Modern and Theoretical Physics

atoms have dual nature? what is it

matter exhibits dual nature while in motion Is there internal change in matter while in motion:? is there any mechanism for it?i think there mus be some explanation

The discovery of the Higgs is evidence, so yes, I agree it may count, as it was something predicted by theory. On reading the Wikepedia explanation of how the Higgs mechanism gives mass to particles, it is very complicated. I have a few questions: Does the Higgs field give particles inertia, i.e. is that what giving mass to a particle, means? If so, how the does the Higgs field avoid giving a particle continuous inertia that slows it down continuously? And how does the Higgs field give a particle inertia according to Relativity, as presumably, a moving particle is not moving in its own reference frame, and so what reference frame is the Hig…

Whatis the difference between heat and pressure on an atomic level? It is my understanding that heat is the manifestation of the movement of atoms. It is also my understanding that pressure is at least partially a manifestation of atomic movement. You can increase both heat and pressure of a gas, for example, by reducing volume. You can then remove the heat, but the pressure will remain. Why does pressure remain? Is it from atoms hitting the walls of the container?

Hey, I am new here. I was thinking before is this possible to to accelerate a thermal neutron in a modified cyclotron that does not use magnets but back ground radiation somehow to a very high speed to hit fissionable material that will in turn create electricity?

Hey, I had a thought that if you was to basically build a cyclotron into a nuclear reactor then focus the beam of radiation in to a very large pool of water to generate electricity. Would this be at all possible? I was thinking of sort of re-designing it though so that you accelerate the neutrons to a high speed then collide them with the fissionable material

I have a question: Stars fuse hydrogen not heavy hydrogen. There is equilibrium between the energy released from fusion and the pressure created by gravity. My understanding is what keeps all of the hydrogen from reacting or fusing is the temperature in the sun is too low to cause fusion, but as hydrogen migrates toward the center of the sun gravity brings hydrogen atoms close enough together for quantum tunneling to fuse the protons. If my understanding of fusion in a star is correct then couldn't a scaled down version of a sun be constructed? Where a hefty chamber contains ordinary hydrogen under very high pressure and therefore density and a small plutonium…

Recently I was playing a video game called "minecraft" with a modpack called "voltz" I noticed in this modpack there was a thing called strange matter, thinking nothing of it I went on playing, but one night I started to think "Well hey there is the Strange quark, so could strange matter possibly be real?" , Well I did some research and learned it is possible that it is real and could possibly be found in neutron stars. Now what strange matter is for those of you who don't know is rather than typical matter (Up and down quarks) it could be made of Strange, Up and Down quarks. Personally with me being a minor I do believe we could see artificial production of this within m…

Sorry if they are stiupid or incorrect because I'm 11 and i can only use common sense 1st theory.I think that the law of psyhics stating that energy cant be created from nothing is either incorrect or unneeded how do I prove it?Simple for it all to begin(to get the matter and antimater for the big bang) we needed something to be created out of nothing or nothing is actualy something in which case it is unneeded how do i TRY to prove this??Simple by dividing something infinite times you get to nothing,I am well avare that this i impossible but so are negative numbers(you cant have -1 of something)well impossible is not the correct term its better to use the term Vrtu…

Hi everyone, I'm reading Edmonds' Angular momentum in quantum physics and I'm stuck on one expansion of 9j symbols in terms of 6j symbols. Technically, I'm stuck on the expansion of recoupling coefficients concerning four angular momenta in terms of recoupling coefficients related to three angular momenta. The relation I don't understand is found on page 100-101, section 6.4, the very first equality in equation 6.4.1. Edmonds states that there are two adding schemes of four angular momenta. Denoting them by J1, J2 ,J3,J4, these are 1. J1+J2=J12 and J3+J4=J34 and J=J12+J34 2. J1+J3=J13 and J2+J4=J24 and J=J13+J24. These two adding schemes produce basisv…

Lately I have been having a quite vitriolic debate with someone on Sodahead about whether William Lane Craig's 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' is sound. I don't think that it is, and I think that it has been debunked on numerous occasions, but I digress. He continually cites the so-called 'BVG theorem', claiming that it absolutely proves that the universe had an absolute beginning; I am well aware that this is not the case and that the BVG theorem merely proves that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, as Vilenkin and Guth have both gone on record to clarify. Can anyone tell me what this means exactly; this is a quote from Vilenkin that my opponent is continui…

What is the scale (in meters) that LHC have already reached?

I've gotten this problem of mine, which I cannot figure out myself, so I thought anyone here might be able to explain how it should be solved. The problem goes as follows: "When a hydrogen atom deexcitates to its ground state it emits an photon with the energy of 12.75 eV, what energy state did the atom have before the deexcitation?" I have tired and failed, the answer sould be that the atom was in its forth energy state, I would appreciate if someone explained how to approach such a problem and how to solve it, thanks.

This topic seems so awsome to me although i understand nearly nothing! I understand that such things are difficult to comprehend but if there is someone who understands why higgs boson is so important or what do we mean when we say that it gives mass to things and more then please help me understand them too!

What is the current that runs through the circuit below:

A Planck unit of time is about 5.4 x 10^-44 of a second , why cant this unit of time not be divided further and why cant the stuff of reality be divided infinitely smaller or larger?

Obviously we co-exist with dark matter, so the question is; Can dark matter be as as large and dense and/or a part of as a neutron star? How about as small and dense as a proton? Is dark matter predicted to have a strong nuclear force holding it's constiuants together?

Hi, I am planning to build a simple Room Temperature Radiator using the Magneto Caloric Effect [MCE] I am looking at a Cooling power of 10-20 J K kg. Can someone Suggest me the right material for use? Considering that i will be running the setup in my bedroom with a Magnetic Field of 1 Tesla from a permanent magnet. The Material should be completely soluble in distilled water. The setup will be like this. Distilled water containing the soluble Material at 35-45 C will be going through the radiator which will be under a magnetic field of 1 Tesla. Expectation is, the Distilled water entering at 40 C will get heated more[Due to MCE] at the same time cooled [since it flows in…

Hi everybody When a material absorps a certain kind of electromagnetic radiation - let's say blue light - the energy in the light has to go somewhere. My guess is that it would heat up the material by making it vibrate. How ever it came to my mind that it could work like fluorescence, where a wavelength is absorbed and a lower wavelength is emitted. So my question is, does a coloured material have a emission spectrum in the IR-range corresponding to its absorbtions spectrum when it is illuminated by continious white light? Another question in the same topic. Wikipedia states, that the energy difference between absorbed and emittet light in a flourescenct matterial…

Ok so this is where I'm a bit stumped. I'm trying to figure out where the speed of light comes into the equation E=mc2, in regards to fusion reactions. So correct me if I'm wrong, but if I take 1kg of Hydrogen isotopes and create a fusion reaction I will get 9x10^16 J. (1 x (3x10^8)^2). But where does the speed of light come into this? You can understand the mass being relevant in the equation, being the amount of Hydrogen there is to begin with, but there is nothing in that simple concept/theory that mentions the speed of light. A lot of people have been telling me that it is just a constant and was there due to other equations being relevant to it - that still does…

As you may know, PHOLEDs, which is short form for PHosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Diodes, can convert up to 100% of electricity into white light. Would it be possible to run the reaction in reverse, like in a solar cell, so that up to 100% of white light is converted into electricity?

With reference to light falling on a camera sensor, if each unit of area on the sensor is the size of the impact area of a single ray (not sure if a single ray can be thought of as an arrow making a hole on impact) ... then into how many units can the sensor be divided ... trying to know the theoretical limit of the mega pixels photo that can be captured using a certain size sensor. I am only a science enthusiast and not a professional. Any kind of explanation for a lay man would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

Where goes the gravitationaL field when electron and positron are annihilated

When electron starting from infinity combines with proton to form hydrogen atom the energy liberated is half of the potential energy lost Where does the half of the energy goes ?according to quantum mechanics electron is not moving in discrete orbits hence it cannot be used as kinetic energy of the electron

I've been curious about this for a while, so correct me is I'm wrong. Black holes are often thought of as having more gravity than any other object in the universe, but a little while ago it occurred to me that this technically should not be true. Gravity is directly proportional to an object's mass If I'm not mistaken. And black holes are formed when a massive star goes supernova, effectively blowing a great proportion of its mass out into space. So with that in mind, wouldn't a black hole technically speaking have less net gravity than the original star did? To be sure that gravity would be far more 'concentrated' that that of the original star, but in terms of NET grav…