Modern and Theoretical Physics

if I want to work out how long it will take an astronaut to fly round the sun at two different distances from it (both relatively close so there is substantial warping of spacetime), can I use the equations from special relativity or do I have to use the ones from general?

I 'm very sorry for that I was so short Ignorant E is GOD he is all what we need to live !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! anyway I need reasearch special in radio waves system please support me by Your contacts I want to start THANK YOU AND SORRY Marosz Inventor Tesla 2 PLEASE USE ONLY THIS FORUM TO SPEAK !!! dears moderators sorry for problem I give You my word I not spamer help me reaserch THX again [link removed]

On this forum I not have good relation with people who love Mr E I 'm sorry but in my experiments I explain 3 not the same method 1 geometry measure 2 Luminous Intensity 3 Foucault pendulums ( classical mechanic tool ) All three show the same resoult MR E repeat GALILEO MISTAKE http://tesla8.blogspot.com/ " Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them). In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the sci…

I am studying Electronics & Communication Engineering with good Computer Science (Programming) background. I recently applied for an internship and got selected. Now, the Professor gave research topic which I am supposed to perform next summer. The topic: “Validation of different exchange-correlation functionals for materials science”. This concerns density function theory calculations using the LDA, PBE, PBE0, HSE, rPT2 functionals as well as MP2 calculation for carefully selected clusters of different sizes, periodic bulk materials, and surfaces. The code to be used will be "XYZ-LIBRARY" Having said that I am from Electronics and Computer Science ba…

If Einstein can not explain physic phenomenons in microcosm ,then we have to find another way to do that. Outstanding question: *How is electron osscilated by radiation wave? *What is proper way to explain the properties of electron orbit around nucleus? *How micro particles don't fall straightly under gravitaton force? *What is cosmos status before big-bang even happen? * How is black-hole generated? please consider an ideal on blog : unitspacetheory.blogspot.com if it can be good direction

below I showing link to pdf document (1,4 mb) I explain there what I want to measure and how to measure I also give real data that we are able get (end of pdf translate where we can use data from experiment in real live ) I want to use LIGO INTERFEROMETER or similar tool I wait for people that want to help me by own contacts and are open for experiments I want to start international experiment and finish this what I started alone download pdf on Your HD please use my pdf and help me ( You have my pdf in attachments or use link ) http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Do...84393510f666b86 BR MAROSZ PO…

Collision energy calculation. 0.99999C proton-proton collision [latex] E= \frac{2m_{p}}{\sqrt{1-(0.99999C/C)^2}}C^{2} -2 m_{p}C^2[/latex] 0.99999C proton-anti-proton collision [latex] E= \frac{2m_{p}}{\sqrt{1-(0.99999C/C)^2}}C^{2}[/latex] Are these equations right? How to estimate collision speed distribution?

I have a question about entanglement. Is it assumed that the entangled particle are entangled with each other? Is that what leads to the conclusion that "spooky action" is either a result of instantaneous transfer of information or a hidden variable. It is pretty much accepted that violations of the speed of light information transfer is not possible and Bell pretty much disproved the hidden variable with A not B + B not C is equal or greater that A not C. Is that it or is there another option? Is it possible that the particles are entangled with spacetime and every point in spacetime is instantaneously sensitive to changes in every other point in spacetime. I am not …

I have put down a few thoughts on how we can start to see physics as an interface to underlying "structure". "Structure" is posed without its normal qualifier "Causal" and it will become more clear why I am doing this if you read the paper. Does anybody see, from reading the paper, how we can: cast QFT as an epistemic restriction on (causal?) structure? categorify the notion of epistemic restriction up to morphisms? use internal categories in a monoidal category as a "place" to build structured theories directly from interacting with aparata?

When does an atom disintegrate into smaller ones and how can we predict the nature of radiation ( alpha, beta or gamma)

We already know stars can, what else in nature can?

There are many particles in the Universe. We think that one particle has a space. Is it impossible two particles have one place? Any rules exist about space, i.c., one particle to one finite space?

This post at ScienceBlogs suggests that (if asymptotic safety works) the discovery of the Higgs Boson at the energy it was discovered falsifies all supersymmetric theories.

I know it's bull, but there's still no other explanation for it that I found. Essentially on the history channel they were exploring possibilities that aliens were involved in the past, and a lot of evidence was subject to interpretation, but there was a particular one that got me, which is that in India, there is a field of glass that nearly perfectly matches the type of glass that was produced in deserts in the US where nuclear bomb testing was done, in fact atomic bombs specifically melt rock as to have formed that type glass, so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? …

Curious, If a series of atom are formed radially in a fan like progression keeping a rigid non-moveable form 0=Atom x=Dead space xxx0xxx xxx0xxx 0x0x0x0 xxx0xxx xxx0xxx and a the mass of the particle was tiny ( lets say 1x10^-32kg far arguements sake ) and a force was applied to a point in the inner circle that would accelerate the inner atom to .5c what would the speed be of the particles in the outer circle? And finally assuming that a force was applied accelerating the inner atoms to a speed of c [ assuming that the weight of the atom is almost zero ( or the weight of a nutrino ) ] would the outer atoms travel at a speed greater than the …

What do you think about that: http://ipowerproject.com/forum/topics/atoe-vs-bostroms-sr-argument-vs-gates-doubly-even-error The last part of the article states that error correction code has been found in the background mathematics (as far as i have understood it) of the String Theory. Is that just a coincident, is there more about it, or is it sensationalist journalism?

I have recently been studying the possibility of nuclear fusion technology as a power source. In my opinion, it is a brilliant source of energy with almost no draw backs (except maybe losing the oil companies a large amount of money). I accept though that my opinion is just that, so I would like to hear from you on whether you'd be happy having a nuclear fusion plant built a couple of miles down the road. Whether you know how fusion power works, or not, all opinions are welcome, especially if you know nothing about fusion. For this question, I would like you to assume that technology has, overnight, advanced to the point that a fusion power station is viable

total energy in Magnetic field external field [math]\vec{B}_{out} = \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi r^3} \left( \frac{3 \vec{r} \left( \vec{m} \circ \vec{r} \right) }{r^2} - \vec{m} \right)[/math] [math]\mathcal{E}_{out} = \frac{B^2}{2 \mu_0} = \frac{\mu_0 m^2}{2 \left( 4 \pi r^3 \right)^2} \left( 6 cos(\theta)^2 + 1\right)[/math] [math]E_{out} = \int \mathcal{E}_{out} \; r^2 dr sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi[/math] [math] = \frac{\mu_0 m^2}{2 \left( 4 \pi \right)^2} \left( 2 \pi \right) \left( 6 \right) \left( \frac{1}{3 R^3} \right)[/math] [math] = \frac{\mu_0 m^2}{8 \pi R^3}[/math] internal field [math]\vec{B}_{in} = \frac{\mu_0 \vec{m}}{\left( \frac{4 \pi}{3}…

When a particle collide with a particle, we think that elastic collision, annihilation or scattering is possible. Is particle change it's shape against external stress? Does Particle itself have elastic property?

As per group property, one could make a product of gr members e.g. Lorentz boost (B) and rotation ®, as they Commutativity is not valid, R.B or B.R, what should be considered and which order should be preferred? Generally it is known R.B1= B2.R..

Newton's third law states that action and reaction are equal and opposite. In the realm of Non Newtonian Physics, is it possible to exert a force without there being any equal and opposite of that force?

Someone was trying to tell me time isn't real, or it's fake because we made up the word time and just because "it's not the same time everywhere", but how does time being relative mean time doesn't exist? How could time be relative if it didn't exist? I'm trying to explain that time is as physical as any other dimension, but I can't seem to come up with anything specific. You can break time down into an infinite amount of possible intervals, but there will always be a finite counting of those intervals, is there some term of that? Is there some mathematical property that says "no matter how small an arbitrary interval is, there is always a finite value of them between any…

hi.my understanding of reality is this,the world is made up of atomic particles right?so what i picture is "snow" on a television set.on an atomic level everything would look like buzzing snow on a tv.as ,from what i understand, a group of atoms is just a bunch o particles buzzing together magneticaly.so ,if you could view the world on an atomic level,or say the galxy or universe,it would look like alot of bubbles of "snow" vibrating in an endless pattern throughout the cosmos.now,on a sub atomic level,if you could see it,wouldnt it look like "snow" all around you, spreading infinitly in all directions,assuming dark matter is made up of sub atomic particles?so, isnt all r…

only after all my YouTube write on forum Your own opinion ( freestyle ) Thanks for help me create !! Br Marosz Polish TESLA 2 *************************************************************** A ) I use energy rule ! B) I not measure velocity ! ( zero doppler facts use ,) C) I never want to measure velocity ! ( no need ) D) I only want to check WHERE ENERGY go more easy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *************************************************************** Part 1 Classical mechanics background video link removed Part 2 - real experiment NIKON 5000 camera video link removed Part 3 - Michelson-M…

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/brain-universe.html Website shows pictures of a brain cells strikingly similar to picture of the universe. evidence of my visions and theories or coincedence?