Quantum Physics Corner

Can Before and After Be Superposed? physics.aps.org/articles/v19/38

New microscope offers sharper view into momentum space phys.org/news/2026-03-m…

Are quantum trajectories suitable for semiclassical approximations? arxiv.org/abs/2603.10206

The helical quantum two-body problem and its wave packet dynamics arxiv.org/abs/2603.09093

6 years on Twitter/X today! Thankful for the people, perspectives, and discussions we've encountered here 🌎🙏

Quantum reflection time and the Goos-Hänchen effect doi.org/10.1103/4vcv-9…

Quantum backflow is a counterintuitive phenomenon in which a quantum particle appears to move opposite to its momentum ⚛️ Our new paper in @PhysRevLett brings the first experimental realization a step closer 🔍 doi.org/10.1103/tm9s-p…

Quantum dynamics show 'memory' depends on whether states or observables evolve phys.org/news/2026-03-q…

The temporal picture for Bloch electron dynamics in homogeneous electric fields arxiv.org/abs/2602.23965

As academics, we all receive a steady stream of pro bono requests. Personally, I write a lot more than ten recommendation letters each month, referee journal submissions, and—somewhat more tediously—prepare external assessment letters for hiring committees. I am, of course, committed to contributing to the profession alongside my primary responsibilities: conducting extensive research, teaching, and managing other academic duties. I see myself as a mentor and try to support colleagues and students whenever I can. And I am happy to do so. Yet, I sometimes find myself pausing. When I respond to substantial requests from hiring committees only to receive out-of-office replies lasting weeks, I cannot help but wonder: Wait, why is this request considered so legitimate and urgent on my end? Many academic publishers generate enormous revenues—some in the billions annually. Publishing is undoubtedly important. But are we allocating our publicly funded time and effort wisely? This leads to broader questions. Should we reconsider the structure of our refereeing system and the expectation that so much academic labor be provided pro bono? Should referees be compensated for their work? Why are these responsibilities so often taken for granted? Should external review letters for hiring decisions be paid? And if such labor remains unpaid, why is it acceptable that those requesting it are unreachable? I admit and confess that I do not have clear answers. I am deeply committed to science and perhaps overly motivated when it comes to contributing to the academic community. Still, I am uncertain about whether our current system is well designed. More fundamentally, should we rethink the incentive structures that shape academic life? And to what extent might academia be allowing itself to be exploited? Should we rethink to some extent how academia is being done? Comments most welcome, I have no good answers.

How To Build Your Own Quantum Computer physics.aps.org/articles/v19/24

A mathematical model for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument arxiv.org/abs/2602.20827

Do we have a quantum computer? Expert perspectives on current state and future prospects doi.org/10.1103/md6x-p…

Preparing Quantum Backflow States by Large Momentum Transfer arxiv.org/abs/2602.12767

❤️ Quantum heart billiard youtu.be/fn56vmLpSBg

The Quantum Many-Worlds Interpretation, Simply Told arxiv.org/abs/2602.09272

Charging a quantum battery from the Bloch Sphere doi.org/10.1002/andp.2…

Quantum clock and Newtonian time arxiv.org/abs/2602.02077

Analytical solution of the Schrödinger equation with 1/r³ and attractive 1/r² potentials: Universal three-body parameter of mixed-dimensional Efimov states arxiv.org/abs/2601.19517

✍️ A Hidden Harmonic Oscillator in the 2D Hydrogen Atom The 2D hydrogen atom can be solved in an unexpected way: by mapping it to a 2D harmonic oscillator via a clever coordinate transformation. 🔗 quantphys.com/post/a-hidden-…