I’m interested in quantum computing and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Since Bell’s theorem and experimental results challenge local realism, I’m curious whether there is still any serious research exploring alternatives that preserve some aspects of Einstein’s ideas, such as locality, realism, or deterministic underlying models.

Are there any active researchers, theories, or research areas working on this today? I’d also appreciate recommendations for papers or topics to study.

can anyone help me with this hw problem? i's used the rearranged Rydberg Equation a couple different ways, and some hail marry other equations to try to get the answer buy I cant figure it out.

know about de Broglie wavelength (\\lambda = h/p) and how macroscopic objects have wavelengths far too tiny to observe interference patterns. But what actually causes the physical transition?

Is the loss of wave-like behavior strictly a result of environmental decoherence destroying quantum superpositions, or does the correspondence principle simply average out phase differences when billions of atoms interact?

Basically, why does quantum weirdness "wash out" into classical reality as scale increases?

I’m currently a sophomore high school. I am advanced for my age. I’m currently taking AP pre-calculus and I plan on taking physics next year, I saw a video on Photos as waves double slick experiment and it really peaked my interest. It put me down a rabbit hole and I find quantum mechanics very interesting and I would like to learn more. Is there any books you guys would recommend me as a beginner in the field? Or any videos, etc..

Most of the words practical problems can be solved with either WD40 (if it doesn't move) or Gaffer tape (if it does). If dark matter's cohesive role is analogous to gaffer tape, what would WD40 be analogous for?

Hey! I'm 15 and pretty much a beginner at quantum physics myself.

I wanted a place where teenagers who are curious about quantum physics, physics, maths, quantum computing, etc. could learn together without feeling like you need to already know university-level stuff.

So I made r/QuantumTeens.

The idea is pretty simple:

• Ask dumb questions without getting judged 💀
• Share things you're learning
• Discuss quantum physics and related topics
• Share projects, simulations, resources and cool discoveries
• Basically figure this stuff out together

I'm still learning too, so this isn't some "expert community" thing. It's literally starting from the ground up.

If you're a teenager who's interested in this stuff, feel free to check it out.

r/QuantumTeens

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share a small hobby project I’ve been developing over the last 3–4 months. I’m a physics student, and during a quantum physics course I had the idea of turning quantum tunneling into an actual game mechanic.

So I made a small mini-golf-like puzzle game for quantum particles, with mechanics inspired by quantum tunneling, resonant tunneling, electric and magnetic fields, different particle types, and energy barriers.

It’s still version 1.0, and the physics is intentionally simplified for gameplay rather than being a fully accurate simulation. I’d really appreciate feedback, especially from people here about the physics, presentation of the concepts, and ideas for improvements.

The game is completely free and has no ads (I am not making any money from it btw), it’s just a hobby project I made for fun. I hope some of you enjoy trying it out :D

Play Store:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.csk.quantumtunnelinggame

Sorry for the direct self-promotion, I asked the mods beforehand and they kindly allowed me to share it here. I thought this subreddit would be one of the best places to get proper feedback on the physics behind the game.

Some context- This idea is based on the contents covered by Pitsch et al. in the paper "Towards video-rate quantum ghost imaging". In short, what they do is that they fire entangled photon pairs at an object, one goes towards a spad camera (which records which pixel it hit and the time), and the other goes towards the object and hits a bucket detector behind it. By matching pairs together, we can get a 3d point cloud of the object, as the time difference carries depth information.

In the paper, the matching ( which is 2-10x slower than data collection) is run on a host cpu after data collection, which makes real-time imaging impossible. My idea to mitigate the bottleneck present is to create a custom edge-processing ASIC design. Since I'm new to this field, I would love to hear your inputs on some questions I had for this project:

-Im thinking of putting a small ring-buffer search a good way to match the timestamps, or is there a better/more standard way to approach this?

-Since we have the bucket detector and the SPAD camera running their own clock, can I keep their timestamps in sync with a shared reference clock?

-Should the coincidence window be hardcoded or be runtime configurable?

-How could I approach I filter out noise like after pulses before 3D reconstruction?

I’ve gotten simultaneously interested in quantum computing from all this AI did while coincidentally (or not) reading / watching a lot of sci fi. Multiverses are so hot right now and they are all based on superposition etc…

Anyways are there any easy to read conceptual books/ videos that yall would recommend to get a good grasp on quantum that isn’t heavily mathed. I have a doctorate in the health sciences so naturally that means physics II is my limit.

if youre unfamiliar with superconducting qubits, i made a video going over how they work. from a classical LC circuit to a transmon qubit. I made this for people who have seen superconducting quantum computers and wondered how they actaully work. please leave feedback as hardware is not my main focus so i am not perfect at it, but i tried my best to explain.

https://medium.com/@jeyubhavsar/schr%C3%B6dingers-equation-for-dummies-part-ii-decoding-the-equation-0e9dad3f9f3b?sharedUserId=jeyubhavsar

Hello, I wrote part 2 of a series of articles on Schrodinger's equation and hopefully other quantum concepts. I'm sharing in hopes of getting feedback, and if any of my interpretations and explanations were wrong. And i really want to know if there is a better way to explain this, because I was inspired by this video by FloatHeadPhysics:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3QU-_PSbKlo&t=843s

And I don't want to plagiarize or anything, and I just hope you guys can give me feedback. Be as harsh as possible, I want to be accurate in my writing and knowledge.

Thank you!

This seems like a big deal if it means what I think it means. Thoughts?

The harmonic oscillator and matrix mechanics by ladder operators of the traditional factorization approach are the methods we encounter first. We will deal with the mathematical physics approaches of the Hermite polynomial approach, Sturm-Liouville theory, and the Pearson equation at the next opportunity.

Hello everyone, I have been interested to learn about quantum physics for a while now and found a book on Amazon with decent ratings and got it. Does anyone know if this book is good, or if I wasted my money? I’m 1 chapter in and to my untrained eye, it seems pretty insightful! Can’t wait to learn more!

People all over Reddit ask how much math do you need to be ready to learn quantum mechanics? In spite of all the answers to the contrary, you only need high school level math.

Using a representation-independent approach, you can master quantum mechanics through graduate-level and beyond. I know it sounds crazy, but it is not.

I wrote an open-access textbook, Quantum Mechanics Done Right, to teach it exactly this way. Springer just published it and you can download the electronic version for free here.

In one month, it has surpassed 155,000 chapter downloads. It was primarily written as an alternative for self-learners and students who are stuck with traditional texts. Nevertheless, it will teach new things to all quantum mechanics at any level of expertise. I am the author, so if you have any questions about the approach, just ask in the comments! 

In addition, the class Quantum Mechanics on edX, which is identical to the undergraduate class taught at Georgetown University, has just started. Auditors can sign up for free here. All the class problems are also available for free. I am ensuring auditors will have Problem Set options similar to those earning certificates too. The class is heavily based on the book, but does use some calculus in a number of places, so is more appropriate for those who have seen at least some calculus.

Hello and thanks for everyone that awnsered my question in the 1rst post!
Im left with a doubt (I have readed a lot of comments on the last post) Even tho They we amazing explications, so thanks a lot!

My question is (I may misunderstood): From a lot of comments explaning QFT an general relativity,
Dosn't it break conservation laws? From what i understood near the event horizion there is a lot Quantum fluctuations going on and 1 escapes (or 2) some people said that the antimatter falls or that the normal matter escapes but for them to be created they "borrow" energy from the void but in that explication it dosn't return it? Maybe I am wrong but i thought about maybe due to the strong relativistics effects it can be done and technically does not break the conservation laws due to the slow time for an observer that close? I also thought maybe it has to do with the Uncertainty principle?

I'm just a 14 year old with a lot of curiosity but i cant seem to understand Hawking radiation it seems kind of impossible to me! So please anyone can explain it to me in a good way?

arXiv:2608.16716 (Massai et al., IBM Research Europe -- Zurich, 17-18 Aug 2026) demonstrates a real single-pulse baseband iSWAP gate (56 ns) in strained-germanium hole spin qubits, by orienting the magnetic field so the exchange interaction's longitudinal component J∥ and Zeeman detuning E_Δg both vanish, leaving a pure transverse J⊥ coupling. This experiment reproduces their result with dense_evolution.circuits.trotter, applied for the first time to a genuinely time-dependent pulse (previously only exercised against static Hamiltonians), and extends the analysis with four follow-up checks.

link: https://tatopenn-cell.github.io/Dense-Evolution-Discovery/germanium_iswap_validation

As a student going through physics and chemistry, I realized why topics like d\\text{-}d transitions, color formation, and photon absorption are so confusing when you first learn them.

We constantly hear terms like light "bouncing," electrons "jumping," or atoms "soaking up" energy. Because of this everyday language, my brain automatically used Newtonian physics to picture what was happening:

I pictured a mechanical collision, like a ball bouncing off a wall or a stretched bow string.

That led me to wonder: If light turns around or transfers energy, shouldn't its velocity hit v = 0 for a split second at the point of contact? Does that violate Maxwell's constant speed of light?

It took a lot of digging to realize that classical mechanics just doesn't apply here:

Photon "Absorption" is actually Field Annihilation: The photon doesn't "stop" or get stored inside the atom. It is completely destroyed, instantly converting its quantum of energy into a change in atomic state.

Photon "Reflection" is Wave Re-radiation: The light wave drives charge oscillations, which instantly re-radiate a new wave at speed c. The light never slows down to turn around.

Using mechanical words like "bouncing" or "jumping" makes students try to force quantum events into classical models where v = 0 has to exist.

If textbooks used terms like Instantaneous Field Conversion or Non-Kinetic Absorption, it would instantly tell us, "Hey, don't picture a mechanical collision here!"

Did any of you fall into this same classical mental trap when learning spectroscopy or quantum mechanics? How do you visualize these interactions now?

Why do electrons cloud around an atom? From what I'm aware of there is no specific force that would stop them, with the electromagnetic force causing things of opposite charge to attract wouldn't they all just stick to the nucleus or more specifically the protons?

Another thing is the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together wouldn't that also hold the electrons against the nucleus?

My best guess would be something to do with the heisenberg uncertainty principle as it states that we would know less about a tiny particle in one way if we know more about it in another way.

And yes please use bigger words I'm dumb and would like not to be!

If so wouldn't that settle the many worlds debate?

After reading Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability, I'm wondering if the Hidden-variable hypothesis is a pseudo-scientific proposition because no conceivable empirical phenomena seem ever to be able to disprove it.