . (1)

And,

Curl x [U] = - A. d/dt)partial [U] . . . (2)

Remember that div Curl = Nabla^2

SO,

d/dt)partial [U] = Nabla^2 U(x,y,z,t) + ρ(u) . . . . (3)

Where U(x,y,z,t) is any energy density field (classical or quantum) living and functioning in unitary 4D space.

Equation 3 is Laplacian's theorem in 4D unit space which has great applications in mathematics and theoretical physics and yet it is still missing.

In quantum cryptographic protocols, participants typically share both a quantum channel and a classical authenticated channel. Authenticated channels ensure that messages come from legitimate senders and have not been tampered with. However, these channels do not inherently protect against the interception or blocking of messages by an adversary. Blocking or delaying messages in the classical channel is considered an active attack.

Many sources, including the first article in quantum key distribution by Bennett and Brassard, mention that the public channel between participants is only susceptible to passive attacks, not active attacks.

My question is: In quantum cryptographic protocols (such as QKD, QSS, and QPC), can an attacker block or delay messages in the public channel without being detected? If so, wouldn't that compromise the security of many well-established protocols such as the BB84?

Based on Einstein's special relativity, light speed is limited, but, the entanglement of the quantum states proves the instant replacement of information between two entangled quantum states.is there any contradiction in this regard?

🚀 Introducing OpenQP: A new open-source platform for quantum chemical collaboration, now live at [OpenQP on GitHub](https://github.com/Open-Quantum-Platform/openqp). Discover innovative features like the Mixed-Reference Spin-Flip Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (MRSF-TDDFT) and more in our latest manuscript: [Read here](https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-k846p).

👏 Kudos to incredible people: Vladimir, Konstantin, Igor, Jingbai, and many others whose dedication made this possible!

OpenQP (Open Quantum Platform) tackles sustainability and interoperability challenges in computational chemistry. The platform offers a range of autonomous modules for quantum chemical theories, including energy and gradient calculations for HF, DFT, TDDFT, SF-TDDFT, and MRSF-TDDFT, facilitating seamless integration with third-party software.

### 🔍 Key Features of OpenQP

- Autonomous modules for quantum chemistry theories, enhancing interoperability.

- Ground and excited state properties computed using [MRSF-TDDFT](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02296).

- Nonadiabatic coupling via [TLF Technology](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c00932) using MRSF-TDDFT.

- Innovative DTCAM series [exchange-correlation functionals](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00640).

### 🚀 What’s Next?

- Spin-Orbit Coupling via [Relativistic MRSF-TDDFT](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01036).

- Ionization Potential/Electron Affinity with [EKT-MRSF-TDDFT](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c02494).

Could fuzzy logic be applied to quantum weak measurements as new approach to provide a probabilistic global measurement and thus avoid the collapse of the wave function? In other words, could weak measurement devices be equipped with AI fuzzy logic to collect the minimum amount of data on the quantum system ?

Quantum already has quantum networks. Complex networks are also a kind of network. Is there any connection between them? How can we construct a quantum complex network to explore the structure of the network? Is such an idea feasible? If it is feasible, what are the difficulties? What are the applications in which aspects?

This question invites researchers from different fields—quantum physics and thermodynamics—to explore interdisciplinary connections. By bridging two seemingly unrelated domains, it encourages discussions on novel applications of quantum phenomena to classical systems. This could lead to groundbreaking insights and experimental proposals, attracting a wide audience keen on exploring the frontiers of physics.

In quantum fluids the phase of a wavefunction is smooth and can be represented by a topological manifold of genus 0, the velocity creates a vector field over this manifold. Then can the hairy ball theorem be directly applied to state that there must exist a point where the vector field creates a vortex, showing a purely mathematical reason for the formation of vortices?

In the history of natural science, the ruling class had the power, but the underdog (the ruled) had the truth. This contradiction pushed science forward. Pre-quantum natural science and even now, had/have no clear ideas about the ontological question of how the universe came to be. Mythology, Theology and Speculations depended on a "First Cause" of creation by God in the finite past. In other words, Metaphysics depending on causality, substituted for science; but this Metaphysics could not even imagine in its wildest dream, the quantum nature of objective reality, before it was discovered – a revolutionary development in natural science like never before! Only G.W.F Hegel through his dialectical philosophy of space-time-matter-motion in a very obscure and highly speculative way anticipated the quantum phenomena of objective reality. Now that the quantum reality is being established through practice from the microcosm to the macrocosm of the Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing universe; can Metaphysics and the old established order survive much longer?

DIALECTICS NOT METAPHYSICS OF NATURE: FROM THE QUANTUM TO THE COSMIC :

" The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science":

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

This discussion concerns the positivist versus the realist interpretation of quantum non-locality in the framework of EPRB experiment. It's about the possibility to change this question of interpretation into a falsifiable proposal: the conservation (or not) of 2-time correlations on Bob's side as long as only Alice performs polarization measurements.

More precisely, the article "Each moment of time a new universe" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1615) by Aharonov, Popescu and Tollaksen, presents:

Cf. this very interesting 8 pages article (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.1615) and a video presented by Popescu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3pnZAacLwg).

Thanks to their 2-state vector T-symmetric formalism (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105101), Aharonov, Popescu and Tollaksen notably highlight the following facts:

Concerning EPRB type experiment, this document indicates §Measurements on EPR state:

Thus, the 2-state vector time-symmetric formalism shows the asymmetry of the quantum state obtained, during an EPRB experiment, after a measurement carried out on one side only. That asymmetry doesn't show up in the standard formulation. Consequently, the standard one-state vector time-asymmetric quantum formalism suggests a (hidden) relativistic causality violation. On the contrary, the conservation of the 2-time correlation in the 2-state vector formalism provides, in my view, a proof that, on Bob's side, nothing happens as long as only Alice carries out quantum measurements on her side.

This seems providing a testable prediction allowing us to decide between:

- Bohm, Bell https://web.archive.org/web/20190104202702/http:/www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm5.pdf

- Goldstein https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2601

- Bricmont https://academiesciencesmoralesetpolitiques.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3-bricmont.pdf

- Scarani https://www.scielo.br/j/bjp/a/k9YqsvczjxzH8ybXg5YHHqH/?format=pdf&lang=en

- Valentini https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112151

- Selleri https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225993103_Superluminal_Signals_and_the_Resolution_of_the_Causal_Paradox

- Percival https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9803044

- Towler https://casinoqmc.net/pilot_waves.html

- Hemmick https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412011

- Aspect https://tp.physique.usherbrooke.ca/experiences_fichiers/Bell/web/Aspect.pdf

- Special Relativity and possible Lorentz violations consistently coexist in Aristotle space-time https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2417 ...

- Peres https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310010

- Fuchs https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

- Rovelli https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604064

- Jaynes https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf (1)...

When only Alice carries out measurements on her side, the prediction of the conservation of the 2-time correlation on Bob's side, resulting from the 2-state vector time-symmetric formalism, decides, in my view, in favor of the positivist interpretation of the EPR non-locality. In my view, the positivist interpretation becomes a falsifiable physical postulate instead of a pure philosophical question.

Such an experimental verification seems solving a 40 years debate between positivist and realist interpretations of Bell's inequalities violation. Hence, this experimental validation seems deserving to be carried out (but I don't know if it has already been Achieved).

Would you agree with this view?

(1) Note, however, that E.T. Jaynes supports a realist interpretation of physics and its role despite, paradoxically, his insistence on the importance of Bayesian inference and the broad development he gave to this approach (cf. Maxent https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/rational.pdf)

Some articles write as carbon dots and some write as carbon quantum dots.But I couldn't see a correct difference between the two.can anyone help to give a correct answer

We assume that the cat in a box paradox may allow an additional approach to include multiple cats in the same box.

We can now see two seemingly different views, quantum and classical.

The difference is huge and compares quantum probability to modern statistical probability.

Hey, according to quantum mechanics the quantum particles are in superposition always and only get a defined position if observe, and since we are made of quantum particle, does this mean we only exist because we are observing ourselves and if we stop observing we won’t exist and same can be applied to the reality, can somebody correct me if I am being wrong someplace

in the article “Two roads to retrocausality”，this question has been talked about。but the conclusion “continuous path” and “all-at-once" I cant understand clearly。

I'm making quantum well with 2 different bandgap materials, but I'm not sure quantum confinement effect was occurred because the well width is ~ 60 nm.

How can I make sure that effect? Is there any technique or equipment (for example, PL) to measure quantume confinement?

Thank you.

Hello guys, I want to know how to make sigle or two hole spin qubit quantum gate in Laboratory using germaniuim. We have only sputtering machine to deposit materials, but dont have any lithography technique to make confined regions (quantum dots). I have no clue to start that process. I can make Germanium wafers in our lab as a substrate. can you please suggest a method to do that?

Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 16 June 2024. "Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of “physical nature,” they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena."

Thus explaining free will, the self and the law of identity.

1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380876842_LONG_Term_Higher_SELF

2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics

3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381430297_RESPECTFULLY_Quantum_Entanglement_Reincarnation

The holographic principle, which posits that the information contained within a volume of space can be represented on its boundary, has profound implications for quantum mechanics. In my paper " " I explore how this principle can explain quantum phenomena such as entanglement and wave function collapse.

These points illustrate how the holographic principle can provide a unified framework for understanding quantum mechanics and cosmology. For a detailed exploration of these ideas, you can refer to my paper available on ResearchGate.

I am new to computational calculations and it is very difficult to select a pc or laptop for quantum chemical calculation. It would be great if anyone just give me a list contains specified type of processor, motherboard, ram, gpu for good start with computational calculations?

Quantum tornado theory, theory of everything, theory that explains the acceleration of the fall of objects (gravitation), and the creation of mass in particles as occurring according to the same mechanism, which is the pressure of dark matter in the form of a tornado on the particle located inside the tornado

Our current scientific understanding uses two separate theories: gravity (general relativity) and the quantum world (quantum mechanics). These seem to contradict each other because gravity works on a large scale with smooth spacetime, while the quantum world is about the very small and operates in probabilities.

Scientists are looking for a "grand unified theory" that can explain both. Some promising contenders include String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, but they haven't been definitively proven yet.

We assume that V(x,y,z,t) is the external potential applied to the quantum particle enclosed in a closed system.

What is quite surprising is that there exists another spontaneous component for V which comes from the energy density of the system itself expressed by,

V(x, y, z, t)=Cons U(x, y ,z ,t) . . . . (1)

Eq 1 is a revolutionary breakthrough.

Equation 1 means that quantum energy can be transformed into quantum particles and vice versa.

Additionally, Equation 1 (predicted by the B-matrix chains of the Cairo Statistical Numerical Method) eliminates any confusion about whether the Schrödinger PDE is a wave equation or a diffusion equation and provides a definitive answer:

she could be both.

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply

Wolfgang Konle