Modern and Theoretical Physics

I,m only a freshman in high school, but I have had the idea in the back of my head for a while. We use one camera to create a two dimensional picture. Now we use two cameras (or two eyes) to create a three dimensional picture. Does this mean if someone had three eyes, or something like that, could they possibly see in four dimensions?

Why light speed is constant? Are there any reason? Intensity and wave length are changed. But, we have not detected a light of different speed yet.

If neutrinos are so difficult to detect - how does the FTL experiment manage to detect/measure them. If so, why are the other experiments around the world not "seeing" them ?

what is the "physics" view on life? is it an energy in and of itself? Just some electromagnetic frequency being amplified by some molecules that twist up into daisy chains of animated diversity? or something else.

If black holes merge, how could that cause a gamma ray burst if light can't escape a black hole?

We know the gravity well. Then, Is the gravitational constant always constant? Is the present gravitational constant same as that of 10 million years ago ?

Hi Everyone! I'm not sure if it's alright to post this in this forum, but the topic matter definitely has connections to nuclear physics, so I'm going to try asking my question anyhow. I'm considering studying abroad in Japan next year, in Kyoto specifically, but I have been harboring doubts in regards to radiation safety. There isn't that much reliable information online, no so-called "radiation maps" showing levels in various regions of the country, so I don't have much to base my decision on. My question is simple: do you think that radiation levels are safe in the Kyoto area? Travel, of course, hasn't been prohibited, in fact, the government and Japanese companies…

Revered Members, Binding energy for lighter nuclei is large and for heavier nuclei BE is less. Why? I know BE is the energy needed to bind protons and neutrons in a nucleus. Also it can be defined as the energy that must be supplied to disrupt the nucleus into constituent protons and neutrons. Take a lighter nuclei which has 3 protons and so ideally the energy needed to bind these 3 protons should be less when compared with the energy needed to bind 82 protons(say) in a heavier nuclei . So, why BE is less for heavier nuclei than lighter nuclei?

I believe the universe fundamentaly is made of 2 things (for want of a better word) ENERGY and SPACETIME. I think the start of our universe was a black hole (being made of spacetime) that, having reached a crittical mass, would reach planks max temperature at the core thus melting spacetime creating an event that creates our universe. In this event energy condenses spacetime into matter (imagine your fist is energy and rubber foam is spacetime, the fist grabs the foam thus creating a dimple in spacetime E=MC2) my Question, please tell me why this statement is wrong

Can the effects of friction and static electricity effect bodies on a galactic scale? If the gravity source at the center of the galaxy is pulling matter in at such an accelerated rate then the friction must cause enormous energy to be released and electromagnetisim would be on an uncomprehendable scale, it must have some effect on even the outer reaches of the galaxy in question. Has this effect been measured and can the electromagnetic forces in question help explain the speed of bodies in the far reaches of the galaxy? Please answer in simple terms as I am at best a curious layman.

Okay, I have a basic understanding of string theory but not lots so: Please could someone explain it. What are the strings made of? And if what makes up and element are millions of tiny strings vibrating in different frequencies, then why are there not trillions of different elements or I (imaginary number) due to the amount of possible combinations of frequencies together as each string is around 10^-35 meters?

The only way I can think of to describe the present time is this: The instant position of your thought and body of awareness. How does science describe the present time.

A laser is a device that emits light (electromagnetic radiation) through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of photons. (Wikipedia) Now a laser produces and emits a beam of light where all waves are in phase with each other and have the same frequency. If you shine a laser (keeping it still) at a moving object then it changes the frequency of the laser beam. So if you shine a laser at an angle with half of the beam on the moving object and the other half just continuing further would the brief split-second that the object is moving and part of the laser is on and part of it off, would that change the frequency of some of the waves ca…

Without, yet, so much as a single experiment to prove (or, disprove) the existence of "strings", how have "strings" speculations graduated, from "hypothesis", all the way to "theory" (i.e., why is the model not called the "strings hypothesis") ? Scientific Method

Revered Members Considering isolated Lithium atom which has 3 electrons, K shell will have 2 electrons with energy -13.6eV. L shell will have 1 electron with energy -3.4eV. Now , considering a small piece of Lithium metal containing 100 atoms, then there would be 100 K levels and 100 L levels differing in energy by extremely small amounts. We call it as energy band. Why there is small change in energy when there is energy band, while there is no energy change for isolated atoms?

The first step, in the pp-chain, is the fusion of two protons, into a deuteron, a neutrino, and a positron: What would happen, if you "flipped" the positron, on the right (product side), to an electron, on the left (reactant side). If you conducted pp collisions, in an electron-rich environment, could you catalyze the fusion physics?

Okay, so it is quite simple. Light goes at the speed of 299,792,458 m / s. Now it is possible to slow down light....... a lot! Researchers at the Rowland Institute for Science slowed light to 16.98752 m / s (38 miles per hour) in 1999, and researchers at UC Berkeley slowed the speed of light traveling through a semiconductor to 9.7 km/s (34900 kilometers per hour or 21700 miles per hour) in 2004. So we will call 16.98752 m / s, [math]A[/math] which is a variable depending on the amount the light is slowed down. REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light REF: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Slow_light Now if this light ([math]A[/math]) was in a very large room, with 2…

I don't understand how any theoretical physicist can credibly argue that the arrow of time is entirely a product of human perception and that it doesn't really exist when we have such things as the fossil record that clearly demonstrates that time has proceeded long before there were humans around to perceive it. Just been watching the documentary Through the Wormhole - Does Time Really Exist?

First of all I'd like to thank all those who stop by and take a look at this question, doubly so for anyone who leaves a useful comment. I’ve been reading a few articles recently about nuclear fusion and fission and had some questions which I was unable to find an answer to. Unfortunately Math (Specifically Calculus) is not a strong point of mine so please try to keep that in mind when responding. Let me start by explaining the theoretical situation I have in my head. Say we start by using a Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor to produce some neutrons for us. And using beryllium to contain the radiation and focus the neutrons on some fissionable material what would the e…

I remember hearing several years ago that the existence of dark matter wasn't quite known, that scientists weren't yet comfortable talking about it as though it had been proven conclusively. Now-a-days, whenever I hear reputable sources talking about the subject, it's talked about as though it has finally become an established fact. My question: does the scientific community generally regard the existence of dark matter "proven"? If so, was this shift recent? What are some of the examples of evidence that recently came in (or have been in for a while) that encouraged scientist to take the attitude of certainty about dark matter's existence?

Physicists now admit they know the universe is flat. They have reasoned that only a flat universe with equal amounts of both positive energy and negative gravity can come from nothing. They say the rules for quantum mechanics allow for a universe to exist from nothing, based on the prediction that if opposite A is true, then eventually opposite B will also be true. Quantum physicists have never been able to explain why there is even distribution in the quantum theory, and the cosmologists have never been able to explain the uneven distribution of energy in the big bang. They have been able to determine that 98% of the materials needed for a successful universe came out of…

i have a few questions about nuclear fusion.... by the way please keep your answers simple as, much as i would love to, i'm afraid i do not study physics and please refer to the question you are answering in your reply Q.1. 'The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy' - does this mean that the lighter you get, the more energy is released? (and visa versa when heavier than iron) Q.2. in the case of iron does it release or absorb energy? Q.3. in hydrogen fusion, does it work if you use H-1? Q.4. if 'yes' to question 3, does it release more, less or the sa…

If plasma is a fourth state of mass that is mass existing as information in a ray of light, than perhaps this information can also be imprinted on faster than light rays of neutrinos as simple "laps, or folds" in their lines of momentum.

Hello, A couple questions on neutrinos: 1) do they travel like photons? That is to say, as waves? 2) do they influence/interact with each other like charged particles do? For example, two electrons will repel each other due to their mutual negative charge. Do neutrinos affect each other in some way like this?

Galaxie after galaxie and the large ratio ,I'm guessing, is filled with stars, dying stars, and or dead stars, that all had to be created over time. I know there are a few young galaxies being discovered, but I presume that the visible universe is no longer a teen ager. As more and more stars are created in these inumerable galaxies more and more light is fanned out accross the universe. Every ray has to bend around and go through inumerable gravity wells, in flat space, just to get out of it's own galaxie where it travels through and around other galaxies, and other extra terrestial bodies of relativity. When the universe was young there were fewer stars in the g…