Talk:Quantum LC circuit

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is nonsensical

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IMHO this article is nonsensical. A "quantum LC oscillator" is simply a quantized harmonic oscillator. Absolutely nothing of importance can be learned by renaming the variables of a mechanical entity that is mathematically identical to its electric counterpart. It is, fittingly, treated as an appendix item in one of the sources (Michel H.Devoret. Quantum Fluctuation in Electric Circuit).

The discussion of quantized wave impedance seems to make little sense. "Wave impedance" is a property of full electromagnetic theory. Discrete LC circuits do not even map to electromagnetic waves in the classical case (for instance, they do not incorporate polarization, a fundamental property of electromagnetic waves) and they are not being used (except maybe in poorly taught classes for engineers) to represent toy models for Maxwell's Theory.

The correctly quantized version of Maxwell's equations has been known for many decades, see "Quantum Electrodynamics" or QED. Latter theory can predict fundamental properties of the vacuum ab initio with the highest precision known in theoretical physics and allows calculation of electromagnetic systems in the quantum limit correctly. The treatise in this article predicts, as far as I can tell, nothing, and can not even handle the most simple physical questions related to wave propagation (despite talking about "impedances" of the vacuum and fundamental properties of the electron).

QED, in comparison, treats the vacuum as the non-linear medium that it really is (and thus is able to describe pair-production, photon-photon scattering etc.), something no linear theory (like the classical harmonic oscillator) can.

In effect, the article is, at best, a (poor performing) student exercise in "intellectual nonsense". Most likely it is either a hoax or some pseudoscientist's "work". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.190.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There might be something similar to this in a very general sense. You know Kirchoff's laws (I think), where A_series=B_series+C_series, and A_paralell=(B_paralell^(-1)+C_paralell^(-1))^(-1) where those are from voltage and current. If I wrote it wrong correct me. But in theory any global-function on a 'space' (I would call it y-space for my spacetime stuff, perhaps y=f^(-1)(W_hat(x)) for some symmetry to resemble 'cubes' or something, but that is a tangent), and any conserved current (maybe momentum, IDK, some 'external' momentum in a particular coordinate system, I would most likely say current is the best word for it.)... Basically a global function and a conserved current (without covariance) and the non-linear operators between them (maps) will obey circuit like laws (the series non-linear operator 'summation' and the parallel non-linear operator 'inverse-summation-inverse'), similar to voltage and current. So it is possible to have an LC-like circuit if one assumes the path-integral is a function of spacetime (since it is for all possible paths which is a function since functions don't care which path you take, and summing/averaging over paths meet this requirement), and according to our knowledge there are PLENTY (I mean plenty) of conserved currents (with quantized constraints in the feymann diagrams makes it a 'kernel conserved current' which I am pretty sure it remains some kind of current otherwise we'd might burn up or something, unless artificially we could break that (I am exhaustively working on that) ). But the main idea is that there is a 'voltage' and a 'current' (but without the magnetic flux) that is set up in the QED framework. It might not be the 'flux' the article mentions but the LC circuit using the wavefunction as voltage and some kind of charge/energy could be some kind of LC circuit. It is likely that the diagrams show that this is a infinite collection of currents (for every segment in the polygonal path creates a new momentum) and the resulting 'probability' is really a voltage. I'd can't change the fact that Functions in space act like voltage when introducing a conserved current, because that is just math, not even physics. Things that are thought to be physics are often mathematical necessities. Perhaps the universe is a mathematical necessity rather than physical. The Kirchoff laws that seem physical are not all too physical. It might be a necessity that a quantum LC circuit could exist in the future, by choosing a function and a conserved current. Any two choices will work. Given that, one can set one part to make momentum a multiple of the derivative of the wavefunction, and the other side the momentum is the integral of the wavefunction. If momentum is conserved and the wavefunction is a function (standing wave) then you'd have an LC circuit (with the right numbers of course). That makes me really want to be 100% sure that this article is wrong, because even if it isn't right, in principle it could be corrected, and it would be more ridiculous than the article to be so sure this is wrong, because in nature things come together in ways we don't understand so even if it doesn't make sense It could be right and lucky. It depends on the definition of LC oscillator. All bets are off. If a quantum LC oscillator is not defined, then this article could be right in it's particular situation. However it is likely junk science, but worth investigating and should be taken somewhat seriously but cautiously. Nature is weird, things that are made by the wrong person could end up in the right hands, and vice versa. I did the math, and such a circuit could exist for weird reasons but would be hard to make if the non-linear maps describing the analog of voltage and current are disrupted. Also I heard that in relativistic quantum mechanics the wavefunction might not be a function (for some reason I don't fully understand, it could be a function but with spinor valued time, replacing integration with non-abelian spinor integrals to preserve special relativity possibly would be my first guess), and [exterior derivatives of] momentum might be quantized due to the volume form needing to be quantized otherwise the contribution would self-cancel under winding, thus one can't have 'half-a-theta-defect' and conduct reasonable path-integrals, If that quick math is right. If charge is related to the 3rd volume form in electromagnetism, it might 'jump' which the uncertainty could mess up the above ideas. But in the feymann diagrams it seems the momentums are continuous and the path-integral is likely a function due to it's notion of chance (which is not well understood either), so the above might be right when quantizing the above way. ~2026-23347-33 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

confirming the above

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The math and the language get increasingly dodgy as the article progresses. Has only really been worked on by two people, one of whom previously created a lot of deleted fauxsics articles related to gravitation and quantum oscillators. Needs extensive peer review if it is to stay. –SJ + 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notability

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed the WP:PROD, as a quick look at Google Books, Google Scholar and Scirus yields about half a dozen journal sources and several books. Paradoctor (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just for information, this article, along with a number of others, was tangentially discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants. The conclusion seems to have been that a lot of OR needed removing but nothing has been done about it since. SpinningSpark 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Quantum LC circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply