Modern and Theoretical Physics

is modern science 10000000% sure that electrons ARE particles?

Is it possible to observe a region of space that has information density greater than what the Bekenstein Bound will allow when length contraction is involved? I.e. An object travels through the region of space close enough to the speed of light relative to the observer to appear more information dense than what the limit would permit. Or does it only make sense to calculate the Bekenstein Bound based off of an object's rest frame? I've copied it this question from another place because it is the same thing that I wanted to ask. I didn't see any replies so i decide to post it here.

If my understanding of what they are saying in some of the videos I've been watching the result and hope of collision is new particles. How does that work? Is it just two particles colliding, or is it more like a multi-car pileup? They speak if creation then nearly instant annihilation. Why so quick? What supports the new particles that drops of so quickly?

I was thinking about something I read about massive dark matter causing light to bend/gravitational lensing. How do we know that the wave effect is absolutely related to the particle? As in not related to space itself? Say, interacting with a particle? A space that can bend/be effected by mass etc. Appearances can be deceiving? How does light flow backwards? Apparently another trendy unbelievable scientific Discovery, but then I remembered something I read or heard about the expanding universe where with a little imagination maybe you don't actually have to create the situation then have some writer declare it a scientific Discovery? Hmm? Like the univ…

The value of the current is the number of electrons. Current is a property that is manifested by things. So what is voltage? Is it possible to explain the voltage in a matter? not formulas, not definitions. Considering muon catalytic fusion, I think voltage is the size of electrons. I expect muons to be in the excited state of electrons. Am I wrong?

I recently stumbled over an article about weird physics facts, made for laymen by a cosmologist: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/6546462/The-10-weirdest-physics-facts-from-relativity-to-quantum-physics.html Not being an expert of any field in science myself, I was surprised to find three errors in it. So if I can find three errors, I wonder how many there really are?! How many errors can you find? The errors I found was: Spoiler 1: Humanity minus nuclear vacuum = Sugar cube size 2: "Many worlds" quantum interpretation as a fact 3: Visible light from black holes

What conditions are needed in order for time to stand still. Theoretically, I thought that all that was needed is to travel at c. When I try to Invision this the only way I can think to start to give such a place dimension is using c as a measure of distance. Mentally it doesn't seem to work. The world gets very large but then you have to stop because time stops. But... The speed of light is invariant this indicates that turning on a flash light so that I can see what I want to measure would still produce a beam if light traveling at c. This thought seems to me to create an endless loop, but when I think infinite? Infinite loops of c? And if there is a light beam for…

what i mean is that, is there such a geometry of glass that would allow light to come from 2 directions but come out in the exact same direction and location? Example, light source a and b go through the input 1 and 2 of the reflector, they both come out from output 3. or more like two wires that when the ends of the two wires are twisted together will result in both of the wires stack its current to where its twisted and to that direction. Anything even if its not glass is fine with me* If ur gonna ask what kind of light would I want to reflect, its a laser, or any very thin light

Knowing our current state in physics, i would like to know what will realistically, in your opinion, the next big discoveries in Physics be . In the next : -5 -10 -50 -100 years.

What are the different particle beams that can be produced using an incident positron beam?

First of all, I know that a wormhole is a conjecture, so this thread is not about whether they exist or not. It is about how the conjecture/math is interpreted. When I imagine a wormhole I imagine two black holes, with gravity wells so deep, that they attract each other, and create a merged well. This merged well is invisible to the eye (and maybe also to measurement?), and when matter passes through, it becomes invisible while inside. If that description is correct (a big if!), does that not mean that the bridge/well is in a higher or lower dimension? It certainly behaves that way, in my opinion.

Sorry if this is not the correct area of the forum to post this. What if someone has equations derived only from E-field (no B-field) & doppler effect that correctly predicts the force between DC or AC carrying wire segments (including radio antenna modeling, radiation resistance, etc), inductance, charged particles inertia, and Relativity? Would that be of use and important? The closest I've seen are equations based on Relativity for infinitely long parallel wires. There are some papers that go into further details using Relativity, but they didn't show real examples other than infinitely long parallel wires using length contraction. Their equations gave me…

Hey folks, new to scientific and algorithmic interpretation. I am looking for a bit of guidance regarding a graph I have created and it's practical application(s). It very much has to do with relativity, but I am nervous to fully share with strangers online. I don't know anyone who can communicate about physics I did not acquire understanding in an orthodox way. I needed a graph that could give me all relevant data in one place so I derived one. After applying data it functioned exactly as expected, excited I determined to understand what makes this graph work and what I found was overwhelming, amazing and frightening. A crash course through physics, my mind wa…

Greetings to everyone, i am new here so please excuse any errors i did in posting this thread. ( Please also excuse my english ). First off i would like to say i am just a young science lover with no deep understanding of anything in physics, which i love and try to explore in every way possible. One concept i've always been interested in is time. Initially, as everyone i suppose, i viewed time as an absolute and costant background in which events happened. After reading many books about Einstein and the theories of relativity my newtonian view changed and time started for me being "something", i immagined time as a texture of reality and of space (to be hones…

Or just the outer one?

Why are electrons said to be moving in a circular motion, when the orbitals are not circular?

There is some confidence that electron is a perfect point e.g. to simplify QFT calculations. However, searching for experimental evidence (stack), Wikipedia article only points argument based on g-factor being close to 2: Dehmelt's 1988 paper extrapolating from proton and triton behavior that RMS (root mean square) radius for particles composed of 3 fermions should be ~g-2: Using more than two points for fitting this parabola it wouldn't look so great, e.g. neutron (udd) has g~ -3.8, \(<r^2_n>\approx -0.1 fm^2 \) And while classically g-factor is said to be 1 for rotating object, it is for assuming equal mass and charge density. Generally we can…

I wrote a book about gravity and want to share it with you and get your feedback. This book considers mechanics of gravity based on the Theory of Everything, which was written some time ago but did not get a lot of attention because it was based solely on logic and not mathematical formulas, so I decided to write a few of descriptions of various phenomena so it becomes more conformant to scientific work. Also there is considered resolution of wave-particle duality, and some other stuff. The book is available here: url deleted It has explanation of phenomena which current physics cannot explain, like rotation of the Moon and some others. Thanks for…

Hello Have been tasked to compare a motor generator set to a static frequency converter. Looking for an interesting angle to approach rather than a simple compare. Huge thanks in advance. Also a hint to the reference s would be great. Cheers

i need to bounce ideas off of some people, like what gravity actually is, and if we are inside an equivalent of a black hole within a black hole. no proof, just rudimentary logical hypothesis

As shown in the figure, the Thruster is provided with a geomagnetic field convergence layer, which is a superconductor material, and the geomagnetic field convergence layer repels the magnetic flux of the blocking geomagnetic field, so that the magnetic flux of the geomagnetic field passes through the narrow region between the upper and lower converging layers, and the convergence The strength of the geomagnetic field in the narrow area between the layers is enhanced. The Thruster is also provided with an energized coil. The lower end of the coil is placed at a narrow position between the converging layers.It against the Earth's magnetic field by electric current, you nee…

If time is not fluid but broken into individual fragments and moments that exist independently....like pages in a book. Are there any existing theories to support this???

Scientists are still searching for the island of stability when it comes to synthesis of new super heavy elements. My general understanding is that they “shoot” streams of a lighter element at a heavy element target. I think to create element 117, they used Ca-48 and an isotope of Bk. I expect that given shorter half lives for elements beyond Bk, it might not be feasible to use a heavier target, but what about heavier elements from the other side, such as Cu or Fe instead of Ca? Couldn’t there be some combination that could get to the magic number of protons and neutrons, or is current equipment incapable of utilizing those elements for some reason?

could matter possibly be converted into light? i have heard of these students who found out how to convert light into mass. so i would think it could be done in reverse. also,i have heard that scientist have found a way to capture light for a full 60 secs inside a crystal, they say that light and crystals can hold informatiion. so i started to think. what if you could convert matter into light and then find a way to store it and retrive that information.what could we do with this type of tech? i think,if we can convert matter into light,we can then freely travel at the speed of light.(lol)maybe store our selfs as light inside a crystal does any one here know i…

I've been having a thought based on a few different videos watched ,and articles read, but it kind of requires something I am not sure is gonna fly, because of generally accepted views. I don't consider thought to be a waste of time, but it might be easier if I had an idea of what to expect in advance? The thought: out loud... light exist as a wave until it is observed, at which point we call it a particle, because at that point it fits the discription of a particle. This thought actually came from a video, but maybe with some misunderstanding on my part. One might have to accept that in observing the particle you have to interact with the wave. Which…