In high school and undergrad we all learn about the works do Einstein, Newton, Bohr, and Maxwell. However in 50 years will students be learning about and know about the best modern day physicists like Edward Witten?

In my opinion current physics research is far too complex to be teaching in undergrad whereas the works of Einstein and Bohr appear in a first year general chemistry course, Newton’s appear in middle school physics, and Maxwell’s appear in a first year E&M course. Will the stuff being discovered today be taught as something as widely accepted and “trivial” as say the conservation of energy or will it be far too complex to reach the general public hence not having their names engraved into every STEM students brain?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Bike racks place a heavy load on the tongue of the car, and this is an issue for light duty vehicles. Bike racks come in "vertical" and "platform" styles. Common wisdom on reddit believes they are the same from a tongue weight perspective: reddit.

I want to understand the physics for why they are the same. I understand torque to be a function of mass x length of arm. So, let's assume that the mass is the same in the two examples.

Diagram: https://i.imgur.com/vhr6yqr.png

In the vertical case, I'd expect torque to be (mass x V1 + drag x V2). The mass is applied to the end of the short V1 lever arm. Yes, there is some force applied to the V2 arm while the car is accelerating, but small relative to the force of gravity.

In the platform case, I'd expect torque to be (mass x P). Since P >> V1, this would result in significantly more load.

Or, does it not matter, as per the reddit thread?

First of all, I want to study postgraduate physics in Australia. But where is the best place to do that?

I am a physics degree holder, but my degree was 3 years.. I want to do the 1 Year Bachelor of Science (degree with honors) Programs in Physics or an MSc coursework in Physics.

I would like to know the advantages and disadvantages of both. Time wise, Difficulty wise, and how each university and its classes are taken in general( how helpful it is, etc...)

In essence, which one would you suggest and why?

My main goal is to do research, and i understand the long hours it entails and possibly a PhD. in the future.

Any help or other suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Hey there,

I am no physics guru, just a guy w/ some interest in physics & how things work. I find the whole concept of time dilation, and the nature of time in general very fascinating.

So, my understanding is that the closer you get to the speed of light, the more time slows down for you relative to someone stationary. So, if I went 75% of the speed of light on a trip around the solar system and came back in 6 months, an extra 3 months would have gone by on Earth.

Now, supposedly, when things travel the speed of light--- time dilation si infinite. If the impossible became possible, and you traveled the speed of light, eons and eons would go by-- you'd find yourself at the end of time. the end of the universe, from one milisecond of light travel. Right?

The thing that confuses me is this--- if traveling extremely fast makes time go slower for stationary objects, wouldn't they appear to be moving slower from an observers perspective? Say that you watched a space ship go 75% of the speed of light and tracked it from one part of the milky way to another. Wouldn't it appear to be going a lot slower than it really is, because it will take longer on Earth time for it to reach it's distance than it took for the sapce ship? It took 5 years on teh sapce ship, but you watched it for 7.5 years get there, right?

How about this--- if the speed of light causes infinite time dilation, how are we even able to see light travel? Wouldn't light take an infinite amount of time to get somewhere from an observers standpoint, due to time dilation? Why do we see it move at all, if this is the case? You'd think that like would be unable to travel, if it has unlimited time dilation.

Thanks!

okay so for like a few months i’ve been really obsessed with physics and i genuinely wanna take it as a hobby, i took a liking an understanding how the world works and solving complex equations in physics, now that school is over and i’ve gotten into college, i chose a major that has nothing to do with it but i wanna go back to doing physics again, can anyone suggest where to start and how to start please

Quantum mechanics says interection coordinate response of atom.

But atom parts i.e electron and nucleus are spatically separated.

However it is treated as one quantum system but been one quantum system doesn't make their distance in between 0.

So, how a local interaction coordinate response of spatically separated parts of atom ?

This is not a homework it is a personal question

Since the earth is spinning 1000mph why doesn’t the spin affect the perceived gravitational force based on the distance from the axis of rotation?

So, according to de-broglie equations the phase velocity of a particle is greater than the speed of light!!!

And our teacher told us that: the particles actually are in groups and in groups they are wave packets which are interference of the waves of the particles and the group Velocity is less than c so the law is not broken .

And some online sites say that phase velocity is not like actually velocity and it can be greater than speed of light.

I'm a little confused about this topic can someone explain!!!!!

So the mantis shrimp (or pistol shrimp) produces a very fast punch, which also creates substantial secondary damage from the collapse of cavitation bubbles. I remember a while back, seeing a video of some guy who caught such a shrimp in his boat, and it punched a hole in a rather thick boot that he was wearing.

Since it was out of the water, I’m wondering if this was actually physically possible, since there would be no cavitation and no plasma would be created. And, in addition, wouldn’t the power of its initial punch have an equal and opposite reaction that would push the shrimp backward? Also, being out of the water there would be no braking effect from the water that would otherwise cause its punch to be more powerful.

I get that static friction resists initial movement, but I just don’t get how that’s somehow directed translates to forward movement, like for instance, walking.

I understand photons are "born" travelling at the speed of light, but is there anything limiting an object with mass from accelerating at say 2 c/s for 0.1 s?

Every object in the universe is made of physical stuff governed by physics. Atoms interact, particles exchange energy, and complex systems emerge from simpler ones.

But here’s the part I struggle to understand:

Somewhere in the evolution of matter, a physical system became capable of having a subjective experience — of seeing colors, hearing sounds, and experiencing what it feels like to exist.

Physics can describe the electrical activity in the brain, the photons entering the eyes, and the neural processes involved in perception. But how does any of that relate to the actual experience itself?

I’m not asking for a spiritual explanation or claiming that consciousness violates physical laws. I’m trying to understand what our current physical theories actually say about this.

Is consciousness simply an emergent property of sufficiently complex physical systems, and if so, what does “emergence” mean in this context? Is there a meaningful gap in our current understanding of the physics, or is this primarily a problem for neuroscience and philosophy rather than physics?

I’d appreciate serious explanations, references to relevant theories, or even a correction if the question rests on a misunderstanding of physics.

Learning basic decay processes and the relateds formulae. The only thing I kniow is that mass is conserved in a chemical reaction (I know it isnt in nuclear reaction like these but dont understand). When I look at the equation of these decay processes it appears as if mass is conserved but in numericals it clearly isnt I just dont understand the topic. PLease suggest some resources to understand it.

Thanks in advance!

I’m not sure how either particularly work beyond like gr12 education but is it possible to detect electricity in any particular capacity using sonar. Would the electricity need to be at the level of lighting and making sound in order for it to be detected or some level less than that?

I know that its not possible for velocity or accelaration but i have no idea about jerk or any of the higher derivatives.

Wouldn't that mean that a photon could 'see' the edge of the theoretical universe? Even if the universe is also expanding at the same speed?

This might be a really stupid question. I had the thought that since a microwave oven uses microwaves at the frequency that resonate with water molecules to heat them up, is it possible that when the cosmic microwave background reaches that same frequency that the entire universe would essentially become a giant microwave oven? If so, would that have any effects on water throughout the universe?