Modern and Theoretical Physics

Imagine observing the frequency of light which is directed to the center of a gravitational field such as a planet. According to the gravitational-blueshift-effect, the frequency increases while getting closer to the center. Is this progress continuous? If so, how does that fit with the photoelectric effect, which says the energy of light is quantized? If not, would that mean light skips the states of energy in between? How would that work? Would that mean either time or space or both are quantized as well? Please comment whatever comes to your mind about that problem or tell me if I made a big mistake in my thoughts. Thank you very much.

The main purpose of this forum is to review the techniques and applications of the Monte Carlo method in medical radiation physics with curious and experts researchers in this approach of research seeking to experience exchange. This might be a preliminary stage to start scientific collaborations in near future.

I am a bit confused. There are virtual particles in the space, that are entangled and thanks to that the space is not breaking apart. According to the thought experiment (28min to 40min), we create from some material a pair of particles that are entangled(Bell pairs). Then we divide them, and we make from them two black holes. These black holes are also entangled. So if the holes are made of some material and not from the virtual particles, it follows that the material from which the black holes are made can not be entangled with the virtual particles that are outside the event horizon. So the virtual particles, outside event horizon must remain entangled with those who …

If we are able to see the world only in terms of fundamental particles it is made up of, which colour shall we see?

A member recently showed me this paper published on HAL about quantum gravity and i cannot seem to find anything wrong with the equations and they are able to reproduce Newton Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Equations in the appropriate limits Here is the url of the paper: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01609542 Can someone show me anything ive missed (I know the paper has been peer reviewed but... if this theory is correct why isnt anybody talking about it.?)

hysenbergs uncertainity principle is any more relevant now?

Does this exist? If there is perfect equilibrium then one example would be the heat death scenario and so it's value must be zero. But if temperature was the same throughout the system I think the value would also be zero . If the temperature was not the same throughout the system how would one measure this globally ? (and can I call it a disequilibrium of the system ,with a value to represent the degree to which a disequilibrium was present?)

Suppose it were possible to build a laser device capable of fulfilling the following condition. In each period [math]T[/math] emits only one photon. [math]T=\dfrac{1}{\nu}[/math] [math]\nu \ \rightarrow[/math] frequency Question: Does the theory allow to calculate the diameter of the emitted beam?

The speed of electromagnetic disturbances such as light is c and according to GR, the speed of gravity is also exactly equal to c. Is it a serendipitous coincidence that they both have exactly the same speed? Assuming they are unrelated phenomena. One governed by wave/photon behaviour whilst the other is due to "the speed of space itself"

Hypothesis: The speed of light is infinite, or at least unbounded and contingent upon the properties of spacetime. The "speed of light" is the maximum speed at which energy or matter can move through spacetime and not an intrinsic property of light but is incidental to the properties of spacetime. The vacuum is a substance which has atleast two dimensions. One dimension describes the way energy and matter propagate through it. The other dimension is that space itself can propagate, increasing irrespective to the contents within it. These two are related. Experiment: Measure the speed of light in regions which have a suspect high amount of dark energy and see if the …

Because the proton is not an elementary particle so I was wondering if it was possible to change the magnitude of the spin.

Just came across these two articles on the relationship between mathematics and physics. Well, we obviously use mathematics to describe physics, but is the nature of physics actually defined or created by mathematical structures? (Beginning to sound like this should be in Philosophy ...) Anyway, an interesting read: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-strange-numbers-that-birthed-modern-algebra-20180906/ And if you follow the links in the "Related" section (near the bottom of each article) you will get sucked into a rabbit's hole of interesting articles. @neuerwi…

Would there be any practical,verifiable consequences of gravity having a quantized nature? Would it follow that at finite distances global expansion would take over and ,calving -iceberg-like it would be farewell to the outer regions of the universe? (if gravity is the only force capable of causing global contraction at extreme distances) ps wasn't there some recent story about possibly testing this using entanglement?

this is my work. am i correct or am i missing out on something?

I know that in a normal atom the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents the electron from doing this, but what if there was an infinite attraction (infinite force) between the nucleus and the electron? Would the electron fall in then?

Hi there, I read this on the wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron "Since the antineutron is electrically neutral, it cannot easily be observed directly" Then, does this apply to neutrons aswell? What does it mean? Thank you.

If the saturation of mu-metal was 0 and you had a box of it with wires wrapped around the box with a current passed through them (no external magnetic field) would the magnetic field be enhanced outside the box around the poles like this?

This Cern archive math matches most assumptions, what do you think? https://www.zenodo.org/record/1447218 Open Access no login either.

The idea, that it might be possible to artificially establish a nuclear fusion reaction away from a very high temperatures and pressures condition (within a burning star for instance), has initially been started in 1989 by the Fleischmann-Pons-Experiment. Fleischmann called the assumed fusion energy "Cold Fusion". Now, nearly 30 years later, a lot of further research into this matter has been performed. Meanwhile, this field of research is now called "Solid-State Nuclear Fusion", "Condensed Matter Nuclear Fusion" or "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction", last but not least to distinguish from Fleischmann and Pons, who may or may not have an error in their experiment. Among t…

What are quarks? How do they work? do you think that there is something that makes them up?

Hi, What is the difference of mu-metal and soft iron on a atomic scale? Both soft iron and mu-metal have a high mu and low solubility but soft iron enhances a magnetic field and mu-metal absorbs it. So what is the difference?

Current physics explains that the state of a portion of space depends on the phenomena, local and / or distant. It also explains that states can and do evolve, change depending on events. The mathematics that expresses some states is similar to the mathematics that describes the curvature in geometry. In short, in scientific jargon it is said that space can be curved. This abbreviated language also includes contraction, elongation, torsion ... Does it include excision? That is, the possibility of something whose mathematics is similar to the mathematics of a crack? I mean the vacuum. In a region where there is no break initially, could one happen? If yes, d…

What are the algorithms for the series, sums, and/or triple integrals for the structure of quarks and their probable location relative to one another?

While the original Bell inequality might leave some hope for violation, here is one which seems completely impossible to violate - for three binary variables A,B,C: Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 It has obvious intuitive proof: drawing three coins, at least two of them need to give the same value. Alternatively, choosing any probability distribution pABC among these 2^3=8 possibilities, we have: Pr(A=B) = p000 + p001 + p110 + p111 ... Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 1 + 2 p000 + 2 p111 ... however, it is violated in QM, see e.g. page 9 here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf If we want to understand why our physi…

I am finding this claim in a discussion I’m having with a Phil major at college hard to rebut: the discussion is on dark matter, which he claimed was non-empirical, I showed it was, and then he said this: “I never claimed it what not physical, that would be very disingenuous... I claimed that it is assessed on non empirical grounds. How can you deny this? If you do you have to show that: 1) dark matter was believed because of it being tested and 2) that the testing comes from direct observation and not inference (otherwise empiricism is lost). It's existence is assessed because of its explanatory power.” How do I show the falsity of this? Thanks all!