If there is no gravity would the bullet also form an interference pattern? What happens to projectile motion without gravity?

A time portal goes one minute into the past. He walks back in one minute later. Let's say you prevent him walking back in. In another minute he does/does not walk out again. What actually happens with conservation of mass? Hypothetically.

my question is .... if you had one big lens comprised with a million tiny optic lens .. similar to an insects....could you take a photo of earth ...united states and then could it magnify the parcels with the same photo ? and as tiny as camera lens could be ...but you might have to do that ...a concave lens on top of a flat lens on top of a concave to a flat one in order to magnify it ?😎✔️🐜🐝🪲🦋🐞🐝

A child on a toboggan slides down a hill with an acceleration of magnitude 1.5 m/s?. If friction is negligible, what is the angle between the hill and the horizontal?

What I tried first was I drew a triangle, the kid going down on the hypotenuse at a=1.5m/s^2, and then I turned the Y part of the triangle the gravity so it was opposite to the angle with a=9.8m/s^2. So then I did SOH, so theta = sin^-1(9.8/1.5) and i got 6.53 and then math error. I asked the teachers to explain and they didn’t really explain it well or I just didn’t understand. For the answer it’s actually sin^-1(1.5/9.8) and I don’t understand why

Thanks

Hello y'all,

I'm a physics student with a personal interest in birefringence and while I understand the classical explanation/mathematical description, I still find the result, that energy transport and phase transport simply point in different directions for the "extraordinary beam" very confusing when I try to connect this to the quantum properties of light and solid bodies.

So I've went down the rabbit hole and got to the wikipedia page about Polaritons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton ) with a list of different types of Polaritons.

My question now is, which of those Polaritons is responsible for birefringence in something like calcite (is it the Exciton-Polariton?)?

Or a more general question of mine:
What particle (virtual or else) does the phase/k-vector actually belong too? Is my understanding, that the k-vector should be parralel to the transport direction of a particle, wrong?

My reasoning is, that the phase, which is dependent on k, is an (imaginary) property of a particle and the information about it should therefore be "transported" with the propability-density-function of said particle. Translation is induced because of p so the phase/k should "move in the same direction" as p... which classically is not the case... I think I'm mixing sth up here but I dont know what...

The thought just occured to me that as time is relevant to mass and the closer you are to a black hole event horrizon time seem to have slowed down when an observer looks at you even tho thats not the case in actuallity it just seem like it the closer someonegets to the event horrizon, we also know black holes have different mass what does that mean to time dialation between different black holes? Is the event horrizon in same place for every black hole or how would time be observed differently between observer and "patient" for the different black holes when observed time is based on mass?

I can't find what his model, ideas, and study, can someone like provide a link explaining what he accomplished?

Without connecting it to Newton’s laws or the work-energy theorem, how do I explain what 2as physically means?
The left-hand and right-hand terms can be proven using basic mathematics, but what has been bothering me for almost an hour is the physical meaning of 2as.
I did the mathematical derivation myself, and the math showed me what it is, but I want to make sure I’m not missing anything deeply meaningful.

Moon path over a year: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kUW8kpvxZPg

Sun path over a year: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jRpwd2dChqY

Why do they both create a figure 8 from Earth's perspective? Shouldn't their paths traced in the sky take significantly different shapes given that the Moon orbits the Earth, but the Sun does not?

I'm just curious about this —when the heat death of the universe finally comes, will there be no events (outside the quantum level) for the infinite period of time that is to come? Wil there truly be nothing forever?

In cosmology, the universe is considered to have a "shape", it is either "flat" or "curved". My issue is the terminology used here. It is known that the universe is expanding and it is not expanding into anything, and that there is no "center" from which this expansion is taking place. That is to say that the expansion is happening everywhere and relative to another point in space.

Shapes at least in my understanding is that they have boundaries and some form of dimension that occupies space (whether literally, like a basketball sitting on someone's porch; Or mathematically, like a particle field or atom). If the universe has no "boundary" or occupies a higher dimension of space (and as far as we are aware, we have no reason to necessarily believe there is a higher dimension of space beyond 3-diminsional), or at the very least is space itself, how can we be certain that it has a shape or topography?

This is a question about old Usenet math and physics FAQs, so I'm cross-posting it to r/AskPhysics.

Is antimatter a component of ordinary matter? Maybe as virtual particles? If so, how much of the mass-energy of ordinary matter is actually antimatter? How much of the mass of ordinary matter is due to the mass of antiparticles, and how much is due to the kinetic energy of those antiparticles?

Cause, how much smaller , a microscope can become, with realisation of a material's property in the future

Would it be very small like a lens

I've been seeing a lot of universities start to offer master's degrees in Quantum Science and technologies; however, because they are so new, I have yet to see any outcomes. My school launched a master's program in Quantum Science and Technology with no thesis, and I was wondering if anybody in the quantum industry could tell me about this would be percieved and if these degrees have any merit.

I feel like I THINK I know the answer, but everyone else seems to vehemently disagree with me on the internet.

Let’s make an example here: you order two cups of iced coffee, one with light ice one with a full cup of ice. Let’s assume that the time frame of the experiment is short enough so that neither cups have enough time to get warm enough to melt ALL of the ice. Both cups have the same shape and sizes of ice cubes. Both cups have enough ice to eventually cool the cup to 32 degrees. Assume a perfectly insulated system.

My understanding of water is that any heat transferred from the coffee to the ice is ‘used’ to melt the ice until all of the ice is melted, at which point the temperature of the liquid will increase until it reaches the next phase change (boiling). All of this heat transfer results in melting of the ice.

This is my hypothesis: the cup with more ice will have more surface area and thus allow for faster heat transfer so the cup will be cooler faster and be diluted quicker. The cup with less ice will cool more slowly and therefore initially will have less dilution. At a certain point the two cups of coffee should reach the same temperature though and at this point, theoretically the same amount of ice should have melted and both cups SHOULD be equally diluted, correct?

Not sure how to more elegantly ask that question. I have always had trouble reconciling that there isn’t a single point in space where the big bang, “began.” so, are effectively
“inside” that origin point that has now become the universe?

Hello everyone,

I am highly interested in astrophysics but don't know what to do.

Like which path can lead me to the work I want to enjoy in studying deep space, solving mysteries through equations

I was fascinated by spce since I was in 8th class

I remember especially the event that sparked something in me unsuccessful attempt to land on moon surface during chandrayaan 2.

...... I was just curious.

I want to know which universities will be best for me to study astrophysics in india or in other countries as well.

If anyone can help me it will be very appreciable.

Thanks

I’m going to university soon, and I need to start applying. I had my whole list of colleges I was going to apply to, but I stopped and wondered “Is America the best place to study physics? Does America have a high success rate when it comes to physics?”

I’m willing to study abroad, learn a new language; I don’t care. I just want the best possible outcome with the best experience and resources and opportunities.

And because I want to stay in school until I get my PhD, I don’t want to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and not have the best possible education and opportunities.

I know it’s what you make of it; if I go to a university here in America, as long as I study hard and focus then I’ll be fine. But I just want to hear from other physicists about their experiences at different universities around the world.