Qunatum Mechanics Text for upper division University course

quote from that document:

There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really "means." Every competent physicist can "do" quantum mechanics, but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost as implausible. Richard Feynman(one of its greatest practitioners) remarked, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

But by all means, proceed to do what you do not understand. Grin.
Pretty hilarious, isn't it!
And Feynman was back in the 60's.
There are numerous applications to quantum mechanics today.

I think my favorite is the Positron Emission Tomography, or PET scanner.

We have cellular phones, bluetooth technology, wireless communications, a technology which is known as evanescence for fingerprint scanners.
Quantum computing, and the list goes on.

It's thought by many that we're on the verge of another expansion in the field of quantum physics.
 
Interesting. Can you say how QM is applied in a PET scanner?
I find the discoveries of qm working in biological systems even more interesting.

For example, photosynthesis depends on quantum effects, as does the sense of smell. Qm has actually been observed in cells photosynthesising.
 
Interesting. Can you say how QM is applied in a PET scanner?
The Positron is given off by the FDG18 molecule injected into the body. The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location and then the software used in calculating the original position, develops the imagery of the cancerous tissue.
FDG is flouro-deoxy-glucuose, that is ionized.
 
The Positron is given off by the FDG18 molecule injected into the body. The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location and then the software used in calculating the original position, develops the imagery of the cancerous tissue.
FDG is flouro-deoxy-glucuose, that is ionized.
It is fluoro no flouro, and FDG is just one of several compounds used, and indeed other isotopes such as oxygen-15 and carbon-11. The positron emitted collides with an electron before going more than about 1 mm, resulting in both being annihilated (positrons are anti-matter), which results in the release of two photons. It is the photons that are detected, not positrons, the photons that are at 180° angles from their initial location.

However, the question is: When does QM come into that? You said it was your favourite application of QM, but I am not seeing any application of QM there.
 
It is fluoro no flouro, and FDG is just one of several compounds used, and indeed other isotopes such as oxygen-15 and carbon-11. The positron emitted collides with an electron before going more than about 1 mm, resulting in both being annihilated (positrons are anti-matter), which results in the release of two photons. It is the photons that are detected, not positrons, the photons that are at 180° angles from their initial location.

However, the question is: When does QM come into that? You said it was your favourite application of QM, but I am not seeing any application of QM there.
Here in the western US, they use FDG18.
I've been doing PET scans since August 2000, and they've never used anything other than that.
In my research for my QM paper in 2005, I never heard or read of any other. So, I'd say that they're newer.


What do you think Quantum Mech is about?







Here's a graduate text on applications of QM.

 
Here in the western US, they use FDG18.
I've been doing PET scans since August 2000, and they've never used anything other than that.
In my research for my QM paper in 2005, I never heard or read of any other. So, I'd say that they're newer.
They may be new, I am no expert. It is certainly the most used.

What do you think Quantum Mech is about?







Here's a graduate text on applications of QM.

In a sense, boiling a kettle is using quantum mechanics, you are changing the (average) state of the water molecules by heating them. But that is not what I would consider an application of quantum mechanics. An application of quantum mechanics has to use our knowledge of QM in the design. A quantum computer clearly does that. As far as I can see, PET does not.

You stated that PET is your favourite application of quantum mechanics. Now I have called you on that, you have a bunch of link that either mention PET or talk about QM, but as far as I can see do not connect the two.

Plus there is the fact that you do not understand the basics of PET. You stated "The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location". That is simply not right. The collectors detect photons produced by the annihilation of anti-matter, not the positrons themselves. The first article you linked to even says it is gamma particles (i.e., high energy photons) that are detected. A shame you did not bother to read it (I see it is the very first hit on Google, you clearly made a big effort there).

A more technical summary is here, in particular, look at figure 2, which makes clear exact what actually happens.

Either you have been doing PET scans for 20 years without actually knowing what you are doing or your claim "I've been doing PET scans since August 2000" is simply not true. I am not sure which puts you in a worse light. Sorry, Steve, but it all adds up to you talking nonsense about a subject you do not really understand.
 
They may be new, I am no expert. It is certainly the most used.
Never having had a pet scan anywhere other than Reno, and Carson City NV, the only tracer I'm acquainted with is the FDG18.
It has a 109 minute half life, and is typically down to a 6 hour impact, but like brehmstrauling (CT scans, and X-Ray) radiation, is cumulatively additive in long term problems.



In a sense, boiling a kettle is using quantum mechanics, you are changing the (average) state of the water molecules by heating them. But that is not what I would consider an application of quantum mechanics.

I wouldn't consider boiling water an application of quantum mechanics either.

An application of quantum mechanics has to use our knowledge of QM in the design. A quantum computer clearly does that. As far as I can see, PET does not.
The application of radiological medical diagnostic procedures is indeed an application of quantum mechanics.

We were actually given a list of applications and medical diagnostic tests were listed.
One of my classmates did their term paper and presentation on MRI technology and I picked PET.

The problem I was having the other evening was that it'd been so long since I considered it I'd all but forgot the details.

Fdg18 is injected into the patient's body and then they wait for 45 to 90 or so minutes.
The pet device is a capture device that then statistically analyzes the captured results and then converts the data into an image of the highest metabolic activity in the body.

This results in a few limitations on the brain, kidneys, bladder (they make us go to the bathroom before we get on the table), and the mouth.
The positrons bounce off the electrons in the body's cells and while there are many non-coincidental collisions, only the 180° ones are counted.

The collisions of the positrons and the electrons are annihilation events that release photons, as you mentioned. There are a large number of photon collectors in the machine that use a few different materials. I'm sure that the materials are a lot higher quality than they were in 2005 when I did my paper and presentation.


You stated that PET is your favourite application of quantum mechanics. Now I have called you on that, you have a bunch of link that either mention PET or talk about QM, but as far as I can see do not connect the two.
The application of quantum mechanics is the annihilation events, and the photon collectors.
I provided the articles so that you could see for yourself the numerous other things that we use in every day life which are application of quantum mechanics, used in concert with electronics, etc....

Plus there is the fact that you do not understand the basics of PET. You stated "The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location". That is simply not right. The collectors detect photons produced by the annihilation of anti-matter, not the positrons themselves. The first article you linked to even says it is gamma particles (i.e., high energy photons) that are detected. A shame you did not bother to read it (I see it is the very first hit on Google, you clearly made a big effort there).
You'll have to live with the recognition that I did my research on this back in early 2005, and have since lived a whole new life that I did not expect to see. I've had numerous other experiences which required me to focus, and learn to live a completely new and different life than anything I'd previously experienced. So, if you actually need to win something here, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

A more technical summary is here, in particular, look at figure 2, which makes clear exact what actually happens.

Either you have been doing PET scans for 20 years without actually knowing what you are doing or your claim "I've been doing PET scans since August 2000" is simply not true. I am not sure which puts you in a worse light. Sorry, Steve, but it all adds up to you talking nonsense about a subject you do not really understand.
Sounds like you are desperate to win an argument.

The other likelihood is that I've lived a lifetime worth of challenging experiences which resulted in my forgetting a lot of things that were not as important as learning to live after cancer.
Not something that is taught in any classroom or doctor's office that I've ever seen or heard of before.

They typically get you ready to die. They don't know how to teach you to live beyond.

Here are some articles that did not exist when I was going through cancer treatments and afterwards.




The very first time I ever saw an article about this topic was in my oncologist's office in a medical journal magazine.

I immediately told him that I needed that kind of help. He never could assist with this or even refer me to anyone who could.

That was around 2009-10.

I don't expect you will understand, but it's a strange thing to live beyond a normally life-threatening illness, which has killed everyone else you have known who had cancer. It's even freakier to be told on a regular basis that you should have died before, and that they have no idea why you are still alive.

Live with that and then pitch your gripe about this.
 
The application of radiological medical diagnostic procedures is indeed an application of quantum mechanics.

We were actually given a list of applications and medical diagnostic tests were listed.
One of my classmates did their term paper and presentation on MRI technology and I picked PET.

The problem I was having the other evening was that it'd been so long since I considered it I'd all but forgot the details.

Fdg18 is injected into the patient's body and then they wait for 45 to 90 or so minutes.
The pet device is a capture device that then statistically analyzes the captured results and then converts the data into an image of the highest metabolic activity in the body.

This results in a few limitations on the brain, kidneys, bladder (they make us go to the bathroom before we get on the table), and the mouth.
The positrons bounce off the electrons in the body's cells and while there are many non-coincidental collisions, only the 180° ones are counted.
No, Steve! That is wrong. Positrons do not bounce off electrons. Positrons are anti-electrons. That means: (1) they have opposite charges, so attract; and (2) when the collide, both are destroyed.

That you think they bounce off electrons proves you literally do not know the first thing about positrons.

As I have said so many times already, it is not positrons that the detects count, it is photons. And what makes this so, well, bizarre, is your next paragraph gets it right!

The collisions of the positrons and the electrons are annihilation events that release photons, as you mentioned. There are a large number of photon collectors in the machine that use a few different materials. I'm sure that the materials are a lot higher quality than they were in 2005 when I did my paper and presentation.
So suddenly you switch from positrons bouncing off electrons, and then getting detected, to positrons getting annihilated and releasing photons that are detected.

The application of quantum mechanics is the annihilation events, and the photon collectors.
The application of quantum mechanics is in the bits you originally had no clue about! So why did you cite it as such?

And how is knowledge of QM applied in the annihilation event, Steve? I ask because to me that looks like E=mc^2 and conservation of momentum. And, indeed, something that will happen whether we understand it or not. So, I ask again, how is this an application of QM?

The application of quantum mechanics is the annihilation events, and the photon collectors.
I provided the articles so that you could see for yourself the numerous other things that we use in every day life which are application of quantum mechanics, used in concert with electronics, etc....
No one is disputing QM is used in all sorts of applications. The question is whether you have a clue about physics.

You'll have to live with the recognition that I did my research on this back in early 2005, and have since lived a whole new life that I did not expect to see. I've had numerous other experiences which required me to focus, and learn to live a completely new and different life than anything I'd previously experienced. So, if you actually need to win something here, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Sounds like you are desperate to win an argument.

The other likelihood is that I've lived a lifetime worth of challenging experiences which resulted in my forgetting a lot of things that were not as important as learning to live after cancer.
What I see here is someone wanting to present himself as an expert in physics, and yet when we scratch off the façade, that is simply not the case. Now we see a whole bunch of excuses about why he got it wrong.
An excuse is a skin of reason wrapped around a skeleton of lies.
They may sound like they are valid, but they fail when tested by action.
 
No, Steve! That is wrong. Positrons do not bounce off electrons. Positrons are anti-electrons. That means: (1) they have opposite charges, so attract; and (2) when the collide, both are destroyed.

That you think they bounce off electrons proves you literally do not know the first thing about positrons.

As I have said so many times already, it is not positrons that the detects count, it is photons. And what makes this so, well, bizarre, is your next paragraph gets it right!


So suddenly you switch from positrons bouncing off electrons, and then getting detected, to positrons getting annihilated and releasing photons that are detected.


The application of quantum mechanics is in the bits you originally had no clue about! So why did you cite it as such?

And how is knowledge of QM applied in the annihilation event, Steve? I ask because to me that looks like E=mc^2 and conservation of momentum. And, indeed, something that will happen whether we understand it or not. So, I ask again, how is this an application of QM?


No one is disputing QM is used in all sorts of applications. The question is whether you have a clue about physics.


What I see here is someone wanting to present himself as an expert in physics, and yet when we scratch off the façade, that is simply not the case. Now we see a whole bunch of excuses about why he got it wrong.
An excuse is a skin of reason wrapped around a skeleton of lies.
They may sound like they are valid, but they fail when tested by action.
You really do enjoy being anal don't you.
 
You really do enjoy being anal don't you.
Steve, you are presenting yourself as someone knowledgeable in physics to university level, and the patent truth is that that is not the case. Looks to me like you have been caught saying things that are not true. If the best response you can muster is an insult, well, I think that pretty much confirms it.

As Nouveau has said, this is an opportunity to learn. But not just about physics. I really hope you will also learn that lying is a bad idea, because when you get caught, your credibility goes to zero. Now every time you try to present yourself as an authority on science, I can refer to this thread to prove to everyone that actually you know next to nothing about science.

In fact, lying devalues everything you say on CARM. Next time you make a claim about Jesus or the Bible or your faith, why would anyone believe you, given your track record?

Learn from this, Steve, and next time you are thinking about making fanciful claims, don't! Stick to the truth.
 
Steve, you are presenting yourself as someone knowledgeable in physics to university level, and the patent truth is that that is not the case. Looks to me like you have been caught saying things that are not true. If the best response you can muster is an insult, well, I think that pretty much confirms it.

As Nouveau has said, this is an opportunity to learn. But not just about physics. I really hope you will also learn that lying is a bad idea, because when you get caught, your credibility goes to zero. Now every time you try to present yourself as an authority on science, I can refer to this thread to prove to everyone that actually you know next to nothing about science.

In fact, lying devalues everything you say on CARM. Next time you make a claim about Jesus or the Bible or your faith, why would anyone believe you, given your track record?

Learn from this, Steve, and next time you are thinking about making fanciful claims, don't! Stick to the truth.
Perhaps if one allows oneself to believe obvious falsehoods about evolution and the age of the earth, it desensitises one to the truth and makes lying so much easier, particularly about one's own achievements and status. This is not the only example of pointless self-aggrandisement on these boards by evolution deniers.
 
Steve, you are presenting yourself as someone knowledgeable in physics to university level, and the patent truth is that that is not the case. Looks to me like you have been caught saying things that are not true. If the best response you can muster is an insult, well, I think that pretty much confirms it.
Ah, so you are the final judge and arbiter of my experiences.
Got it! I'll make sure to ask your permission the next time I need to use the bathroom.
Sure is a good think that my experiences have never depended on you to approve, or certify. I think you'd be hard pressed to know what you're claiming.
I actually did study physics at the university, the University of Nevada-Reno. You're more than welcome to call them up, and ask..... Although, you've never struck me as someone who actually cares about the truth, so I won't be waiting for your approval.
Furthermore, I'm curious if you remember all the details of things you did under serious duress, and stress, 15 years later.
But, again, you let me know what permissions I require to live my life. Especially several years before I ever came to this forum.

As Nouveau has said, this is an opportunity to learn.
Oh, I've been learning. The problem here is that none of you have demonstrated that you're wise enough to actually teach information that is reliable, and trustworthy.
I.e., just one of the many things I've learned from the atheists on this forum.


But not just about physics. I really hope you will also learn that lying is a bad idea, because when you get caught, your credibility goes to zero. Now every time you try to present yourself as an authority on science, I can refer to this thread to prove to everyone that actually you know next to nothing about science.
Again, when you can demonstrate that you're a reliable source of knowledge of my life's previous experiences, I'll decide whether or not I'm actually lying.
But, something you have just taught me---- you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my life's experiences.
I have no reason to lie, because telling the truth is so much more fun, and enduring.

In fact, lying devalues everything you say on CARM. Next time you make a claim about Jesus or the Bible or your faith, why would anyone believe you, given your track record?
That's a good thing to know.
Let me know when you've verified my college studies at UNR. I attended there from 2001 to 2005.
I used to whistle Ode to Joy walking through the hallways. Although, I think half the professors who were there when I was have since retired. I know my favorites have moved on.

So, let's see how much courage of your convictions you have.

Safranova (QM), Bauer (E&M, had to take a withdrawal because of my cancer), Bennum (Optics, Astrophysics, Adviser, Dept Chair), Covington (Acquainted through Dr. Thompson, former Chair, now director of College of Science (back in 2012)), Neill, Case (split lecturing with Bennum- Optics),

Spent my summer in 2005 out at the Zebra Pulse Lab, working on a project for the former asst director, who is now down at Livermore.
Oh yeah. I think you should put your foot in it, just to prove that I'm a liar.
This will be interesting.


Learn from this, Steve, and next time you are thinking about making fanciful claims, don't! Stick to the truth.
I have no reason to make fanciful claims. I do however think you need to make people out to be liars, so you can escape responsibility for your own fanciful claims.
I like the truth far too much.
It allows me to not have to remember what I said, and when I said it. Such a burden lying is.
 
Ah, so you are the final judge and arbiter of my experiences.
Got it! I'll make sure to ask your permission the next time I need to use the bathroom.
Sure is a good think that my experiences have never depended on you to approve, or certify. I think you'd be hard pressed to know what you're claiming.
I actually did study physics at the university, the University of Nevada-Reno. You're more than welcome to call them up, and ask..... Although, you've never struck me as someone who actually cares about the truth, so I won't be waiting for your approval.
Furthermore, I'm curious if you remember all the details of things you did under serious duress, and stress, 15 years later.
But, again, you let me know what permissions I require to live my life. Especially several years before I ever came to this forum.


Oh, I've been learning. The problem here is that none of you have demonstrated that you're wise enough to actually teach information that is reliable, and trustworthy.
I.e., just one of the many things I've learned from the atheists on this forum.



Again, when you can demonstrate that you're a reliable source of knowledge of my life's previous experiences, I'll decide whether or not I'm actually lying.
But, something you have just taught me---- you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my life's experiences.
I have no reason to lie, because telling the truth is so much more fun, and enduring.


That's a good thing to know.
Let me know when you've verified my college studies at UNR. I attended there from 2001 to 2005.
I used to whistle Ode to Joy walking through the hallways. Although, I think half the professors who were there when I was have since retired. I know my favorites have moved on.

So, let's see how much courage of your convictions you have.

Safranova (QM), Bauer (E&M, had to take a withdrawal because of my cancer), Bennum (Optics, Astrophysics, Adviser, Dept Chair), Covington (Acquainted through Dr. Thompson, former Chair, now director of College of Science (back in 2012)), Neill, Case (split lecturing with Bennum- Optics),

Spent my summer in 2005 out at the Zebra Pulse Lab, working on a project for the former asst director, who is now down at Livermore.
Oh yeah. I think you should put your foot in it, just to prove that I'm a liar.
This will be interesting.



I have no reason to make fanciful claims. I do however think you need to make people out to be liars, so you can escape responsibility for your own fanciful claims.
I like the truth far too much.
It allows me to not have to remember what I said, and when I said it. Such a burden lying is.
Oh good grief.
 
Ah, so you are the final judge and arbiter of my experiences.
This is not about your experiences, it is about you pretending to be knowledgeable about physics on CARM when that is demonstrably not true.

All I am doing is highlighting that simple fact, Steve.

I actually did study physics at the university, the University of Nevada-Reno. You're more than welcome to call them up, and ask..... Although, you've never struck me as someone who actually cares about the truth, so I won't be waiting for your approval.
So how come you are so clueless about PET scans? This was a topic you said was your favourite application of QM; a topic you chose because you claimed some knowledge of it.

And yet you think positrons bounce off electrons?!?

Either your university education is absolutely appalling... Or this never happened. See, Steve, I go where the evidence leads; I think about the most likely scenario that fits the evidence. On the one hand we have Steve going to university and studying physics, but can remember so little of it he thinks positrons bounce off electrons. And on the other hand, Steve pretending he studied physics at university. Gort to be honest, I find the former hard to swallow.

Furthermore, I'm curious if you remember all the details of things you did under serious duress, and stress, 15 years later.
Of course not. But - and this is important - I have the brains to check before shooting my mouth off.

You even posted a bunch of links. If you could only be bothered to read them, you would not be looking like an idiot right now. But I guess you were so sure you were right, there was no need to check the facts.

But, again, you let me know what permissions I require to live my life. Especially several years before I ever came to this forum.
Steve, I am not telling you that you do not have permission to do anything. I am just suggesting that you not tell lies. I am just suggesting that you check the facts before shooting your mouth off. Whether you take that up is up to you.

Oh, I've been learning. The problem here is that none of you have demonstrated that you're wise enough to actually teach information that is reliable, and trustworthy.
I.e., just one of the many things I've learned from the atheists on this forum.
So I hope you will understand if I do not trust anything you say ever again, because I can now demonstrate that the information you give is not reliable, not trustworthy.

See, Steve, even if that university education actually happened, you still came out of it woefully ignorant, and utterly wrong about the basics. If you can be so badly wrong about positrons despite a university education in physics, how can I possibly trust anything you say about any other topic.

And not just wrong, but so sure of yourself that you so no value in actually checking if you were right.

Did you study theology at university? If not then I can reasonably expect your knowledge of theology to be be even worse than your knowledge of physics. And no doubt you will be just as utter certain you are right.

I have no reason to lie, because telling the truth is so much more fun, and enduring.
Really? Are you enjoying having your woeful knowledge of physics exposed for what it is?

What is the purpose of this thread Steve? It is clearly not to discuss QM, as that is a topic you know nothing about, and when pressed for the QM involved in your favourite application of QM, you dodge the question.

I firmly believe the purpose of this thread is for you to show the CARM community that you are an authority on physics. You do like to drop your supposed university education into the conversation frequently.


These claims that you studied physics at university become laughable when we realise just how ignorant on the subject you actually are. Maybe you really did go to university. It makes no difference because right now you do not know the first thing about it. No one is going to take yor opinion on the Big Bang seriously when you think positrons bounce off electrons!

Let me know when you've verified my college studies at UNR. I attended there from 2001 to 2005.
I used to whistle Ode to Joy walking through the hallways. Although, I think half the professors who were there when I was have since retired. I know my favorites have moved on.
So what you are saying is that your university is so appalling its students do not know the first thing about the subject it teaches!

I am tempted to contact the university. I see Alla Safronova is still there, and there is an e-mail address.

Dear Prof Safranova
This may be a strange request, but I have got into a discussion on-line with a guy who claims to be a former student of yours. We are discussing what he describes as his favourite application of QM, PET scans. However, when questioned, this guy thinks positrons bounce off electrons, and when this happens at just 180° the particles are detected.
I cannot imagine how someone so clueless about positrons could have a degree in physics.
I would therefore, be grate if you could confirm whether you had such a clueless student called Steve between 2001 and 2005.
Yours...

PM me your full name, and I will send it to him.

But what would that show? You really did go to university, but are nevertheless clueless about the subject you took? That really does not put you in a great light either Steve. Or Prof Safranova's faculty either.


I think the biggest indication that you are lying is that even now you cannot admit you were wrong about positrons. As a reminder, here is how you previously described how PET scans work:

The Positron is given off by the FDG18 molecule injected into the body. The collectors of the PET device, capture the positrons, at 180° angles from their initial location and then the software used in calculating the original position, develops the imagery of the cancerous tissue.
FDG is flouro-deoxy-glucuose, that is ionized.

After I told you you were wrong, you still insisted the detectors collect positrons:

Fdg18 is injected into the patient's body and then they wait for 45 to 90 or so minutes.
The pet device is a capture device that then statistically analyzes the captured results and then converts the data into an image of the highest metabolic activity in the body.
This results in a few limitations on the brain, kidneys, bladder (they make us go to the bathroom before we get on the table), and the mouth.
The positrons bounce off the electrons in the body's cells and while there are many non-coincidental collisions, only the 180° ones are counted.

Remember, this was you describing your favourite application of quantum mechanics. Your favourite, not mine. You chose it. And yet you are clueless about it. And there is no sign of quantum mechanics in what is supposedly your favourite application of quantum mechanics.

You were wrong Steve. In so many ways.

And yet you have yet to hold up your hand and say "my bad, I got that wrong". That would be the honest thing to do. But I see no sign of that. Why is that Steve?
 
Back
Top