Quantum Distance? (See me derive it.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter LiteHacker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive Quantum
LiteHacker
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
As per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
Charge is quantum.

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux_quantum
Magnetic flux is quantum.

Magnetic flux is measured as follows:
Magnetic flux = \frac{Energy * Time}{Charge}


Thus:
\frac{Charge}{Magnetic flux} is quantum. (Quantum/Quantum = Quantum)

It has the measurement:
\frac{Charge}{Magnetic flux} = \frac{Charge ^{2}}{Energy * Time}



As per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Klitzing_constant
Conductivity is quantum.

Conductivity is measured as follows:
Conductivity = \frac{Charge ^{2}}{Energy * Time * Distance}


Taking the top two questions:
Conductivity = \frac{\frac{Charge}{Magnetic flux}}{Distance}

Quantum = Quantum / Distance
Quantum / Quantum = Distance = Quantum

Distance is quantum.

Anybody see anything wrong with this?

Thank you,
Veniamin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"is quantum" does not make sense. I think you mean "is quantised".

Conductivity can show quantum effects, but this does not mean that there are fundamental steps of conductivity.
 
mfb said:
"is quantum" does not make sense. I think you mean "is quantised".
Indeed this is what I meant.

mfb said:
Conductivity can show quantum effects, but this does not mean that there are fundamental steps of conductivity.
Instead of there being fundamental steps of conductivity, conductivity is noted to be rational. (You can express it as a fraction of quantised values.)
Can the same be said for distance then, as per what was shown above?

Thank you,
Veniamin
 
LiteHacker said:
Instead of there being fundamental steps of conductivity, conductivity is noted to be rational. (You can express it as a fraction of quantised values.)
As resistance due to the quantum hall effect, in two-dimensional systems at low temperature and strong magnetic field.

There is a way to generate a quantised resistance, but it does not mean that resistance IS always quantised as charge is.


Oh, and I found an error in your dimensional analysis:

Electric charge: e
Magnetic flux quantum: Φ = h/(2e)
Quantum hall effect constant: e^2/h

No, you don't get a length here. In more basic units, conductivity is charge^2 time^3/(mass length^2).
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top