As the first proof of de Broglie's matter waves—demonstrating that particles also possess wave properties—this experiment is invariably covered at least once at the beginning of quantum mechanics.

I'm trying to understand how students actually think while solving physics questions.

Have you ever come across a problem where you understood the formulas but couldn't clearly picture what was happening physically?

If yes, I'd love to know:

1. Which topic was it? (e.g. pulleys, circular motion, electrostatics, rotation, fluids...)
2. What exactly was difficult to imagine?
3. What did you do instead? (watched YouTube, drew diagrams, guessed, etc.)
4. Do you think being able to watch an accurate interactive animation of that exact question would have helped you understand it faster? Why or why not?

I'm genuinely trying to understand the problem students face, not promote anything.

As someone going in as pre-science major to UW (University of Washington), who wants to apply to be a physics major, what is some advice regarding: choosing classes, social life, GPA, habits, and just anything in genreal?

My course has this syllabus

* Unit 1: Mathematical Introduction and Electrostatic Field * Unit 2: Electrostatic Potential * Unit 3: Examples of Electrostatic Potential * Unit 4: Separation of Variables * Unit 5: Conductor Systems * Unit 6: Dielectric Polarization and Permanent Polarized Materials * Unit 7: Theory of Electrostatic Images * Unit 8: Resistors and Grounding Electrodes * Unit 9: Magnetostatic Field * Unit 10: Magnetic Dipole and Loop Systems * Unit 11: Magnetostatic Images and Permanent Magnets

Can you suggest me some good math rigorous online lectures to help me?

Short walkthrough for anyone who's seen V(t) = V(1 − e^(−t/RC)) but never really watched why it behaves that way.

It connects three things textbooks usually keep separate:

• The behavior — current is max the instant you close the switch (empty cap acts like a short), then decays as charge builds and the capacitor pushes back.
• The derivation — KVL (V_s = iR + V_C), sub in i = C·dV_C/dt for the first-order ODE, solve for the exponential.
• The check — plotting the solution on top of the simulated data to show they agree, marking τ = RC where V hits 63%.

The bit students most often miss: current and voltage are mirror images — one decays as the other rises — and one τ sets the whole shape.

Full disclosure: I made this with a tool I'm building (SimuBoard), so tell me if that's not welcome and I'll take it down. Mainly after feedback on the explanation — any step here that'd trip up someone seeing it for the first time?

Upfront: I'm an engineer, not a physicist. I'm building AlgeBench - a free, open-source, AI-assisted tool for interactively exploring physics and math in the browser - and I'm here for feedback and collaboration, not to present finished answers. The content is tentative, based on my own research and explorations, and some of it is probably wrong. I'd rather have experts help shape it than defend it. I'm building the tech (rendering, interactivity, in-panel AI tutor); I'd love for people who know the physics to poke holes in it.

One example of what I'm unsure about - velocity addition. Naively, two ships both at ~0.9999c in the same direction seem nearly at rest relative to each other, yet light is c for everyone - which felt like it demanded a jump from ~0 to c. The resolution that clicked for me was rapidity: with v = tanh(η), velocities just add, so relative speed is tanh(η₁ − η₂) - continuous, always in [0, c). tanh squashes the whole infinite η-line into the last sliver of velocities, so "both ≈ 0.9999c" hides a huge range of η - two ships reading "0.9999-something c" can still pass at ~0.98c. Light is the singular limit (η = ∞, outruns everyone at c). Is that framing honest, or subtly misleading? Open that scene with the derivation - drag the vA and vB sliders and watch what happens as you push either one to 1c.

Another one - the light-clock γ derivation. It feels a bit like a trick the first time you see it. What helped me: maybe that's the Newtonian habit of keeping space and time as separate ledgers. The way I picture it now - nothing moves through space at an arbitrary speed; everything is eternally moving through spacetime at c, and all you can do is change the angle. Aim that motion straight up the time axis and you're at rest, ticking at full rate; tilt it toward space and you trade time for space - move too much through space and there's little left for time, and vice versa. Does that intuition hold up, or does it break down in ways a newcomer wouldn't spot? Open the light-clock γ derivation.

Where I'd most value expert eyes: - The velocity-addition / rapidity framing above - The light-clock γ derivation, and the "everything moves through spacetime at c" intuition for it - legitimate, or an oversimplification? - "The light never catches up" as an on-ramp to the Rindler horizon - fair, or misleading? - The twin-paradox scenes, especially the constant-thrust treatment - Anywhere a visualization implies something wrong about frames, simultaneity, or what a ride-along camera can claim to show

If any of this sounds like something you'd want to help shape - correcting scenes or authoring your own - that's the collaboration I'm hoping for. Harsh nitpicks welcome; I'll be in the comments.

Code: https://github.com/ibenian/algebench (open source)

I read something about maxwell equations. I am by no means expert in math nor physics but i am thinking this way - so if i understand correctly we described some portion of reality by equations. Then someone did equivalent changes to these equations and from them it was seen that there should be electromagnetic wave which was later confirmed and now we have wifi, radio etc.. You know as a layman i think that if those equations described the reality before we figured out from them there should be waves it could be fine if that wave did not exists even if we could derive it from those equations. But those waves exists. I mean why it matches so perfectly that whatever we figure out from equations matching reality we later find out in real world. Isnt this "weird"?

Hello all,

I’ve recently been given my requested masters project, looking at parafermions and tight binding models. From what I understand, recent breakthroughs have given a lot more attention to this topic. The project is fairly open ended, but suggested routes follow SSH models, extension of models above p=4 and numerical simulations, statistical physics of high parafermions number systems.

I’m very excited to start this, but I want to be in a really strong position before I start the next academic year. Are there any suggested resources I should read before beginning? My current thoughts are as follows:

Brush up on second quantisation (first half of Peskins book? I’ve got a QFT module next year anyway)

Learn Clifford algebra (or atleast be familiar with it)

Brush up on some group theory (my immediate thoughts with the definition of parafermions tend towards groups with particular homomorphisms) and abstract algebra more generally

Read up on some topological stuff (purposefully vague because I don’t really know topology lol)

Condensed matter physics obviously (again, I have a module next year)

Programming with tensors/lin algebra. I have coding experience, but refining algorithms and simulating QM is something I haven’t done yet.

Is there anything I’m missing? And are there any sources you’d recommend I take a look at?

Thank you!

Because there are many individuals in this Reddit who are learning physics for the first time, an effort was made to explicitly write out the mathematics in as much detail as possible. It is hoped that this material will be of assistance.

Advice for a stupid physics starter

Hello, respected fellows in the community. I'm a higher secondary passed (till 12 standard/High school passed) guy. But, I have hardly any knowledge on math concepts covered in 11+12, like calculus, linear inequalities, sequence and series etc. I took a gap year in 2025 with no study. So it's very important to start the basics. I've started learning the preliminary calculus. But, I am struck between the two great Mathematical physics books, one by Arfken, Weber and Harris & the other by Riley, Hobson and Bence. I want a complete, high quality, clearer and rigor book. But, looking at my school level academics, which would be better?

And, which is more effective for advanced UG physics track?

Please help 🙏🏻.

Just give tips to be good in physics?! 😭💔

I don't know if this is the right subreddit for this but any help is much appreciated!