What is the most surprising and out of nowhere piece of scientific technology that we thought was impossible?

Nice description.

Even as a physics student back in my first quantum theory course, I would look at some predicted result and think, “Well that should be a deal breaker for the theory.” You know, things like quantum tunneling or non-zero ground state energies in square wells, etc. And why would Pauli exclusion apply to free electrons in metals? Except that it explains things that can’t be explained any other way.

You deserve extra points for that answer. That was awesome to read. Thanks.

Amazing, and thanks for the answer! However, the last toddler I tried to explain that to (with a lot of handwaving, I mean really a lot) just gave me a very measured look at the end and very carefully said:

“So, it’s magic.”

Somehow she wasn’t very wrong!🙈😄

Einstein, Heisenberg, Pascal and Newton are playing hide and seek. Einstein covers his eyes and begins counting. Heisenberg and Pascal run off and hide. Newton stands in front of the counting Einstein and takes out some chalk and marks a square on the ground with a side length of exactly one meter.

When Einstein is finished counting and sees Newton standing in his box, he yells, “Ha, I’ve found you, Newton!”.

However, Newton replies, “No! You’ve found Pascal!

No one found Heisenberg. His location was uncertain. Schrödinger’s cat wandered by and said he thought he might be hiding in a box, but he didn’t know if he was dead or alive.

One of the most interesting things I ever read was a series of articles about the development of LED’s in the early 1960’s. I started out with looking up LED on Wikipedia and fell into a hole for more than an hour reading the source material and all.

I’ve met a few guys who were like that. All of them Jewish FSU refugees who found work in obscure companies contracting with the DoD in the U.S.

Sadly, the inventor of the quantum well died in 2016.

Charles H. Henry was a physicist at Bell Labs, working on heterojunction semiconductor lasers when he realized that the junction would confine electrons, and by the rules of quantum mechanics, that would cause the electrons to assume discrete states.

Charles H. Henry – Wikipedia

Technically, you don’t even need to go as far as quantum confinement. Any band gap in a semiconductor utilizes quantum mechanic principles like discrete energy states (literally the definition of quantized). So all modern electrical devices rely on quantum physics.

There is so much beauty in your answer, Franklin. Time for me to try and channel you, as I attempt to explain Blu-ray tech to my 10yo daughter.

Making a laser using a quantum well is not that hard, once you have the technology to make good quantum wells. Making a blue laser which has a lifetime long enough to be used in commercial devices is much harder. Blue light photons have about twice the energy of red light photons. A consequence of this is that blue light is much more effective for causing atomic migration than red light is. It does not take much atomic migration to ruin your quantum well, so making blue lasers with decent lifetimes was really difficult. The people who developed the first practical blue laser were awarded a Nobel Prize: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2014.

You seem very certain about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

That’s so freaking cool.

This answer makes me very sad, because while I can parrot it somewhat, my mind just sort of becomes jelly when trying to understand it.

Another thing I might add, tunnelling only seems weird from a Classical perspective, i.e. it’s a uniquely quantum phenomenon. The word “tunneling,” I think, is unfortunate because is makes it seem like the electron is tunneling through some seemingly impenetrable barrier; it’s not! What they are talking about is potential energy barriers. It’s explained nicely in this open textbook article I found: University Physics Volume 3

Tunneling and Potential Energy

To illustrate quantum tunneling, consider a ball rolling along a surface with a kinetic energy of 100 J. As the ball rolls, it encounters a hill. The potential energy of the ball placed atop the hill is 10 J. Therefore, the ball (with 100 J of kinetic energy) easily rolls over the hill and continues on. In classical mechanics, the probability that the ball passes over the hill is exactly 1—it makes it over every time. If, however, the height of the hill is increased—a ball placed atop the hill has a potential energy of 200 J—the ball proceeds only part of the way up the hill, stops, and returns in the direction it came. The total energy of the ball is converted entirely into potential energy before it can reach the top of the hill. We do not expect, even after repeated attempts, for the 100-J ball to ever be found beyond the hill. Therefore, the probability that the ball passes over the hill is exactly 0, and probability it is turned back or “reflected” by the hill is exactly 1. The ball never makes it over the hill. The existence of the ball beyond the hill is an impossibility or “energetically forbidden.”

However, according to quantum mechanics, the ball has a wave function and this function is defined over all space. The wave function may be highly localized, but there is always a chance that as the ball encounters the hill, the ball will suddenly be found beyond it. Indeed, this probability is appreciable if the “wave packet” of the ball is wider than the barrier.

[end quote]

Again, I’m not trying to be overly critical, I’m simply trying to clear up misinformation. You are popular here on Quora, but this misinformation is causing goddamn problems, man! Global warming ring a bell!?! I upvoted your answer but not because of the physics!

This is where the misinformation comes in, see.

“If Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle weren’t true, or if electrons were hard little round balls like tiny marbles with no wavelength, a Blu-Ray laser wouldn’t work.”

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and electrons having wavelength is not inconsistent with electrons having a well-defined state during all stages of the system evolution, but the Copenhagen folks insist that it is and that there is no alternative explanation. This leads straightaway to Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.” This was the very same problem with Newton’s mechanics – gravity acted spontaneously and from a distance with no mechanism to explain it. Here’s what Newton himself had to say about it. From Banesh Hoffmann’s Relativity and Its Roots, pages 38 and 39:

Newton’s theory applied equally to all bodies . . . It was stupendous.

[…]

But there were problems. One was that, much as he tried, Newton could offer no plausible mechanism that would account for the inverse-square law of gravitation. The gravitational force seemed to act instantaneously at a distance. Newton himself said:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall for it.”

Newton himself knew that this “spooky action at a distance” to use Einstein’s exact words, was untenable, and that, therefore, his theory was incomplete, i.e. did not provide a thorough explanation. In the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, “particles” exist as probability waves with no distinct state properties prior to a still mysterious measurement process which collapses said “particles” to a distinct state. If you entangle two particles and then separate them by any amount of distance, then when you “measure” one, i.e. collapse it to a definite state, the other instantaneously collapses as well. This is what Einstein called spooky action at a distance, in direct reference to the same in Newton’s theory. This indicates to any “competent faculty of thinking” not subject to absurdities that QM is incomplete.

Not only is there an alternative explanation, it is much more elegant, it has considerably greater explanatory force, AND it has empirical support in the form of electron channelling experiments conducted in France. The paper, an FQXi essay by David Hestenes, is here: https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9

“You can’t know an electron’s absolute position and momentum simultaneously because an electron doesn’t have defined absolute position and momentum simultaneously?”

This is not true, brother! First off, the idea of absolute anything went bye-bye with Einstein’s Relativity. Second off, what QM says is that you cannot MEASURE position and momentum with arbitrary accuracy both at the same time; this does not mean the electron does not have well-defined position and well-defined momentum at the same time. David Hestenes can freaking derive Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle! I wrote about this in an answer of mine, which I’ll quote straight from:

This is from Quantum Mechanics from Self-Interaction, by David Hestenes, section 5, page 8:

[A]lthough the pilot wave does not appear in the conventional Dirac theory, we shall see that it is not only consistent with the Dirac theory but provides us with a physical mechanism for explaining some of the most mysterious features of quantum mechanics. The explanatory power of the pilot wave concept is largely due to the fact that the pilot wave and the Dirac wave function have a critical property in common. At every spacetime point the phase of an electron’s pilot wave has the same value as the phase of the Dirac wave function for the electron, subject to suitable initial conditions. This supplies a physical basis for the smooth phase function that the wave function associates with an electron. It tells us that some wave properties of the physical pilot wave are represented by wave properties of the statistical wave function.

It is really this statistical wave function which provides the mathematical impetus for conflating these two notions of superposition, but quantum states do not superpose! And the qubit people seem to have a serious allergy to “physical mechanisms!”

In that same damn paper, Hestenes explains a number of features of quantum mechanics and his explanation, consistent with the empirical data, is not consistent with the qubit “interpretation.” Hestenes covers this in Section 6, page 9, titled Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; I’ll reproduce a small bit here. In what follows, zbw stands for zitterbewegung (German for “trembling motion”), an oscillation which plays a central role; this has been experimentally supported by electron channeling experiments, as discussed in Electron Time, Mass, and Zitter; these channeling experiments are very closely related to the diffraction explanation reproduced below and they both depend on resonance. I highly recommend reading my Quora answer linked to above and all of the links therein, both those of William Tiller and David Hestenes:

6.1. Spin-Uncertainty Relations

If we wish to localize a free electron, the zbw implies that the best we can do is confine it to a circular orbit of radius r=ℏ/mcr=ℏ/mc with a fixed center. Therefore, the xx-coordinate of the electron in the orbital plane will fluctuate with a range Δx=ℏ/mc∆x=ℏ/mc. At the same time, since the electron travels at the same time, and since the electron travels at the speed of light with a zeropoint kinetic energy mc2/2mc2/2, the xx-component of its momentum fluctuates with a range Δpx=mc/2∆px=mc/2. Thus, we obtain the minimum uncertainty relation ΔxΔpx=ℏ/2∆x∆px=ℏ/2 We now see the uncertainty relations as consequences of a zero-point motion with a fixed zero-point angular momentum, the spin of the electron. This explains why the limiting constant ℏ/2ℏ/2 in the uncertainty relations is exactly equal to the magnitude of the electron spin.

6.2. Diffraction

Any coherent interpretation of quantum theory must give a satisfactory account of electron diffraction. Two major alternative have been proposed in the past: the conventional dualistic interpretation and the particle interpretation espoused by the late Alfred Land´e.(11) The conventional account is based on the premise that diffraction can only be understood as the result of wave interference. Accordingly, it is supposed that the electron must be regarded as a wave when undergoing diffraction. On the other hand, electrons are detected only as particles in a diffraction pattern. It is claimed that this forces one into the dualistic view that the electron is neither wave not particle, but manifests itself as one or the other depending on circumstances. As de Broglie(12) has emphasized, a serious difficulty with the dualistic account of diffraction is that it uses the wave concept in two different senses. The wave undergoing diffraction belongs to a single electron, but the wave manifested in the observed diffraction pattern is clearly a property of the ensemble of electrons in the pattern.

Land´e contends that diffraction can be explained as quantized momentum exchange without regarding the electron as a wave. His view is consistent with the fact that, in modern many-body theory, diffraction patterns can be calculated from symmetry properties of a crystal without using the idea of interference. The discrete spectrum of vibrational states in a crystal is determined by symmetry properties of the crystal wave function, and the Bragg diffraction formula is determined by the allowed transitions between those states. Thus, the crystal acting as a unit can exchange only quantized amounts of momentum with an electron or any other particle or wave it might scatter. A difficulty with Land´e’s account is that it does not explain how a localized electron can induce an extended crystal to act as a unit.

The zbw provides us with a new way to explain electron diffraction which accounts for both wave and particle aspects of the phenomena. An electron incident on a crystal is surrounded by its pilot wave which begins to drive charges in the crystal even before the electron arrives. The driven charges in the crystal act back on the electron, and momentum transfer will be greatest at resonances corresponding to transitions to allowed excitations of the crystal. Thus, the pilot wave provides the mechanism for momentum transfer by a particle which is missing from Land´e’s explanation. To establish this explanation as completely viable, it will be necessary to derive the Bragg laws and diffraction intensity patterns by direct application of the pilot wave mechanism rather than indirectly from the wave equation.

It is of interest to note that de Broglie has argued at length that a satisfactory interpretation of quantum theory cannot be achieved without postulating the existence of physical “pilot waves” which are distinct from quantum mechanical wave functions.(12) Our pilot wave differs from his in being specifically electromagnetic and related to the electron spin. Also de Broglie explained electron diffraction as due to interference of the pilot wave which, in turn, “guides” the electron to the diffraction pattern. In our explanation the electron plays a more active role, and it might be better to say that, instead of being guided, the electron carries the pilot wave with it, although the pilot wave arrives first to announce the coming electron.

6.3. Universality of Wave-Particle Duality

Diffraction of material particles is a universal phenomenon. The conventional explanation for this fact is that each material particle possesses a wave property which is completely independent of its interactions. In contrast, our pilot wave explanation for electron diffraction is manifestly electromagnetic. A similar explanation for the diffraction of neutrons, atoms, and molecules obtains only if every material system is the seat of an electromagnetic pilot wave with de Broglie frequency and wavelength determined by its mass. We shall see that this is to be expected for atomic systems composed of electrons. We take it as a clue to the structure of elementary particles like the neutron to be discussed later.

6.4. Stationary Quantized States

The conventional interpretation of the quantum theory does not explain the existence of stationary quantized atomic states beyond the fact that they correspond to stationary solutions of the Dirac equation. The zbw interpretation enables us to do better, as it should if it is correct. It will suffice for us to discuss stationary states of the hydrogen atom with the nucleus regarded as a point charge.

The stationary states of the hydrogen atom correspond to eigenstates of the energy operator. Hence, the zbw of a bound electron has a definite frequence ω=E/ℏω=E/ℏ: the stationary wave functions are single-valued in space, so the phase of the wave function is single-valued as well. Since the phase of the wave function corresponds to the phase of the electron zbw, it follows that in a stationary atomic state the orbital period is an integral multiple of the electron zbw period, that is, there is a coherence between the zbw and the orbital motion. This is represented schematically in Fig. 1, showing zbw oscillations of the “true” electron orbits (dotted lines) about circular orbits of the zbw center for the first three allowed states. The figure looks just like a representation of de Broglie standing waves in Bohr orbits for the good reason that it conforms to de Broglie’s original idea that the stationary orbits are determined by an intrinsic periodicity in the electron motion. Of course, the representation of the periodicity is different here. The waves in Fig. 1 are to be interpreted literally as orbits, and the zbw amplitude of oscillation has a definite value on the order of an electron Compton wavelength.

The association of the single-valuedness of stationary state wave functions with the coherence of orbital and zbw motions allows us to explain the former in terms of the latter. At the same time we wish to explain why stationary atomic states do not radiate. The conventional quantum mechanical treatment of the hydrogen atom arbitrarily takes the electron as a test charge, ignoring its field altogether, so it cannot radiate. This was always regarded by Schroedinger as a major failing of quantum mechanics.(13) It is true that QED includes the electron field in perturbative corrections, but that does not account for the stability of the unperturbed state.

From the beginning of his research on quantum wave equations, Schroedinger sought to explain the existence of quantized radiationless states as the result of some kind of resonance. The zbw gives us a mechanism for doing that. The electromagnetic field of an electron orbiting a nucleus can be separated into two periodic components, the pilot wave due to its zbw, and the average field due to its orbital motion. We can guess that the resultant field will be radiationless when these fields are resonant, and we know that this corresponds to the condition for stationary states, but a proof that such a field will be radiationless cannot be supplied until the self-interaction problem has been solved. At least we have a qualitative explanation for the existence of radiationless states. This explanation also implies that the oscillation of a bound electron produces an oscillating electromagnetic field which surrounds the atom and has a frequency determined by the energy of the bound state. This field is the pilot wave of the atom. The long-range tail of this fluctuating field has been identified with the Van der Waals force.

6.5. The Pauli Principle

In calculating the energy of a many-electron atom the electrostatic and magnetic interactions between electrons are taken into account. But according to our theory these are not the only interactions, for the zbw of each electron produces an oscillating field as well. The effect of such fields would certainly be to introduce correlations in the positions and spins of the electrons, and the allowed combinations of electron orbits would be restricted to those which produce stable radiationless states. This, in turn, would be reflected in symmetry properties of the many-electron wave function such as those required by the Pauli principle. Thus, we have a physical mechanism for explaining the Pauli principle: The Pauli principle describes symmetry properties of a many-electron configuration which result from stable resonances of their pilot waves. The symmetries are spin dependent, because the pilot waves are spin dependent. The Pauli principle works only for like particles, because only like particles have the identical frequencies needed to produce a resonance. The so-called exchange force that results from the Pauli principle can thus be understood as physically real force due to oscillations of the pilot waves. Its origin is therefore basically the same as that of the Van der Waals force.

6.6. The Lamb Shift and Spontaneous Emission

Many physicists follow Welton(15) in attributing the Lamb shift to fluctuations of the electromagnetic vacuum field. Welton argues that the effect of the fluctuations is to smear out the point electron over a region about the size of a Compton wavelength. This produces a shift in potential energy depending on the average of the potential over the region.

The zbw gives us a different interpretation of the Lamb shift. The potential energy assigned to the electron by the Dirac theory is the value at the zbw center. This differs from the correct potential at the position of the electron by an amount which oscillates over a Compton wavelength, as indicated in Fig. 1. Thus we attribute the “smearing out” of the electron over a Compton wavelength to the systematic zbw oscillations rather than random fluctuations of the vacuum field. Of course, we are speaking here of the main contribution to the Lamb shift. In addition, a small contribution should come from a shift in the zbw amplitude, which we have already mentioned as a source of the anomalous magnetic moment. Of course, we may also expect contributions from many particle effects such as vacuum polarization.

You see, I’m not knocking you, you simply don’t have a very deep understanding of physics and certain unscrupulous people take advantage of that: they write misinformation for general consumption and reasonably intelligent folks regurgitate it thinking that it is legitimate. But it isn’t!

I know you won’t do it, but you should take a moment to read my pinned answer and all of the answers therein. I explain a lot of the math in easy to understand terms. The quantum realm seems weird largely because we’re not even close to understanding it yet.

I wonder how closely related this is to true blue LEDs, which took physicists a long time to invent!

That’s not really surprising though. Think about the car if it’s moving you can’t determine it’s exact location but you can tell it’s speed. On the other hand when you can pin down it’s exact location then you can’t see it’s speed at that moment. This is not magic, it’s logic.

I’d like you to expand a bit on this to include a discussion on the MASER, a directed energy technology similar to Laser tech, with the “M” standing for “microwave”. This was described in an issue of Scientific American back in the ‘50s or ‘60s. I’m thinking it may be the crypto weapon injuring our diplomats. In fact, I’ll post it as a question to which I hope you will respond. What do you think?

In 1971 I spent my high school junior sumner break in Orlando at a national science foundation sponsored program studying quantum physics, calculus and computer programming at Florida Technological University (now known as UCF).

One of my suite mates was Ray G. from Chicago. He was obsessed with developing a laser using a ruby rod and mirror polished oval tube with a flash tube generator.

The ruby rod and flash generator were to be positioned at the twin focal points in the oval tube. The theory was the flash, originating at one focal point would appear at the other focal point, occupied by the ruby rod. Hopefully sufficient quantities of light would penetrate the ruby and be “trapped” until sufficiently focused to exit the “open” end as a laser beam.

He only had 60 days or so and never got past the mirrored oval tube and flash tube. His goal was to create a “Ray” gun using DC.

Maybe blue Ray was his baby? I know he (we all) got kicks from developing holograms with the lasers at FTU. The University was gorgeous. Modern architectural marvels. I went back there but could not find the original buildings from my car. I have to go back on foot.

I have a fun story about this. Back in the 1980’s, solid state lasers were limited to the red light band. Getting to shorter wavelengths was a big unsolved problem being worked on by a lot of researchers. The uses for industrial applications was becoming clear by then as laser disc technology would be immensely improved by using shorter wavelength lasers. But at the time, it wasn’t clear that it was even technically feasible to make such lasers.

One day I attended a conference where a highly respected scientist in the field (sorry, I can’t recall his name) was going to do a presentation. The title was quite dry, something along the lines of “Current status of research towards realization of shorter wavelengths in solid state lasers.” Everyone assumed from the title that this was going to be a talk about possible approaches to solving the problem and nothing more.

As the speaker put up his title slide, he pulled a laser pointer out of his pocket and turned it on. But instead of the standard thin red beam of light, a blindingly bright green beam shoots onto the screen.

BAM!

Everyone gasped in amazement. Then they either laughed or applauded. I’m sure competing researchers in the audience were thinking very profane thoughts.

Yeah, quite a presentation.

I remember a Scientific American cover article on masers and lasers, back at the beginning, in the late ‘50s. I recall the optical device had an accidental origin.

Expand?

Me personally, I’ve always wanted to meet the guy who read a paper about the theoretical nature of quantum wells and said “Guys! Hey, you guys! I can make a laser out of that!”

And he’s got a Nobel prize for that. Unfortunately, he died two years ago. I’ve met him in passing, and he was a really nice guy.

Zhores Alferov – Wikipedia

Yes. I’ve read about the connection between quantum physics and things like this. I still don’t understand the technicalities of how it works, but I believe it happens and that quantum physics is involved.

I also think the word “Quantum well” is unfortunate!

There’s a few other thing I find quite impressive with optical disc readers.

First thing is how they handle the fact that the flexible mass produced plastic disc might not be 100% flat. Especially not the three year old kids favorite bed time story disc. As a matter of fact just a half wavelength, a few 100 nanometers difference, will cause a reading error.

The solution is of course more lasers. Each reader has two extra lasers, before and after, that keep track of the distance to the disc and continuously keep the reader laser in the right position.

The second one is how they handle scratches. Because the need of nanometer precision scratches on the disc could really ruin your day (and I bet it has done as for a few of you).

The solution is to not have the reader laser optics exactly focused on the disc surface, but instead let it hit the protection layer a bit blurred. The blurred laser light will hit a bigger area on the disc and make it less sensitive to scratches. The protection layer will then bend the light (since it changes medium) and focus it on the layer containing the data.

Including the quantum well laser it really is an amazing piece of engineering. And still I love the fact that I barely have to use it any more!

I usually upvote your answers. But, I have seen (quite) a few posts about “electron being a ball” or “electron being a probability” or stuff like that. So, the answer appears to digress. Electron is a particle (and not just a swill of probabilities). The probability is essentially due to what you mentioned – Heisenberg uncertainty.

I don’t understand why it both loses energy to a photon and also tunnels back out. Why wouldn’t it just tunnel back out without giving off a photon?

And the science deniers will still to deny science, and give “credit” to God and gods! Quantum Physics is real, demonstrated and more importantly USED every day! GPS wouldn’t even work.

People who think that Quantum Physics is made up are probably those who are too much into Ant Man.

I would love to have seen the faces of our hero’s colleagues upon hearing that last remark…

I’ll just stick with unicorns.

Quantum dot displays are also used in expensive Samsung TVs, and the humble ‘Amazon Kindle Fire HDX’.

That was fascinating, Franklin.

so basically quantum well is creating binary system with laser? Wow that is some advanced principle for blueray… Is there some other state in quantum wells?

Very interesting. Thank you for the information.

I’m picturing the electron as a hyperactive kid with claustrophobia. He falls into the well just barely big enough for him, panics, yells “I can’t be here!”, his x-men mutant powers activate, and *bamf*.

So the difference betweeen a “normal” laser and blue ray is the size? Reading smaller information?

Answers like this one are why I come to Quora. Thank you!

Genius beyond my lowly 130+.

Yeah, humblebrag. But my brain doesn’t do physic or calculus. Nor grammar. Nor – -. So, yeah, humble over brag.

So by trapping the electron, we know the position and momentum both?

Interesting description, but how does that quantum well behavior make a Blu-ray player work?

Great example. It’s generally true of diode lasers, not just this type.

This is the reason why Quora is so cool, from time to time. Thank you for that answer.

How do you know pretty much everything about everything?

What blows my mind is that in my lifetime and while I was in college in the 60s, The laser, LED and DNA were all discovered. None of these existed in my high school biology or physics in the early 60s. I attended a seminar by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s with my dad at the Franklin Institute where he discussed the Big Bang, and another where Allis Chalmers demonstrated a working fuel cell.

This compares favorably to my dad’s generation when he was born human powered flight was only 7 years old. He witnessed atomic energy, going from airplanes made out of wood, wire and cloth to the Space Shuttle, radio and then television and then colored television. He personally knew the inventor of TV at RCA. He saw the introduction of antibiotics and the elimination of polio. He lived during the transition of cars being cranked by hand to the modern automobile. And the development and deployment of the digital computer.

Starting in the early 1800s, every 50 years progressed at a staggering rate. It’s hard to imagine what the next 50 is going to bring if we don’t destroy ourselves before it gets here.

All in a throw-away item you can pick up for less than $100 (looking at you, all you non-believers in science).

Wait so does that mean I can make a homemade laser gun XD

Is there any chance that you could go on to explain what these quantum wells accomplish within the Blu-Ray system?

I want to learn about quantum physics, so I started from Deepak Chopra.