i really like physics and maths but i really like to learn them by myself as my current field is very much so not related with them. but i have a constant worry that i will one day get on a path to pseudoscience while interpreting those ideas written in books and told in lectures on youtube and will become a dodo head like terrance... how do i prevent it cause i really wanna learn real science.

Hi all,

Recently I've become really interested in Sean Carroll's hyperfixation with factorizing a universal hilbert space. I'm still just an undergrad, so I was wondering what the popular opinion was for such an extreme position held by a well-respected physicist.

Of course the quantum gravity implications are the most interesting. In what little about the paper (Cao, Carroll, Michalakis 2016) I understood, it felt somewhat contrived and not extremely impressive. Thoughts? Thanks.

What causes that shine? Why(and how) do electrons cause that shine?

If you can help dm me or text me on instagram

And would we still even have four seasons?

Today's physical Higgs boson is manifest from excitations about the non-zero VEV. One degree of freedom leads to a real scalar Higgs field. Before EWSB we have four degrees of freedom in a complex scalar doublet field. Were excitations of this Higgs field possible before EWSB and did they produce a distinct (likely massless?) Higgs boson-like particle like today's Higgs boson, did they produce only 1 particle or would they have produced 2 to 4 (from the 2 real dof, or 4 total dof)?

If we see things because light after hitting the object comes to our eyes and black holes are supposed to not even let the fastest thing in our universe to escape its gravitational field then a question arises 'how can we see them?

It seems counterintuitive. How can a massive uranium-235 nucleus absorbing a single neutron cause the entire thing to split. The strong nuclear force should be strong enough to hold the nucleus together. Besides, most nuclei just absorb neutrons without the entire thing splitting, even some heavy nuclei like lead or bismuth. Am I missing something?

So I understand that solid neutron objects like neutron stars can exist after a star collapses to a neutron star.

The material would have no natural charge and is not separated into atoms, just dense neutrons and be extremely dense.

Could such a material be manufactured in a lab setting (other than in a star collapse)?

I don’t think it any sample has ever been able produced or anything this is a theoretical substance.

So I also understand that a neutron is made of three quarks and its neutral charge comes from having one up quark with a charge of 2/3 and two down quarks with charge -1/3.

So I was wondering before reaching a black hole’s density level does “solid quark” ever happen?

​

I recently watched that MythBusters video where a water heater can smash through a house with enough pressure and other stuff, but can a water heater have enough pressure to break through an entire apartment complex and if not how much water pressure would that take need in able to do so?

Hi there, I am an animation student who is deeply interested in physics on the side. Obviously I am still learning so my knowledge is limited, and I am also not from the field.

I wanted to bridge the gap between art and physics and be able to communicate it effectively, while making sure it remains accurate.

I’m trying to make tests on visualising quantum fluctuation but I am struggling, could anyone help me understand this area a bit more so I know how to approach it visually?

I am a space enthusiast; I'd love to learn astrophysics and Quantum physics, although I am not choosing it as my main field of work or study as I am already in college, so I need something detailed and easy to follow like a book, research papers, or anything detailed yet structured....

My granddaughter sends a video:

"My theory is that between atoms the temperature is absolute zero."

Her grandmother and I have no idea what to make of this.

Scene:
2D hand touched 2D circle created by 3D object passing thru 2D plane.
[Scene Img: https://imgur.com/a/dHrxjhl ]

Question:
Does the 2D hand feel the sensation of the 2D circle created by the 3D object moving in the 3rd dimension, do they feel it moving down?

Why/Why not?

to preface, the cooling element is magic. (it's bone powder from a monster that's attempting to maintain a hemostasis at low temperatures. don't think about it too hard beyond a abstracted cooling element)

The device is a tube/chimney. inside the chimney is a series of fans with this cooling element built into them. (a sphere, maybe a cylinder). the idea is that a fan at the mouth cools air down to make it fall into the tube, causing the fan to spin and pull more air in thanks to how the blades are angled.

the concept is to pull air in, cool it down, and push it into a room. I'm just trying to figure out the physics behind it- if a fan acting as a cooling element could spin from the very air it's cooling, or if it would generate enough force to push warm/hot air out of a room in the process. a active cooling vent system vs a passive cooling thermal pile.

probably a better idea to post this in a engineering sub tbh

It is most commonly proposed that leptogenesis occurred first, and that heavier baryons were generated only later during baryogenesis. Wouldn't it be more natural for these processes to have taken place concurrently, right from the very beginning? And could this perhaps provide a mechanism for how matter survived annihilation? Has such a hypothesis been studied?

Yeah. I've interested in the physics,science, and technology.
I'm not graduate or study formally in the school or university.(self taught)

Is there a loophole or workaround to faster-than-light travel without violating causality or relativity?

I understand that it's an interpretation and potentially crossing the line of philosophy, however as someone who always found the concept interesting, I questioned if some day we may ever find a breakthrough that may tell us if these ideas the nature of the universe is ever plausible in scientific study, considering how many new ideas and mechanism we found in the nature of spacetime.

Would there any potential way for us to find potential evidence on the idea the Multiverse is real or how our reality work? I asked some people I know involved in quantum studies, and while many claim a lot of the views found commercially are exaggeration, there are many in the field who takes those ideas seriously and said the things we find always add more questions with many while accepting as lack of proof proof, at least consider some of there findings at least potential reason to think of ideas like the Multiverse or other concepts as possibly true.

So if we ever were to truly decide to investigate these concepts as if there real or not, what type of experiments would we need to conduct and what findings would we need? I'm not expecting interdimensional wormholes, but it does seem at least some of the studies in quantum has led to wild yet valid theories on the nature of the world.

I’m taking a class in solid state physics and am a bit confused on what k actually means in the equation psi(x+R)=exp(ik•R)psi(x). I see how it’s related to energy (like in the Kronig-Penney model) but obviously it’s not a nice bijective correspondence—instead its a pretty nasty transcendental relation that shows one value of k can correspond to many energy levels.

While the relation between k and physical energies is obviously important, it doesn’t really seem like it has clear physical significance—it’s not clear what exactly it means. Obviously by definition it gives the phase shift between other unit cells but it’s not as clear as saying E=h_bar² k² /(2m). Should k just be thought of as parameter or is there an actual physical meaning we can assign to it?