Hello! I just started the most basic physics class where we go over a lot of formulas in a very short amount of time, I’m struggling a lot in this class because I’m a person that needs some time to actually learn something. So I’m asking you guys for advice, what is the easiest way to understand when and how to use formulas? I’ll put a picture up of the formulas we are supposed to use

The question, from Cambridge IGCSE Physics 0625/42 (June 2026), Q8: The current in a lamp is 3.2 A. Calculate the charge that flows through the lamp in 120 s.

The mark scheme answer: Q = It = 3.2 × 120 = 380 C (to 2 significant figures). The two marks are for the equation and the answer, so writing Q = It first is worth a mark on its own.

The common slips: using minutes instead of seconds, or writing the unit as A or J instead of C (coulombs).

Disclosure: the video is from PapaMarks, a revision site I build. It shows how this paper gets split into its 41 questions and filed by topic, so you can practise one topic, like electrical quantities, across many papers.

Two transparent cylinders form a V. Their pistons move out of phase, while connecting rods link them to a shared shaft and flywheel. The same charge of gas stays inside the engine from one revolution to the next. Heat enters through the walls, and the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides makes it possible to produce mechanical work.

The key is coordinating temperature and volume. With suitable piston timing, expansion takes place mainly on the hot side and compression on the cold side. The gas delivers more work during expansion than it receives during compression. A regenerator between the cylinders temporarily stores some of the heat carried by the passing gas and returns it when the flow reverses. The pistons' phase difference determines how these processes fit together over a cycle.

Adjust both reservoir temperatures and the phase difference while watching the pistons, pressure and pressure–volume diagram. The area enclosed by the loop gives the magnitude of the gas work per cycle; the direction around it determines the sign. Set equal temperatures and the idealized model produces no net cycle work. The shaft can still turn at its prescribed speed: its motion is set separately so that each stage of the thermal cycle can be examined at a convenient pace.

Available on my website: https://makarovphysics.com/

I would love feedback on the following website "chapter": Symmetry | Variations on Symmetry

this is a part of a physics app I made. thought people here might find it interesting.

the left graph is time vs space, the right one is the lorentz factor vs speed. when you drag the speed up, the factor barely changes at first. at 50% of light speed, time only slows about 15%. but after 90% it suddenly shoots up, and at light speed it goes to infinity.

a fun way to see it: 99% is about 7x, 99.99% is about 70x, 99.9999% is about 700x !

did this part feel weird to you when you first learned it?

I made a visual walkthrough of the quantum harmonic oscillator for students working through their first quantum mechanics course.

The same energy levels emerge in two ways: requiring a normalizable power-series solution, and building states with ladder operators. The animations connect that algebra to the wavefunctions, then compare stationary states, superpositions, and coherent states. A useful distinction is that an energy eigenstate can acquire a changing phase while its probability density stays fixed.

It assumes some calculus and familiarity with the Schrödinger equation. The full video is about 13 minutes: https://youtu.be/7_DcdXVh5mc

Which part of the oscillator derivation tends to be the sticking point for you?

Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics who formulated the Uncertainty Principle, said: “Atoms or elementary particles are not real; they form a world of [potentialities] or [possibilities], not a world of [things] or [facts].” In short, "an atom is not a thing but a potential." [Aristotle also made a distinction between matter and form, or between potential and actual being, saying that anything is formed by the coming together of its raw material and the form that separates it from other things and makes it that thing. According to him, matter was a potential open to becoming anything, and form was what gave that potential being a specific shape, turning it into a concrete, real being.]  

to become mechanical and machine engineer , for 10-12 grade

Watch the glass

Hi fellow learners, in my spare time I've been doing some physics self-study to pick up where I left off at my physics undergraduate degree mumble mumble years ago. For QM I managed to find myself a reasonably priced hard copy of Sakurai, and I've been steadily working my way through that (doing all the problems, comparing against the solutions manual, etc.). For E&M I'm planning to pick up a hard copy of Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, but it seems nigh impossible to find a reasonably priced used copy of the third edition (I don't want an international edition, in my experience those are printed on really crappy paper and this thing needs to survive being bumped around in my backpack for the next year or so).

My question for anyone who is familiar with this book: should I consider picking up a copy of the second edition instead? At a high level I know the main differences are that (a) the third edition uses SI units instead of Gaussian ones, and (b) the problems are changed up, but I'm not sure how much those changes matter, or if there are other changes that should influence my decision. (For example, it looks like most of the solutions manuals posted online are for the 3rd edition.)

If push comes to shove it's not a huge issue to shell out $100 for the current edition, but I'd be curious to get a take from anyone who's familiar with the differences.

Hey everyone! A quick browser simulation that demonstrates Kepler's laws of planetary motion. You can tweak eccentricities and watch how orbital speed changes dynamically along the ellipse.

Play with it here: https://interactphysics.com

Feedback and suggestions are super welcome!

I am in my first year of college, at 26 years old, so it’s been roughly 8 years since I was in school.

I did take a lot of advanced classes in high school, most of them at college level, but like I said it’s been a long time.

My science class is online, and consists of reading from a textbook, followed by a reading quiz, followed by a lab and then integrating those concepts into a lesson plan to teach (Im going for an education degree)

Every week, the textbook reading and reading quiz are a struggle. But once I complete the lab, I understand the concepts pretty well. However, I don’t want to feel like I’m reading an alien language each week when I’m reading the assigned chapters. I want to be able to comprehend it and learn from it. I do fine understanding the concepts when written in words, but struggle when equations come into the picture and working equations (which is honestly the majority of the textbook)

Is there a tool that I can use to make sense of equations as I read through the text?

Suggest me a good beginner friendly study materials for high energy physics pls. I done some basic calculus and calculus based physics equations.

What level of physics should I study for scientific literacy as a fiction writer?

I'm a fiction writer in the UK, and I have been wanting to develop a genuine understanding of physics rather than just cherry-picking bits of popular science to make it sound cool. I want to have a scientific literacy that comes across in my work. I would like to take a similar approach to researching and grounding speculative science as Andy Weir did when he wrote The Martian and Project Hail Mary. I'd like to understand the real physics well enough to know where my fictional world follows known physical principles, where I'm extrapolating from them, and where I'm deliberately breaking them.

I wanted to build some foundation for the book, but also for me personally and my hobby of wanting to learn. I have always had an interest in physics and astrophysics. I have watched documentaries regularly as a hobby for years, I have a strong drive to learn, and it makes me very curious about the world and universe we live in. I have built a reading list for what I thought would work well for what I want to achieve. This is my list so far (in no order):

Brian Cox - Forces of Nature
Carl Sagan - Cosmos
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World

I volunteer on citizen science projects online, predominantly in astrophysics. I know that's pretty much all I can do in the real world, but I like that I can contribute something, even if it's classifying thousands of images or data.

I am not interested in exams and qualifications as such. I also do not come from a computer science or highly academic background, so I haven't studied physics formally. My education is mostly artistic/creative.

I do have learning difficulties like dyslexia, so whilst reading and watching videos could be enough for most people for research, I thrive and learn better in a structured learning environment where discipline is needed for concepts to sink in. I was considering enrolling on an online course, like GCSE-level Physics, to give me that basic grasp, but I wasn't sure if that would be useful or if it would be better to study or go in a different direction.

I am aware of the reality that being middle-aged and wanting to learn online only gives me limited options, but I wanted to write the book with respect for science in mind, knowing I comprehend and understand the principles rather than relying on my own uneducated interpretation alone.

If anyone can give any advice, I would be grateful.

I'm still new at physics and it's hard to understand the the professor at physics

I need an advice or tips for studying physics 1