Incoming links: Electron
Hypothesized as the explanation for continuous electron energy spectrum in beta decay in 1930 by .
First observed directly by the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment.
Can be used to detect single photons.
Richard Feynman likes them, he describes the tube at Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979) at one point.
It uses the photoelectric effect multiple times to produce a chain reaction. In particular, as mentioned at youtu.be/5V8VCFkAd0A?t=74 from Video 1. "Using a Photomultiplier to Detect single photons by Huygens Optics" this means that the device has a lowest sensitive light frequency, beyond which photons don't have enough energy to eject any electrons.
Theory that describes electrons and photons really well, and as Feynman puts it "accounts very precisely for all physical phenomena we have ever observed, except for gravity and nuclear physics" ("including the laughter of the crowd" ;-)).
Learning it is one of Ciro Santilli's main intellectual fetishes.
While Ciro acknowledges that QED is intrinsically challenging due to the wide range or requirements (quantum mechanics, special relativity and electromagnetism), Ciro feels that there is a glaring gap in this moneyless market for a learning material that follows the Middle Way as mentioned at: the missing link between basic and advanced. Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Lecture at University of Auckland (1979) is one of the best attempts so far, but it falls a bit too close to the superficial side of things, if only Feynman hadn't assumed that the audience doesn't know any mathematics...
The funny thing is that when Ciro Santilli's mother retired, learning it (or as she put it: "how photons and electrons interact") was also one of her retirement plans. She is a pharmacist by training, and doesn't know much mathematics, and her English was somewhat limited. Oh, she also wanted to learn how photosynthesis works (possibly not fully understood by science as that time, 2020). Ambitious old lady!!!
Experiments: quantum electrodynamics experiments.
Combines special relativity with more classical quantum mechanics, but further generalizing the Dirac equation, which also does that: Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics. The name "relativistic" likely doesn't need to appear on the title of QED because Maxwell's equations require special relativity, so just having "electro-" in the title is enough.
Before QED, the most advanced theory was that of the Dirac equation, which was already relativistic but TODO what was missing there exactly?
As summarized at: youtube.com/watch?v=_AZdvtf6hPU?t=305 Quantum Field Theory lecture at the African Summer Theory Institute 1 of 4 by Anthony Zee (2004):
- classical mechanics describes large and slow objects
- special relativity describes large and fast objects (they are getting close to the speed of light, so we have to consider relativity)
- classical quantum mechanics describes small and slow objects.
- QED describes objects that are both small and fast
That video also mentions the interesting idea that:Therefore, for small timescales, energy can vary a lot. But mass is equivalent to energy. Therefore, for small time scale, particles can appear and disappear wildly.
- in special relativity, we have the mass-energy equivalence
- in quantum mechanics, thinking along the time-energy uncertainty principle,
QED is the first quantum field theory fully developed. That framework was later extended to also include the weak interaction and strong interaction. As a result, it is perhaps easier to just Google for "Quantum Field Theory" if you want to learn QED, since QFT is more general and has more resources available generally.
Like in more general quantum field theory, there is on field for each particle type. In quantum field theory, there are only two fields to worry about:
- photon field
- electromagnetism field
Lecture 01 | Overview of Quantum Field Theory by Markus Luty (2013)
Source. This takes quite a direct approach, one cool thing he says is how we have to be careful with adding special relativity to the Schrödinger equation to avoid faster-than-light information.where:
- is the electromagnetic tensor
Note that this is the sum of the:Note that the relationship between and is not explicit. However, if we knew what type of particle we were talking about, e.g. electron, then the knowledge of psi would also give the charge distribution and therefore
- Dirac Lagrangian, which only describes the "inertia of bodies" part of the equation
- the electromagnetic interaction term , which describes term describes forces
As mentioned at the beginning of Quantum Field Theory lecture notes by David Tong (2007):
- by "Lagrangian" we mean Lagrangian density
- the generalized coordinates of the Lagrangian are fields
Quantum entanglement is often called spooky/surprising/unintuitive, but they key question is to understand why.
To understand that, you have to understand why it is fundamentally impossible for the entangled particle pair be in a predefined state according to experiments done e.g. where one is deterministically yes and the other deterministically down.
In other words, why local hidden-variable theory is not valid.
How to generate entangled particles:
- particle decay, notably pair production
- for photons, notably: spontaneous parametric down-conversion, e.g.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn1sEaw1K2k "Shanni Prutchi Construction of an Entangled Photon Source" by HACKADAY (2015). Estimatd price: 5000 USD.
Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox by minutephysics (2017)
Source. Contains the clearest Bell test experiment description seen so far.
It clearly describes the photon-based 22.5, 45 degree/85%/15% probability photon polarization experiment and its result conceptually.
It does not mention spontaneous parametric down-conversion but that's what they likely hint at.
Done in Collaboration with 3Blue1Brown.
Question asking further clarification on why the 100/85/50 thing is surprising: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/357039/why-is-the-quantum-venn-diagram-paradox-considered-a-paradox/597982#597982
Bell's Inequality I by ViaScience (2014)
Source. Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance by Veritasium (2015)
Source. Gives a clear explanation of a thought Bell test experiments with electron spin of electron pairs from photon decay with three 120-degree separated slits. The downside is that he does not clearly describe an experimental setup, it is quite generic.Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics by Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (2013)
Source. Usual Eugene, good animations, and not too precise explanations :-) youtu.be/iVpXrbZ4bnU?t=922 describes a conceptual spin entangled electron-positron pair production Stern-Gerlach experiment as a Bell test experiments. The 85% is mentioned, but not explained at all.Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance by Don Lincoln (2020)
Source. This only has two merits compared to Video 3. "Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance by Veritasium (2015)": it mentions the Aspect et al. (1982) Bell test experiment, and it shows the continuous curve similar to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bell.svg. But it just does not clearly explain the bell test.
Quantum Entanglement Lab by Scientific American (2013)
Source. The hosts interview Professor Enrique Galvez of Colgate University who shows briefly the optical table setup without great details, and then moves to a whiteboard explanation. Treats the audience as stupid, doesn't say the keywords spontaneous parametric down-conversion and Bell's theorem which they clearly allude to. You can even them showing a two second footage of the professor explaining the rotation experiments and the data for it, but that's all you get.Theoretical framework on which quantum field theories are based, theories based on framework include:so basically the entire Standard Model
The basic idea is that there is a field for each particle particle type.
E.g. in QED, one for the electron and one for the photon: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/166709/are-electron-fields-and-photon-fields-part-of-the-same-field-in-qed.
And then those fields interact with some Lagrangian.
One way to look at QFT is to split it into two parts:Then interwined with those two is the part "OK, how to solve the equations, if they are solvable at all", which is an open problem: Yang-Mills existence and mass gap.
- deriving the Lagrangians of the Standard Model: S. This is the easier part, since the lagrangians themselves can be understood with not very advanced mathematics, and derived beautifully from symmetry constraints
- the qantization of fields. This is the hard part Ciro Santilli is unable to understand, TODO mathematical formulation of quantum field theory.
There appear to be two main equivalent formulations of quantum field theory:
Quantum Field Theory visualized by ScienceClic English (2020)
Source. Gives one piece of possibly OK intuition: quantum theories kind of model all possible evolutions of the system at the same time, but with different probabilities. QFT is no different in that aspect.- youtu.be/MmG2ah5Df4g?t=209 describes how the spin number of a field is directly related to how much you have to rotate an element to reach the original position
- youtu.be/MmG2ah5Df4g?t=480 explains which particles are modelled by which spin number
Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe by David Tong (2017)
Source. Boring, does not give anything except the usual blabla everyone knows from Googling:Quantum Field Theory: What is a particle? by Physics Explained (2021)
Source. Gives some high level analogies between high level principles of non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity in to suggest that there is a minimum quanta of a relativistic quantum field.As a phisicist once amazingly put it in a talk Ciro watched:
It all depends on how much energy you have to probe nature with. Previously, we thought protons were elementary particles. But then we used more energy and found that they aren't.If some alien race had even less energy, they might not know about electrons at all, and could think that anyons are actually elementary.Being an "elementary particle" is always a possibly temporary label.
This experiment seems to be really hard to do, and so there aren't many super clear demonstration videos with full experimental setup description out there unfortunately.
Wikipedia has a good summary at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Overview
For single-photon non-double-slit experiments see: single photon production and detection experiments. Those are basically a pre-requisite to this.
photon experiments:
- aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4955173 "Video recording true single-photon double-slit interference" by Aspden and Padgetta (2016). Abstract says using spontaneous parametric down-conversion detection of the second photon to know when to turn the camera on
electron experiments: single electron double slit experiment.
Non-elementary particle:
- 2019-10-08: 25,000 Daltons
- interactive.quantumnano.at/letsgo/ awesome interactive demo that allows you to control many parameters on a lab. Written in Flash unfortunately, in 2015... what a lack of future proofing!
Single Photon Interference by Veritasium (2013)
Source. Claims to do exactly what we want, but does not describe the setup precisely well enough. Notably, does not justify how he knows that single photons are being produced.- 1859-1900: see Section "Black-body radiation experiment". Continuously improving culminating in Planck's law black-body radiation and Planck's law
- 1905 photoelectric effect and the photon
- TODO experiments
- 1905 Einstein's photoelectric effect paper. Planck was intially thinking that light was continuous, but the atoms vibrated in a discrete way. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect throws that out of the window, and considers the photon discrete.
- 1913 atomic spectra and the Bohr model
- 1885 Balmer series, an empirical formula describes some of the lines of the hydrogen emission spectrum
- 1888 Rydberg formula generalizes the Balmer series
- 1896 Pickering series makes it look like a star has some new kind of hydrogen that produces half-integer entries in the Pickering series
- 1911 Bohr visits J. J. Thomson in the University of Cambridge for his postdoc, but they don't get along well
- Bohr visits Rutherford at the University of Manchester and decides to transfer there. During this stay he becomes interested in problems of the electronic structure of the atom.Bohr was forced into a quantization postulate because spinning electrons must radiate energy and collapse, so he postulated that electrons must somehow magically stay in orbits without classically spinning.
- 1913 february: young physics professor Hans Hansen tells Bohr about the Balmer series. This is one of the final elements Bohr needed.
- 1913 Bohr model published predicts atomic spectral lines in terms of the Planck constant and other physical constant.
- explains the Pickering series as belonging to inoized helium that has a single electron. The half term in the spectral lines of this species come from the nucleus having twice the charge of hydrogen.
- 1913 March: during review before publication, Rutherford points out that instantaneous quantum jumps don't seem to play well with causality.
- 1916 Bohr-Sommerfeld model introduces angular momentum to explain why some lines are not observed, as they would violate the conservation of angular momentum.
TODO understand.
Trapping Ions for Quantum Computing by Diana Craik (2019)
Source. A basic introduction, but very concrete, with only a bit of math it might be amazing:Sounds complicated, several technologies need to work together for that to work! Videos of ions moving are from www.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/group/ion-trap-quantum-computing.
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=217 you need ultra-high vacuum
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=257 you put the Calcium on a "calcium oven", heat it up, and make it evaporates a little bit
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=289 you need lasers. You shine the laser on the calcium atom to eject one of the two valence electrons from it. Though e.g. Universal Quantum is trying to do away with them, because alignment for thousands or millions of particles would be difficult.
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=518 keeping all surrounding electrodes positive would be unstable. So they instead alternate electrode quickly between plus and minus
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=643 talks about the alternative, of doing it just with electrodes on a chip, which is easier to manufacture. They fly at about 100 microns above the trap. And you can have multiple ions per chip.
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=1165 using microwaves you can flip the spin of the electron, or put it into a superposition. From more reading, we understand that she is talking about a hyperfine transition, which often happen in the microwave area.
- youtu.be/j1SKprQIkyE?t=1210 talks about making quantum gates. You have to put the ions into a magnetic field at one of the two resonance frequencies of the system. Presumably what is meant is an inhomogenous magnetic field as in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.This is the hard and interesting part. It is not clear why the atoms become coupled in any way. Is it due to electric repulsion?She is presumably describing the Cirac–Zoller CNOT gate.
A major flaw of this presentation is not explaining the readout process.
How To Trap Particles in a Particle Accelerator by the Royal Institution (2016)
Source. Demonstrates trapping pollen particles in an alternating field.Ion trapping and quantum gates by Wolfgang Ketterle (2013)
Source. - youtu.be/lJOuPmI--5c?t=1601 Cirac–Zoller CNOT gate was the first 2 qubit gate. Explains it more or less.
Introduction to quantum optics by Peter Zoller (2018)
Source. THE Zoller from Cirac–Zoller CNOT gate talks about his gate.- www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3l0QPEnaq0&t=427s shows that the state is split between two options: center of mass mode (ions move in same direction), and strechmode (atoms move in opposite directions)
- youtu.be/W3l0QPEnaq0?t=658 shows a schematic of the experiment
Explains beta decay. TODO why/how.
Maybe a good view of why this force was needed given beta decay experiments is: in beta decay, a neutron is getting split up into an electron and a proton. Therefore, those charges must be contained inside the neutron somehow to start with. But then what could possibly make a positive and a negative particle separate?
- the electromagnetic force should hold them together
- the strong force seems to hold positive charges together. Could it then be pushing opposite-charges apart? Why not?
- gravity is too weak
www.thestargarden.co.uk/Weak-nuclear-force.html gives a quick and dirty:Also interesting:
Beta decay could not be explained by the strong nuclear force, the force that's responsible for holding the atomic nucleus together, because this force doesn't affect electrons. It couldn't be explained by the electromagnetic force, because this does not affect neutrons, and the force of gravity is far too weak to be responsible. Since this new atomic force was not as strong as the strong nuclear force, it was dubbed the weak nuclear force.
While the photon 'carries' charge, and therefore mediates the electromagnetic force, the Z and W bosons are said to carry a property known as 'weak isospin'. W bosons mediate the weak force when particles with charge are involved, and Z bosons mediate the weak force when neutral particles are involved.
Weak Nuclear Force and Standard Model of particle physics by Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky (2018)
Source. Some decent visualizations of the field lines. Why do the electron and the proton have the same charge except for the opposite signs? Updated 2025-03-28 +Created 1970-01-01
Given the view of the Standard Model where the electron and quarks are just completely separate matter fields, there is at first sight no clear theoretical requirement for that.
As mentioned e.g. at QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga by Silvan Schweber (1994) chapter 1.6 "Hole theory", Dirac initially wanted to think of the holes in his hole theory as the protons, as a way to not have to postulate a new particle, the positron, and as a way to "explain" the proton in similar terms. Others however soon proposed arguments why the positron would need to have the same mass, and this idea had to be discarded.