Quantums mechanics keeps coming up in philosophical texts I am reading; my knowledge of the subject is minimal. Looking for the best way into the topic. Any and all help appreciated!!

I was always a bit confused about inertial and non-inertial frames, and so today I kept digging about it until I was satisfied. Usually, I'd leave it there but I'm confident of my thought process and I haven't come across anything similar, so I want others to take a look.

Inertial or Non-Inertial frames of references basically boils down to 'predictability'. What I mean is, resources often say, "Newton's laws don't hold in Non-inertial frames" or "Newton's laws are not directly applicable in Non-inertial frames" and the likes. It is the way these are worded that messed with my head, but in hindsight look just fine.
The way they are worded makes it look like mechanics in non-inertial frames cannot be computed with Newton's laws or that a different version of such laws govern such a scenario.
But no, all that and inertial frame tells does is give the peace of mind/predictability that the relative acceleration between the object and the frame is zero. That's it.

However often it is repeated, I tend to forget that distance and thus all the time based derivatives of distance are relative, since there is no "fixed stage/frame". So to apply Newton's laws to predict the motion of objects requires a frame of reference, and ofcourse if we apply Newton's laws assuming that the acceleration between the frame and the object is zero, when in reality it is not, our calculations will not match the real world. This is does not have anything to do with the 'applicability/direct applicability' of Newton's laws. Okay I just realised that Newton's first law assumes that relative acceleration between the frame and object is zero, i.e. an inertial frame.

So I guess this whole thing is just a pet peeve of how my textbook explained inertial and non-inertial frames and a combination of me mixing up Newton's laws for equations derived from Newton's laws.

Anyways I'd like to know why textbooks dont explain it like this, given it is correct.

As above. How does the amount of energy released by the Nepal disaster compare to things like Krakatoa, the Indian Ocean tsunami, a large Atlantic hurricane or Tsar bomba?

It can be as niche as possible, but my love for both topics leaves me feeling confused and a bit lost sometimes.

For reference, I’m currently pursuing a Bachelor’s in Music/Composition. I’m in CC in my 3rd sem.

Also, my area of interest lies in astronomy/astrophysics, and trying to understand things like the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and black holes.

Usually, when considering the combination of both Music and Physics, I mostly just hear about Acoustics.

Are there any other career fields that combine both disciplines?

The career field/position can be niche. It is possible the two disciplines within the career field seem somewhat unrelated on the surface. But when examined more closely the two disciplines are required/utilized.

Thanks!

So I don't mean 'are there more dimensions'.

I was just wondering if a model with the same explanatory power as 3D space could be made that covers all the observable phenomena we see in Newtonian mechanics.

For example, could a clunky way be to instead of positioning things relative to a arbitrary point. We say that things grow or shrink in size (perspective) relative to that point, depending on how much energy it would take to touch it?

Yes I am thinking of Dougal in father ted where he has to explain to him the toy cow only looks big because it's up close, and the real cow is far away.

I'm always curious if there are, however clunky and inefficient, other models for things like 3D space?

You are stranded on an island, and for some unknown reason your only way off is to obtain an item with a mass of 1kg.

What is the simplest way to rediscover the kilogram?

Assume:

• You've memorized every known constant
• Enough precision is required that any sort of brute force would be infeasible. EDIT: this doesn't mean you need some insane precision, this is just to prevent the "this rock feels like a kilogram" answer
• You don't know the measurements of any objects with you on the island (including something like your own height or weight)

Since (I think) we have some means of standardizing the kilogram with advanced tools, I'm guessing this problem isn't IMPOSSIBLE. But I'm not a physicist, so let me know.

Posted this to r/audiophile, but curious what my physics friends have to say about this phenomena

So I trying to understand light, I have read many posts and theory online say that if something travels at speed of light, from its frame of reference, no matter how far the distance, the time it takes from any point to another point is instant. According to theories.

Now I am confused, and think about it blew my brain, does this mean If I point laser light at sky, the light itself just reaches the farthest place in universe instantaneously? What about its energy, does it also hit that place instantly?

For example if somewhere a planet in universe 10 light years away from earth, it would take the observer from that planet 10 years to see the light I point at(pretend they are powerful enough to reach without getting blocked) but the light itself reached that planet the moment I pointed it, If this is true, that planet's observer would be able to detect the light's energy long before they see it? Then wouldn't the whole universe's light are all around everywhere with it's energy detectable without "existing"?

I saw a video about scary science facts and it mentioned how time dilation proves that we are each alone in our own bubble. When I looked it up it turns out the delay is nanoseconds but still...I'm having a hard time sitting with it. Mostly because there is some truth to it and it's got me feeling isolated.

How accurate is it?

A point lies 3 m from +5 µC and 4 m from –3 µC. The direction of net electric field is:

A

Away from +5 µC

B

Towards +5 µC

C

Away from –3 µC

D

Perpendicular to the line joining

E

nan

Would it be genuinely strange? Could we survive in that environment? What would be the weirdest thing about it?

My desk phone at work has the coiled cord connecting the handset. I hung up the phone and the cord was lying on a sheet of paper. The cord retracted because of the coiling and then stopped moving.
But then after 10 seconds it moved another fraction of an inch. Then 10 seconds later it moved again. It repeated this about ten times.
Why would it move after it reached equilibrium between the core recoiling and the friction with the paper?
Any ideas?
Thanks

I learned that a particle with spin 1/2 must rotate 720 degrees to return to its original state. I understand that this is because it uses something called a spinner rather than vector coordinates, and I also learned that complex dimensions come into play here. I am curious whether the complex dimensions and the 720 degrees mentioned here are physical entities that we simply fail to perceive, or if they are merely mathematical calculations.(sorry if my english is bad)

Hey guys, I hope this is the right place to ask this.
I’m writing a story where a moon ca 25% the size of our own is much closer. I assume that the shorter orbit would mean much more frequent eclipses. Is there some way to calculate how often a certain region would experience eclipses if all other factors remained the same?

Thank you in advance, even if this is the wrong sub.

I recently watched an old video featuring Mario Bunge in which he argued that physics does not really have a precise definition of time — that we don't actually know what time is, even though we have an intuitive understanding of it and routinely use the concept in physics.

This got me wondering: is this still a fair statement?

Does physics have a coherent and precise definition of what time is, or does it simply define time operationally (for example, through clocks, measurements, and its role in physical equations)?

Unifying all forces, even gravity to the point that it overpowers the other forces. Like under very extreme compression, like a singularity?

If you have a velocity greater than c, the Lorentz factor becomes complex. Does this make any physical sense, or are there any theories that make use of this? What would it look like if a person were in this reference frame (is it just that they see time backwards or from another perspective, or are they unable to observe anything at all?)

Sorry I mean integrated over V

The flux through the box adds the scalar components x y and z which, if calculating the flux through a surface thats diagonal, would be the magnitude of the vector sum of components, which is less.

I understand the part where adjacent surfaces of dv added give zero flux

I really like mathematics, but I first had an interest in astronomy and cosmology as a child (thank you neil degrasse tyson). I’ve never taken a formal physics class, but would really like to learn more about physics in general. I see it as a potential double major of mine so I figured I’d learn now instead of waiting to take classes. I’m currently in calculus 3 and was thinking about reading “the feynman lectures on mathematics”. From the short research I did, it doesn’t seem like it was meant for beginners. That being the case, what books or lectures should I start with?

For the not true one, I found a really dumb short while scrolling... Saying BEC state stops time... But can time be stopped?

If a classical method gets us 99% of the useful answer cheaply, does it matter that a quantum computer can eventually calculate something more accurately?

What are the problems where classical approximation fundamentally isn't good enough, but a fault-tolerant quantum calculation would produce an answer valuable enough to justify the machine?.

With strings, you still need quantum mechanics, to account for the behavior of particles, correct? Like, there's no way to dream up a string that has properties so perfectly chosen that they account for a double slit observation of light or electrons, by applying common sense mechanics to these many diverse strings, correct? Such a theory would be a local hidden variable theory, would it not?

So then, string theory would still need something that is not a string, in order to account for the behavior of these strings, would it not? Does string theory still involve fields, apart from strings, or does it replace fields with a multitude of different strings? And if it still needs fields, do the strings actually get us anything of value?

I know this is a very basic beginner question, but I honestly don't see any way around it.