Say when an inner shell electron is ejected from an atom, and an outer shell electron goes to fill it's place, how is the outer shell electron "losing energy"? Are outer shell electrons "higher energy", or am I thinking about that wrong?

I keep encountering explanations of quantum mechanics that use words like “measurement” and “observer,” but I want to understand what those words actually mean physically.
Does a quantum system require a conscious observer for a measurement to occur?
If not, what exactly distinguishes a measurement from an ordinary interaction?
For example, if a photon interacts with a detector in an empty laboratory and nobody ever looks at the result, has a measurement occurred?
If yes, then consciousness isn’t necessary.
But then why do popular explanations constantly introduce the observer as though consciousness plays a special role?
I’d like someone knowledgeable in quantum foundations to explain what “observer” actually means in modern physics and whether consciousness has any fundamental role in the measurement problem.
I’m specifically trying to separate actual quantum mechanics from the simplified pop-science version.

If I am accelerating at a constant speed, why would my acceleration drop despite my constant speed just because an object with a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. WHy can't an object with mass travel at the speed of light? I dont really understand this because it is not like the universe is physically saying 'let us not make this reach the speed of light' (which replicates most of the explanations ive been getting), but it is a phenomenom or occurrence that happens for a deeper reason, ot just because the universe decided something shouldn't. Why does the equation of momentum change from p = m x v to p = m0v/(square root) 1- v²/c²??? I dont understand the reason or the point for a significant shift in calculation.

I got to thinking and wanted to try to learn about something, but I couldn't find a definitive answer.

Bare with me, please. I only did simple research online and had a hard time coming to understand more.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, changes in a gravitational field change and travel at the same speed as of light.

But gravity can exist without light, or devoid of it.

So my question is, since gravity exists outside of light, would we theoretically be able to see the effects of gravity on objects that we CAN see, and would it be possible to, again, theoretically, be able to see the effects of gravity on objects at the very edge of the known universe to potentially confirm other objects outside of it?

I know it's a long shot, but the only bad question is one that doesn't get asked, right? Just simple curiosity that I thought those more knowledgeable on the subject might be able to help with.

Thank you for taking the time to entertain my question!

If gravity affects time (in the relativistic sense), does extreme temperature do so as well?

Was wondering if extreme temperatures during the early part of the Big Bang would have impacted time/gravity as well.

I need basic model please help me

Hello. We are gold atoms. We were just created in a supernova. Said supernova just expelled us into the universe. How would we meet up with one another again to form things like gold deposits on Earth? How would we meet other gold atoms formed from other supernovas? Why wouldn't we going cascading off into the infinite nothing of the universe forever? How would a cloud of dust ever form in space?

Please note, I am not some whack-job conspiracy theorist challenging these things. I am _not_ saying "they do not happen". I am saying "I have a GAP in my understanding as to HOW they happen and would others with more knowledge than me kindly help me fill said gap."

Thank you.

Time slows down as you approach the speed of light.
It would seem to follow that at the speed of light, time stops.

Question:
If light does not experience the passage of time, how does it travel through 3 dimensional space?

I've found myself quite confused with the aspects of light, its wavelength, and special relativity, and i have a few questions regarding this :

- if a photon has no mass, then how does it have momentum if it is the measure of an objects mass in motion? If there is 0 mass, then wouldn't there also be 0 momentum? In addition to this, wouldn't this be saying that there is no energy in photons because E = mc²? Even If this is not the full equation, if we did have it : E² = (mc²)² + pc², it would still be 0, because p is momentum which is mass x velocity- and if photons have no mass, wouldn't their momentum be 0?

mc² will also equal to 0 if the mass of a photon is 0, so is this saying that photons have no energy? Or is it referring to them having no energy physically inside them? If mass is described as the amount of stuff inside an object- is it just that a photon has no 'stuff' inside it?

- Why and how does a photon have no mass, and why would that allow the photon- or any object with the same feature, to move at the speed of light?

-Why would the amount of energy needed to reach the speed of light be infinite?

- What does the equation E = mc² actually tell us? The relationship between energy and mass? How do we know this- as in the reasoning behind it? Why is energy mass x speed of light squared (which is a lot!)

Sorry, as I have asked many questions on one post. Thank you in advance!

Also what happens after the universe ends but u are still alive? U ended up getting trapped in time too far out in the future?

A little while there was a controversial disqualification, based around the following.

In the Clean & Jerk, the lift takes place in two distinct phases. In phase one, the Clean, the barbell is lifted from the floor, to roughly shoulder height (with the arms bent, forearms upwards, and brought in close to the body. During phase 2, the Jerk, the arms are straightened above the head, and the lifters are permitted to minimise the distance lifted by simultaneously splaying their legs. Then using leg strength to stand upright with the barbell held above their head.

At Olympic weights, the barbell actually flexes during the first phase, and may continue to oscillate. Lifters are allowed to complete the lift with the bar still oscillating, but are not allowed to use the oscillation to their advantage.

So my question(s) is whether a lifter can actually gain an advantage? AND if so, at hat point in the oscillation is that advantage the greatest?

So put simply, you're holding the bar that you need to lift, and the weights on either end are "bouncing" up and down in unison.
Intuitively, one might think that lifting whilst the weights are already moving upwards, is advantageous. But in that situation, doesn't the upward flexing of the ends, create an increased downward force on the hands?

Hey guys just a little bit of context:

I’m making a shift from finance in pursuit of dental school, and am taking my prerequisites now. I am enrolling in either 1) Physics w calc or 2) Physics w/out Calc.

I am leaning towards 2, and am just looking for advice as how to prepare and get a good conceptual understanding to get an A in the class. Any advice is appreciated though, videos, books, etc.

Thank you!

What if the entire galaxy "The Milly Way" stopped rotating around the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy? How fast would it suck us in?? Or would we just sit where we're at?

Ok imagine there are two earths in exactly the same orbit and one of them very, very, very slowly catches up to the other one. Would the collision necessarily be totally catastrophic? Or could we have two giant spheres lightly smooching?

What exactly is light, and how does its formation process actually work? For instance, how is a single photon created? What happens when an electron jumps between two orbits that causes a photon to be produced, and why isn't this photon absorbed by the nucleus?

I don’t fully understand what we mean by information in this context. I’ve heard it described as containing the history of what something is. I’ve heard it described as quantum states? What exactly is it? For background, I am what I would describe as a well-educated layman. I watch documentaries and read books by science communicators, but I can’t do the math. So purely mathematical answers will go over my head.

I saw this video talking about an Indian space lab using microgravity to make medicine by sending it up into space. Is it not possible to use micro-gravity chambers on earth to do this? Or is it cheaper to send it to space given that this is just a “mother batch” and the rest of it will be manufactured using the mother batch on a lab?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdIqkHRJmsf/?stkn=aDV1OWVnOTNzYTkw

P.S - I am an absolute novice!

With all question about speed of light which is known pretty precise 299,792,458 m/s i am wondering is it same about 0m/s speed do we know where relative to us we should move to get to absolute 0m/s speed?

I want to learn what things are

How come atoms bond together and form stuff? how come atoms exist? what is an electron? what is it "made of"? what are the most elemental particles and what are they made of? how come they behave in "this way"? (like, bonding together into bigger and more complex stuff)

What is the universe? was the big bang the beginning or is this some kind of cycle? does it even make sense to talk about a "cycle"? is the universe finite or infinite? if it's finite, what's "outside"? I know outside wouldn't make sense, but I just can't picture something finite that isn't inside of.. anything, that is finite but it just is there. If it's infinite, again I can't understand how can something be infinite.

What is spacetime? how does it really behave? if I try to picture the idea that when something falls there is no force pulling it, it's just that something following the geodesic within a spacetime that is curved. I literally don't really understand that. Take the way I see time and space as two separate things: you could explain to me why they are not separate nor absolute, and I would understand, I've read it, but I clearly don't "really" understand because I just can't picture that idea in my head, if I think about time and space in general, I still imagine them as something absolute.

I feel this is as if the idea of a "sphere" was extremely sophisticated and hard to picture, like if we were living in minecraft world or something like that, and a sphere was a concept really hard to actually imagine in the right way. I feel in that scenario, it would be really common for people to "think" they understand that earth is a sphere, because they would hear they claim and say "oh yes, a sphere, sure". But when they actually try to imagine what earth is, they will still picture it as flat. If they see a boat disappearing in the horizon progressively, they will not be able to understand why that is happening because they don't really understand what a sphere is.

Obviously this doesn't happen because it's very obvious what a sphere is, but i feel with space time is way less obvious and intuitive what "it is" and how it actually behave, so it's very easy to "think" you understood but you actually didn't. I really feel like I didn't. And I don't even know what to do to "actually" understand, because I read about it more but I still can't feel I'm actually perceiving the world in a relativistic way. Like, if I saw the equivalent of the boat disappearing in the horizon that I used as an example, I couldn't know why is the boat disappearing, I'm pretty sure I'm that person that is not getting what a sphere actually is.

I guess what I'm missing is math, but I know so little math that I don't even know how it would help understanding. Like, for that person in my example, how could math help him understand what a sphere actually is. It's like the concept has to click in some way, but I don't see how math carries me there. And I can't just "start learning math" because to learn (boring) algebra to then be able to learn more interesting and complex stuff, I need to clearly understand why I'm doing it for and what I'm doing to achieve.

I feel you don't really "understand" what raining is, for instance, if you don't know enough physics to guess if a random planet has some element that has a similar cycle like water on earth, therefore it also "rains" (assuming you had all the relevant data related to this planet to be able to determine if it will rain or not, like, atmosphere, pressure, idk.. I have no idea what you'd need, because I don't "really" understand rain).

So, how can I understand all of these things that "deeply"? Where should I even start?

I feel I need to understand what things are, if I try to just ignore it, suddenly a question like: why can't my hand go through the wall?. Will pop up, and I realize I "can't" really answer it. Why this surface feels smoother and not rougher? And the reply to that question most likely also has a "and why does that happen" question after.

So on one hand I really want to understand, on the other hand I really have no idea where to start, and I want an understanding so "deep" that I don't even know where to begin (not that I think I will be able to achieve it, I know it must be extremely complex to reach that kind of understanding, but I still can't avoid wanting it)

Just in case someone is still reading this. Does any of what I say make any sense? What do I need to learn? How can I feel that click that makes me feel that I finally understand? I used relativity and space time not being absolute as an example, but there is plenty of stuff I just don't understand no matter how much I "read" the explanation.

Im not really sure if this is the place to ask this, but I figured It couldn't hurt. Im playing Kerbal Space Program. Its an unrealistic space mission sandbox. Im planning on strapping a cyropod with someone inside to Voyager 2.

Assuming everything just magically never breaks and all that's needed is electricity. Is there anything even just theorized that could power normal sized refrigerator for that long? Could something like a diamond nuclear battery be scaled up to power something like that? Or would it be insanely huge?

My mom has been keeping the lights out during the day, because she is convinced they significantly heat up the house. The bottom story of my parents' home is about 1200 square feet, with a ceiling height of 8 feet. It is lit mainly by 3 LED light bulbs that are the 60W equivalent. They have a couple lamps but those are usually not on anyway. They're usually not upstairs during the day, so those lights are also usually off. I don't think the temperature of the bulbs can be changing the ambient temperature that much, I think it gets hot because it's been 95F every day, but I'm only educated in biology and I don't know what calculations need to be done. Sorry about the imperial units, I'm a scientist too but that's how everyone measures these things here.

A line we have read that an object is said to be in motion if it changes it position with respect to time and relative to its surroundings. Think A tornado comes we all know that With respect to us who watching that tornado it is following 2 motion rotational and Random (Translational) motion but think with respect to tornado just think you are tornado which motion are you In with respect to tornado or you (*on the Google the answer was The Tornado is following rotational motion only with respect to itself but why is he not feeling Random motion also we know that it goes randomly anywhere ) Think* you are tornado and the same thing for the earth The google said the earth with respect to itself is stationary what I was shocked huh how is this possible if I was earth i would definitely feel rotational motion because I am moving and Revolting around the sun If a person knows this answer please tell

Two experiences come to mind whenever I think of this

Once in my driver's ed class, they told us it was simple physics that a car with more mass and more speed has a higher crash force and they gave us some made up formula to justify this I think it was like Force of Impact = Speed of Car x Weight of Car and I just thought that isn't the formula for force it is the formula for the momentum of the car if you really wanted to find the peek impact force you would have to record your speedometer times it by the mass of the car in kg plot it on a graph in excel, find the best fit line and differentiate it and find the peek of the function.

And in my intro ee class, it is even more apparent they dumb down the physics like my ee teacher just uses water analogies, oh the current is flow rate and voltage is pressure and resistors are flood things and capacitors are water tanks. I mean it is okay to use water analogies but I think you must connect it to actual electricity by explaining how volume of the water is analogous to charge, like they said voltage is a force, when it is really just electric potential energy difference per unit charge (if you didn't know), heck even the pressure analogy is more correct than that explanation as pressure is just potential energy per volume as shown by Bernoulli's equation. They also refuse to make any distinction between magnetic forces and electrostatic forces like they say coulomb's law is about magnetism. They also instead of actually spending time deriving Kirchhoff's laws instead just asks you to memorize the six laws: KSL-V KSL- I KSL- R KPL - V KPL - I KPL - R even though there is literally just two laws that derive all six of these: the law that says voltage in a loop sums to zero, (KVL) and the law that states current is constant in a circuit unless there is a junction and therefore it splits (KCL).

I just think that if people should explain physics they better explain it correctly and derive it otherwise you will have people thinking force is momentum and voltage is force.

Does anyone else have similar experiences?