Modern and Theoretical Physics

To me, this theory is wrong. Why? Because if they are infinite universes in other dimensions, they will be universes that this theory does not exist and if this theory is true and a universe is created from every choice we make, won't it be infinite + 1? Thats Impossible because infinite is endless, even if we add 1 to it, it will still be infinite. And also if this is true does it mean that theres a universe that there is nothing in it at all? When I mean nothing, I mean literally nothing. Not Even Space And time. Nothing exists in that universe. I'm not so sure as alot of famous people like Steven Hawking support this theory, but I am just stating the outcome of this th…

Can someone please simply explain this transverse energy of 45GeV? I am not sure what this transverse energy of 45 GeV is, I have been looking for any news of a particle/decay path of 45GeV for my "pet model", Is this a possible particle or decay path or something else? http://inspirehep.net/record/1352917?ln=en

knowing nothing goes faster than light and even if it could would still a craft hundreds if not thousands of years to go to another galaxy or planet, can't we safely say we are not being visited by beings from another world, so all these sightings of UFOs must be coming from another plane of existence, another dimension, what other explanation could there be? I've got a headache just thinking about it. JRD.

Hello I have a question about relativistic mass. All i'm wondering, which I can't seem to find anywhere else, is: Has a reason been found for why the mass of particles at relativistic speeds increases? Have scientists actually observed particles while they are moving at those speeds and seen something added (or nothing added) to the particle as it's moving? Or are they particles being moved to fast to observe? I'm wondering because I have a theory about the reason for the mass increase. Please let me know if what i'm asking is unclear because i'm bad at articulation.

Could dark matter have a structure similar to the atom? I've read that the higgs boson exists everywhere, and I started thinking gravity also exists everywhere. So, perhaps the higgs boson orbits a gravaton similar to an electron orbiting atomic nuclei. And that perhaps for the most part space time is similar to hydrogen having one gravaton and one higgs, but where we see dark matter as the scaffolding that holds the structure of the universe together, it is more a molecular like structure comprised of more complex versions of the particle. Just a weird thought but what do we really know about it? Perhaps unstable versions of the particle deteriourate into quarks.

If the Universe space time is curved, then what is the theoretical maximum ? If we consider an open loop system undergoing progressive curvature then this results at some point in a closed loop system. Curvature beyond this point is actually not feasible. The topology of space time is then limited in it's manifestations. (I visualize a parabola transmuting to a circle.). However a closed loop system is like a system with zero entropy (thermodynamics) or zero displacement (mechanics). Is this realistic and if so, what does this entail ? Please advise. P.S. I trust you could call this an open-ended question in more ways than one.....

I was wondering if there are any string theory experts on here. I'm studying the subject from a textbook (Barton Zweibach) and am likely to have a lot of questions. If there is anyone, I would be eternally grateful for any help they can give from time to time. First up: The action for a relativistic string (Nambu-Goto action) is the (2D) area of the string. This contrasts with the space-time action in general relativity, which is the volume integral of the Ricci scalar. Intuitively, I would have thought that the two actions should be the same. I know they're different objects, but why the curvature integral for one and just the area / volume for the other? Che…

If a light beam undergoes gravitational lensing through a maximum theoretically possible 360 degrees what does this imply in translation through the space time continuum ? Displacement in space (using the analogy of classical physics) is zero but clearly time has elapsed. Movement through the light cone is zero but actually events have transpired. How do you explain this ?

Is there a preferred shape for a particle accelerator ? eg) like a toroid. Could it be configured as a prism (with a beam originating from the base and moving towards the apex, with fields acting perpendicular to the faces.).

Since the Alcubierra drive has been around for a while. I imagine the math has been checked and rechecked and is valid. What are the main problems with the theory? I see that Sonny White has addressed some of the energy problems. I also see that his research team is trying to make a tiny "warp bubble" by perpetuating space with lasers. I was wondering if that maybe this could be adapted to say move a package from one part of the world to another instantaneously? I bet Fed ex would love this.

Just something I was wondering about today and was hoping someone here might have an answer for me. If I could envelope the Earth in theoretical shell that if any particle came into contact with the surface of the shell, it would emerge in the same state after the appropriate duration as if it had passed through a vacuum the size of the shell. Any particles that would have interacted in the "vaccum" would emerge from the shell's surface as if they had interacted. Given this shell around the Earth, would the Earth remain in orbit around the sun and would the moon remain in orbit around Earth?

An acceleration field (not necessarily gravitation) may be represented by two vectors. A position vector identifies some point in space, and an acceleration vector will associate acceleration with the selected point. The acceleration vector must be “linked” to the position vector. This linkage is achieved by relating components of the acceleration vector to components of the position vector. The two vector representation of a field leads to a gravitational wave function. Please view; http://doulting.shawwebspace.ca/asset/view/7853/gravitational_wave_function.pdf

I have been reading about virtual particles, and my mind drifted to photons which are said to be massless yet still seem to exhibit properties of mass, so the question is would it be entirely wrong to apply the view of virtual particles to massless particles in the sense that what we have is in effect virtual mass? It only exist so long as the condition exist? I don't know if condition is the right word, and I am just learning about virtual particles, so it might need some adjustment in the comparison.

Hey all I'm not a scientist just a fan that reads and tries to understand / come up with own theories, please feel free to correct anything you know to be totally wrong (proven wrong). Please do not say it cannot be "Just Because" Recently I've been thinking about quantum particles. How they spin in many directions simultaneously, but when we "observe" them they act normal. Now from what I understand in order for mass to have mass the Higgs Boson particle must be incorporated into the matter in order for it to interact with the Boson field. However particlesthat make up the proton do not interact with the filed due to them not having the Higgs Boson in them. Doe…

As the atoms of a material are brought closer together to form the crystal lattice structure, there is an interaction between atoms, which will result in the electrons of a particular shell of an atom having slightly different energy levels from electrons in the same orbit of an adjoining atom. The result is an expansion of the fixed, discrete energy levels of the valence electrons. In other words, the valence electrons in a silicon material can have varying energy levels as long as they fall within the band .

If the Highs particle determines the mass of the particle that it interacts with, what is to say that that the particular particle that it is interacting with doesn't also determine the Higgs particles mass? Wouldn't this be more easily accepted then saying that there is more than one type of Higgs particle?

For an individual person entering a black hole, even though it makes perfect sense, it's still weird that someone falling in to a black hole doesn't ever experience passing through the event horizon, that space-time becoming infinitely dilated and contracted is relative. But, since relativistic affects of acceleration due to motion is seemingly equivalent to the relativistic effects of gravitational fields, would accelerating towards a black hole near the speed of light cause the perception that it's event horizon has shrunk not due to length contraction, but due to a relativistic lesser difference in the space-time rotation of the frames? Or in other words, if two ob…

Suppose there is a stationary person near rapidly changing curvature in space time, near a black hole. Ignoring tidal forces that would kill them and the force of intense force of gravity against whatever was holding them stationary also cause their own weight to crush them, I have a scenario I can't quite complete. Let's say the person sticks their hand out closer to the black hole. Their hand experiences a much greater gravitational effect, modeled by tidal forces. But, suppose a person were to touch another object while they reached their hand out. How would the impulse of touch travel? From the frame of reference of the person at their head, the hand's time should…

Hello. I am in desperate need for advice. I have searched for advice everywhere and each time failed to obtain it. This is my last resort. Please help me and bare with me while I explain the problem. I am 28 years old guy. I have literally whole day free to pursue whatever goals I see fit, because I own several websites which are managed by my friend. I made a list of goals and physics/math is on the list. I will hire a teacher who will teach me math and physics every single day. Since I have other goals as well, I can only invest 1 hour per day on math, and 1 hour per day on physics. So, in total, thats 2 hours per day. I can keep up with this regime for 7 years. So,…

Hawking Radiation, where virtual particles form near the event horizons of black holes, normally posing no measurable effect due to annihilation can be sucked into the black hole. Since energy must be conserved, if positive mass escapes the black hole's gasp outside the event horizon, then the black hole must lose energy. But, in all of this, is there not a 50/50 chance of a black hole absorbing either a positive energy particle or negative energy particle? If there is, why would a black hole shrink over time? Shouldn't it stay the same size because of positive and negative energy gain have the same probability? If they don't have the same probability, well how?

Let's say a man went to the future and killed his future self and then went back to the past (his present) , when that time in the future comes he would be killed by his past self (who had travelled to the future) , his past self (who travelled to the future) would then go back to the past and thus restarting the cycle , putting time for him in a never ending loop , he would practically be immortal. I call it the Rahemian Loop Paradox

Why does light , even on a dark night just seem to disappear ? Why doesn't it just continue on into space forever. Please explain.

Suppose we could build a car of photons , according to Einstein photons have no mass , therefore that car would be able to travel at the speed of light because it's practically built of light itself. But is it possible to build such a car and if it's how would one go about building it?

Hello, I am working on theoretical research for what is turning into somewhat complicated nuclear physics. I am not a nuclear physicists, so I would appreciate help with finding the information I need. First and foremost piece of information I need to solve my system of equations is the critical density of Uranium 235. I cannot find this information directly in books or the internet. However, online articles suggested statistics from bare spheres. It was suggested by Wikipedia that the critical conditions for an unspecified grade of Uranium 235 at an unspecific temperature (but I am assuming room temperature) and an unspecific pressure (but I am assuming 1 atmosphere)…

Could I request references to accepted studies on confinement of the properties of DM please?