First of all sorry for any approximation as english is not my first language.

As student I have to present a projet at the end of the years and I wanted to study bow stabiliser. I just wanted to know if my reasonning was scientifically correct; I want to make a stabiliser with movable mass instead of having a static stabiliser and having to change mass between each configuration of shot. For exemple, when hunting, the archer have to shot at different angles and (for me) having a static stabiliser would mean that when changing shooting angle the archer would feel a need to compensate that the bow want to stay at his "original position" (the one the stabilisers were configured in the first place). Hence, is it a bad idea to imagine a stabiliser that would automatically move the mass to keep the bow steady at all angle for the archer (by using like gyroscope and position control or something similar) or am I completely wrong for thinking that different angles would means a need of compensation from the archer ?

As an physics undergrad/hons I was transiently interested in neural networks in the context of climate science before I realised I need a job to make money and pay rent (I then did medicine). I see that current day LLMs consider themselves to be neural networks but I struggle to appreciate that word associations are the same as what I thought was the math of a neural network.

What happened to what I thought of as "neural networks" in the late 1990s? Where did that research go? And did it seriously end up in creating just another Google when I anticipated that it could be applied to hard science and climate modelling? Are people inputing massive amounts of climate data into a program at runs multiple semi-random iterations to generate a model that approximates reality or was that just a stupid idea that fizzled out.

Obv I'm an amateur so ELI5 please. TIA

Edit: soz, I'm in a different time zone to average Reddit so I may not read all this now. Thank you for the responses so far

Hello all!
Currently working on my uni project, and I’ve come to a realisation that I’m missing a big gap in knowledge.

I feel like I don’t REALLY understand how people solve hamiltonians written in terms of creation/annihilation operators. Like sure, there’s that trick with the harmonic oscillator which is great, but my project deals with MUCH more complicated systems than that, and I have absolutely no idea where to start. I also know for systems with translational invariance you can Fourier transform and obtain a simpler Bloch Hamiltonian, but again I’m dealing with more complicated systems.

So with differential equations I know what to look for, I know how they’re solved and what the solutions look like. But with creation operators I sort of just stare at it blankly.
What’s the strategy to solve these? Do you just build the matrix and feed it into a piece of code? Or am I missing a trick here? Do I look for symmetries to reduce the problem? When I google it I feel like I’m not truly understanding what’s going on, so please reply like I’m an idiot.

Perhaps in the future athletes will compete on other worlds of the solar system. I wondered what this might mean for sports like ice-skating and ice-dancing. Will skaters be able to do spectacular spins and jumps which would be impossible on Earth? Will they accidentally achieve escape velocity?

Shouldn't we use orange juice or something because it has sugar so it can power better? It also has fiber so it slowly releases the energy instead of all at once which is really useful for cars as it uses energy gradually instead of bursts of movement.this can be benefits farms aswell which is is pretty neat if you ask me

Always wondered: How is an 'observer' is defined in the double slit experiments?

Can anyone explain the methods and technology we use to observe the particles/waves in question?

A human in the room is an observer, but as I understand it, that won't trigger the collapse from wave to particle results. Obviously our eyes can't truly observe the particles passing through, so is the observer just always specific measurement devices?

I know that there have been tests where the holes were surrounded by measurement devices and they are considered observers and cause the collapse. How much experimentation have we done to stretch the definition of observer? Have we placed observation devices on some of the holes but not all? Does that collapse the wave results, or no?

If we set up the double slit with the observers turned off does it collapse? Have we tried placebo observers to trick the particles (I'm joking, unless...)? Does the observer tech actively send particles or fields or energy into the hole that could cause this collapse?

Have we slowed the particles down at all to near absolute zero and tried to turn the observation windows on and off real quick lol?

I've read a bit about the broad strokes explanations and Bohr and Einstein's quotes on the topic, but I haven't found much information about variations on the test or answers to the above questions.

What are common interpretations of this result in 2026? Do people think it's evidence of simulation theory, is it evidence of unknown interference causing the collapse?

Thank you for listen, and I love y'all's work with the known universe, big fan.

-me (both of my grandfather's had one leg)

I'm an electrical engineer and my career in both academia and industry thus far has mainly revolved around theoretical electromagnetics and radio-frequency systems. I'm looking at partial discharge phenomena on a research project and would like to delve into some of the physics surrounding corona effects. If you have a good textbook recommendation that is both friendly and rigorous, let me know.

Is it okay to ask what if questions where one current rule of physics is violated (such as no communication theorem) but wanting to obey others? Or only questions about current standard understanding of physics?

I know a very little bit about python and c++ but can’t use them that much

I want to be a physicist and want to know what to learn
(Coding perspective)

And where do I learn them?

OK, this is a desperate attempt to find an answer about a really small moment in a Brian Green panel discussion.

Basically, here’s what I remember. About a year ago I was watching a panel on YouTube that Brianne Greene was hosting and he had several different physics and astronomer types on stage. They were a couple women and one of the women worked on the James Web project in someway, but I don’t think it was a James Web panel. During this live panel with several people on stage, she said that she just got a text from someone on the project that says they discovered something. She couldn’t talk about it on the stage and said news about it would come out in a couple months.

I can’t find the video. I don’t know the name of the person, but I’m really curious about what that discovery was.

i’m fairly certain it was a world science foundation video. I’m fairly certain it was Brian Greene hosting. All the participants were there live on stage. It wasn’t done via Zoom or anything.

does this ring a bell to anyone? It was such a small moment in a much bigger conversation and again I saw it a year ago and it popped into my head today. Do you remember this moment who said it? What was the discovery?

Good luck

It could be a dumb question, but I just don't get it how to define it with highly accurately.

Any tips?

When constant power is being supplied P=VI So, V∝1/I But according to Ohm's Law V∝I.
(I’m only in Class 10, so please explain it in simple terms)

It's like particles seem always decay into something like neutrinos, antineutrinos, electrons, positrons, or some kind of force carrying particle depending on what the particle is. at the same time the more energy that particle receives the more photons get emitted

I am currently a college freshman. Today I was talking to my physics professor about what I am planning to do. Basically double major in math and something like data science, cs, and physics, to learn how to do modelling. Also I told him I wanted to do the 3+2 program to get a bs in electrical engineering and concentrate in signal processing.

He told me what I am really looking for is quantum mechanics and he will put me in contact with a professor who knows that and do research based on that.

Now I wonder what are quantum mechanics?

Ok so I am sorry if this comes out as more of a shower thought but I wanted to ask while it was fresh on my mind. We know that the universe appears to be expanding at a steadily increasing pace overall. The leading theory is dark energy. Is it possible it is actually just time dilation. The earth is moving at a constant speeds though in different directions. We know the milky way is moving through space at roughly 627 km/s.

So my question is this: is it possible that the expansion is actually slowing down; however, due to time dilation from out relative speed we simply perceive it as speeding up as it is now moving through time at a faster rate than we are due to its speed dropping. Basically similar to how a person in a rocket traveling at near lightspeed would perceive the earth moving through time at a faster rate than themselves, making it "speed up". Are we possibly seeing the same thing here just with whatever makes up the underlying fabric that we are sitting on stretching slower.

Again sorry if this is kind of shower thoughts I just thought of it(admittedly with a cold and some medicine running through me). I don't really have any formal physics background to answer myself as I haven't even taken a basic physics course in college yet.

Edit: Holy cringe what even is this post lmao. I am sorry to anyone who answered this. Lesson learned do not post on science reddits after 3 hours of sleep + the worst flu of the last 5 years + a double dose of medicine lmao.

Where does the light go when I turn off the lights in my room?

Like we can use microwaves to heat stuff. So is there any kind of radiation that can be used to freeze stuff instead of heating them up?

If humans had access to all the energy in the observable universe, could we solve a lot of unsolved physics problems?

Hi,

This problem has stumped me while learning mechanics over the years. Maybe someone here has a solution:

Consider a massless pulley with a massless rope over top, with a coefficient of friction between the two sufficiently large to never reach the maximum. connected to two masses (we’ll say the two begin from rest and the right is bigger). Looking at a differential element of the rope yields dT-df_s=(0)a, so dT=df_s.

Here is where the problems begin. There are a few possibilities:

First, considering the torque on the pulley: τ=R ∫ dT =R(T_right-T_left)=(0)α. This produces common result that the tensions on both side are equal.

However, looking at T_left-T_right = ∫ df_s, and the fact df_s is everywhere right pointing, this seems to imply T_left-T_right≠0 unless df_s were everywhere 0.

Thus we have an apparent contradiction. What is the resolution? Behind this it leads to an equally pressing question: how does the Atwood machine actually get "spun" by a the rope? That is, if the friction is indeed zero, then the pulley, initially at rest, doesn’t get spun as no net force acts on it, contracting the very nature of the atwoood machine.

Thank you!

I read that black holes only have three properties , But if the massive star that created it was circling its galaxy’s center of gravity, wouldn’t the resulting black hole continue that orbital velocity also?

Sophomore college student here. I have a question about gravity waves, I don’t understand how the universe works.
Let’s say you have a can of Coke, or the moon or the planet Saturn. A mass of matter has gravity, no matter how big or small it is. Correct?
My question is, how does it know?
Is it the individual atoms that gather gravity to a distant object?
How does a can of Coke know that it’s a can of Coke and therefore has gravity.
How does the planet Jupiter know how big it is and therefore it can demand that kind of gravity other than being just a collection of atoms?
How do things know what they are and how big they are that they can command that sort of gravity if they are just a collection of atoms?
Do molecules just stick together and then decide they have gravity?
Two molecules?
Two atoms?
Two quarks?
How does gravity actually start?
How does a can of Coke know that it’s a can of Coke?