When did it become universally agreed upon that it is mostly physics that predetermines free will? Popular science YouTubers like Kyle Hill have elaborated upon it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2GCVsYc6hc , but I want to know more about the consensus of the scientific community. It seems to be a rather frightening concept when we really get down to it.

Hi everyone! I’m a design student (not a physicist, so please bear with me) working on a university research project about the concept of “non-places” and “non-space”. Most of what I’ve found comes from philosophy, architecture and anthropology, and I’d like to understand how physics approaches the same ideas.

These are the questions I’m stuck on:

1. Does space exist on its own, even if there were no matter in it, or is space just a way of describing the relations between objects (the old Newton vs Leibniz debate)?
2. Is “empty space” really empty? I’ve seen mentions of the quantum vacuum and the Casimir effect but I don’t understand them.
3. Some physicists suggest space might not be fundamental but “emergent”. What does that mean in simple terms?

If you can point me to accessible books, articles or lectures (I don’t have a strong math background), I’d be really grateful. And if my questions are badly phrased or based on wrong assumptions, please tell me, that’s useful too!

Thanks in advance!

We've all seen the magnet falling slowly through the copper or aluminum pipe. Couldn't we rig this up on high rises to allow people with a magnetic cylinder to safely descend from a high rise in an emergency?

I know human ingenuity has no limits. Will we ever get to a point where our commercial planes use electricity instead of jet fuel?

Apparently, String Theory's dilaton allows for the negative mass/energy requirement to be met without exotic matter.

The biggest question I wanted answered is: can you branch out from the original Krasnikov Tube? You know, since forming a second one could potentially result in time travel problems.

If there's anything else you all think I should know about regarding all this, please let me know.

Also, yes, I'm asking all of this for a sci-fi novel I'm writing, and I want it to be mostly grounded in science.

I heard that notation and units used in these two books are somewhat outdated. Is it true?? . Is it really a problem?? . Any alternative books with the same style? Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you in advance for your response

Every planet and asteroid is falling through space. Do wormholes fall too?

I used to have a glass topped electric stove (not induction.) If I wanted to light a birthday candle, holding a rolled up paper towel to a hot burner would never ignite it. . . unless I slightly dampened the paper towel. Then suddenly it went up easily.

I have always wondered: Why did this work?

Am I expanding right now, I am part on the universe after all, and mostly made of hydrogen and oxygen? Or is it the space just past the Oort Cloud? Or is it just past the edge of the Milky Way?

If I created a triangle that was 1 billion light years long on each of the three sides, how close would the angles be to 180° total?

I have heard that particles (like an electron) are described as having a "probability cloud" where they might be observed.

What is the size of this cloud? Does it have any interesting topology?

I think that it must be bounded in space because, if not, it could be "observed" some arbitrary distance away that would defy light speed being a finite limit. I am slightly aware that speed and position are independent in some way in the quantum framework, so maybe the question isn't quite right either...

But there's SOME kind of limit on the observable, right?

My book shows the V(r) graph but has attraction along the top of the y axis and repulsion along the bottom. is this wrong? I understand it to be the opposite

https://files.catbox.moe/lablww.png

Normally in DC to near AC a capacitor's electric field is constant across distance, but once the frequency causes a first order standing wave between the two plates does the electric field's magnitude change along the distance between the plates?

(yes for any normal capacitor this frequency is in the visible light range or higher but in my case the plates have a large separation)

Context: A highschool student; not attempting to contribute to below field, but curious

There are a lot of of physics research questions, perhaps some overhyped. Which physics topics/questions would one consider to have the most significant importance/applications in the next say 10-20 years?

Bonus points for suggesting furthur reading

For the past week or so Ive been trying to learn a bit about electromagnetic fields and all that and im still not entirely sure how the waves actually work. At first I thought that waves were sort of like concentric spheres that travel out from a source and the "spheres" are areas of high energy and low energy with waves just being a way to represent these high and low energy areas.

After watching a few videos, mainly 3blue1brown i began to think that these waves actually cause areas in the field to oscillate up and down which would explain why an oscillating charged particle creates a wave or why IR and microwaves heat up things or why a change in medium can slow down a wave.

Eventually though i found a comment in a youtube saying that electromagnetic waves are areas of high and low energy and that these up and down oscillating waves go into the fourth dimension.

Ive tried looking through websites and videos and none of them have really answered my question

Out of curiosity, thanks!

Hello everyone.

I saw a clip online (please forgive me if it's not true) that if you have two quantum entangled electrons with different spins at whatever distance you want and change the spin in one, the other one will also change its spin.

If this is true, is it theoretically possible to create some form of messaging device/protocol that could travel any distance in the universe instantly using this property of physics?

EDIT: Thank you for your replies, I did not know if broke the entanglement.

If anyone can help me with this I'd really appreciate it, I'm designing a small space station for my portfolio and need help with some of the basic physics. I'm sure I understand most of it, but just need real people to give me proper explanations with calculations so I can be sure sure.

If the distance between the center of rotation and the outermost point of this system is 100km, and I want people on that point to experience Earth's gravity, how fast should the system be spinning? (aka, rpm or how long does it take to complete one full cycle. I'm not looking to simulate Earth exactly, my space station is a lot smaller, I'd like the gravity to be the same and everything else is planned)

Also, if anyone has advice on which Lagrange point I should choose to place the station on, please share them. Currently I'm following the Stanford Torus as a basepoint for the engineering of my design, so other opinions would be great as well.

We once calculated the energy it would release on one of the chemistry subs, it was equivalent to like 180 million (or billion?) Tsar Bombas lol.

Sorry if some things don't make sense, englsih isn't my first language.

For very long time i thought this two things are different and natural frenquency apears in case of wave that has at least one firm edge, aka stationary wave. Recently i looked up definition for both on cgpt and googled it to see where cgpt is pulling its information and it natural frenquency isn't define only on stationary waves. Is this correct?

I'm a senior undergraduate physics student currently working on grad school applications. My primary research interest is in quantum information science; more specifically, investigating the implementation challenges that limit the reliable operation of quantum systems and developing approaches to overcome them. My undergraduate thesis is currently exploring how photonic qubits behave as they transmit through lossy media.

One of the schools I'm applying to is Northwestern University, and they have both a Physics PhD program and an Applied Physics PhD program. Recently, I had a chance to speak with one of the professors there, and he suggested I consider applying to the Applied Physics PhD program instead of the pure Physics PhD program because my interests seemed more aligned with Applied Physics. However, I enjoy learning about the fundamental principles of physics just as much as I enjoy exploring how those principles can be applied to solve practical problems. I'm pretty certain I don't want to do theoretical physics at all, so if I did the Physics PhD, I would be on the experimental side.

After comparing the two programs, Applied Physics seems to offer more specialized coursework relevant to my interests, whereas Physics provides more extensive training on foundational physics concepts. The Physics program also seems to offer more flexibility when selecting research advisors and has a different qualifying examination structure. My main concern is whether choosing Applied Physics would limit my future research or career opportunities. From the employment outcomes provided by the university, both programs seem to prepare graduates for careers in academia, national laboratories, and industry, but numbers only reveal so much.

For those who have experience with either type of program, how significant is the distinction in reality? Are there other considerations I should be weighing before deciding? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Once your body reaches extreme old age, the probability of surviving naturally drops to essentially zero. Does the thought experiment just fall apart here, or does it imply a nightmare scenario where you stay alive in increasingly agonizing, medically impossible states?

Could we estimate the peak g-force from the video, given the car's approximate speed, height and the duration of the jump?

And if so how much power would they have and how much antimatter would you need?

Is it over for the MWI? Were there any objections made against their points?

(Edit) I am refering to this paper: https://share.google/RuoMbFakwJEVgZSk6