Modern and Theoretical Physics

I was told that the strong force holds atoms together. So I was wondering, does the week force hold quantum particles together?

If there is a proton and an electron, both exerting their respective force fields; the electron radiates its force inwards, while the proton radiates its force outwards. So does that mean when the proton and the electron are placed side by side, the proton is "sucked" towards the electron? How does this work? Which one is being "sucked" in? Are both moving towards each other?

I know things like water, glass and diamond slow light down but I was wondering about something like this. If you shine directed light (like a laser) at a moving object will the distance be a constant or variable with the time being constant? So would that be changing the speed of light? I will reply to any questions about the theory.

I figure non-local cellphone calls will be a reality if our present technological civilization lasts another 20 years .. no more towers, just from cellphone to cellphone.

Are we a part of a much bigger process in space and time? Are we a part of a giant galaxy that envelopes us and our worlds? I believe that we are a much smaller working part of something greater than we can imagine. That all the planets in our galaxy are working organisms, if I may, to create much bigger ecosystems in space. All of our reasoning of physics are used to find out why we are here. Well what if we look to why we are not here? What are we not a part of. If we look at our selves and our entire universe as a very small part of this "Ecosystem", then we can truly find out our place in the world and how our planet, and galaxy came to be. What happens if we were not…

I am very happy with the way things are turning out in theoretical physics. When mathematicians took the helm of modern cosmology a decade ago they raised a very important question. What is dimension? It was reasoned that dimension had to come first to allow the big bang room for expression, and the question of three-dimensional space was ushered in as the third most important question in modern cosmology. The other two questions, what is energy, and what is gravity, still remain unanswered. For the mathematicians, the desire to identify the very first thing in existence is all part of a larger quest to explain the number one, and possibly what came before it. Since the …

If it is found that neutrinos do violate the faster-than-light barrier how would that destroy the notion of causality?

I would post it in the geology section, but every time I post something with complex mathematical concepts that isn't in one of these physics sections, no one answers. So I notice then when I graph some polar equations, particular those using trigonometric functions, they look like some of the crystal structures of minerals viewed from above, and even some naturally forming macroscopic mineral structures. Is there any correlation between polar coordinates and how rocks form at all? Is this just the random result of atoms resembling standing waves?

The title was a parody to swansons ''swans on tea.'' This is not a direct discussion of the nuetrino topic, so please do not merge. I am simply going to ask everyone to reply with a ''yes'' or ''no''. I am keen to hear peoples ''no-beating-around-the-bush'' answers. I believe ''yes'' there is atleast one generation of neutrino which could have tachyonic tendancies. Thank you for participating up front. If you want to give a reason, then please do. I won't as it would just be the same experimental evidence most of us are aware of independant of recent measurement results.

Following De Broglie hipothesis any mass m won't move following a straight line but an associated wave trajectory based on this equation. Would it be possible to move inside space following a straight line? is there any flat space where linear trajectorys are possible?

Perhaps the big bang was the result of a few little bangs. Here's what I mean, Let's imagine that vacuum energy existed before the big bang. They don't call it vacuum energy for nothing. Now, let's imagine that vacuum energy is made up of postive and negative particles that exist within infinite positive and negative fields. These two fields have been expanding since their own Little bangs of creation. The positive plane is expanding faster than the negative pane. Within their own planes they are waves. The speed of light is maintained in each plane. Distance must give. The faster plane will particlize relative to the slower plane. This would allow both planes to expand f…

Witch theory do you think is the best unification of general reletivity and quantum mechanics?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but-- >>>Antimatter and matter annihilate to yeild energy. >>>high velocity collisions of particles ("normal" matter, not antimatter), i.e. in a collider, momenterilly annihilates them, yeilding energy, which quickly reforms into matter again. What intrigues me are the behaviors of these two energies, how the energy yeilded from matter and antimatter is stable and can exist in that state, but the energy emmited from a collision of like matter only exists for an instant before re-forming into matter. What causes them to behave so different from each other? Why is one stable, but the other so short-lived? Any ideas?

Ok, So its my first post on these forums, So ill try and spark thoughts. Everyone is baffled by the ongoing problem, propelling somthing to the speed of light. My theory is, what if we are all looking at this problem from the wrong angle? What if instead of using rocket power or magnets or anything like that, why not try to harness the energy of light? For example, using nanotech to create somthing that light can PUSH,if we found a way for light to push somthing, surely we could make it move at the Speed of Light? dont know how much sense this will make to you all, as I said, Im Just an amature 19yr old. Thoughts?

Ok so this came to me today. Basically, i think the big bang was created by a black hole in another universe got so dense it blasted a hole in the fabric of time and space sucking it through a wormhole and blasting the extremely dense mass through the wormhole and out the other end into "our universe". And because the density of the mass was so great, it could only blast the extreme energy out causing the big bang. I think that life on Earth is actually because as the mass of the black hole was so great it compressed different molecules together, and by chance created life. Any thoughts? By Morgan McCallum Bailey.

How fast can we move particles by using current technology? And, do we find any physical property changes at that high speed? Are there any experimental limit to increase a particle speed? We know electrons or protons are usually used for making very high speed particles.

#1 - The Creation of Our Universe I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today. How this molecule was arranged and what it made leaves every man clueless. For know I'm just going to refer to it as an atom. So at one time our universe was an atom, something extremely dense (like an atom), something with the strongest force known that pulled in to keep itself together (like an atom). This atom was split, then then created our universe and changing the physics all around it. From such the str…

Further thought experiments on expansion plane theory reveal certain predictions that cannot be ignored if the theory is correct. If the theory is correct than light is a fluxuation of the positive and negative energy planes. The theory is based on positive energy existing on a plane that is expanding faster than negative energy. (according to the theory, they are acually different "octives" of the same energy). Since the positive energy plane is faster than the negative energy plane, and light (thus the speed of light), require both energies the positive energy particles that exist without negative energy should be faster than light. (positive energy is an "octive"…

For a while I was wondering why c was the speed limit for the universe. I knew that to answer that question, I needed a theory that quantified this speed limit with a physical property of the universe. An idea struck me a little while ago. I was thinking about the shape of the universe, and mused with the idea that the universe was like a 4-d bubble, and that our 3-d space is on it's surface. The 4rth dimensioanlly inwards curvature of the surface of this "hyperbubble" causes gravity, as Einstein described. I then considered what would happen if something became so massive and curved space so far that it reached the cetner of the bubble (assuming the universe has …

I was just wondering this. It's hard for me to imagine a point infinitely small that has position in space. can someone please explain to me how that works? And is the accepted notion that the center of a black hole is a hole in the universe? (which in my mind means that the matter is being stored outside of the unvierse). Or is does all of it's matter still exist in space in our universe just condensed down to a ridiculously small area? Or is it one in the same? Thanks.

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more? or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge? to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it). likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

Alright, so here's an explanation of the Quilted Multiverse Theory for those of you who have no idea what it is I just said: Think of the universe as one, MASSIVE planar grid. Or say, a giant paper grid laying on top of a table. Now, every so often in the boxes of the grid is a dimension. Each of these dimensions was created by the Big Bang (that's the theory), and even though millions of years have passed, bringing us to present day, the light traveling through space thrown off by the big bang is still traveling outwards. The space between all these dimensions where the light from all the "big bangs" hasn't reached contains no light, and therefore can't be seen u…

Could the photons flying by be the product of neutrino back wash? I've long thought that light was like a sonic boom and that gravity was faster than light. When a jet flys by faster than the speed of sound, it leaves a sonic boom trail behind it. Perhaps photons are the "sonic boom trail" of a neutrino exceeding the time barrier. Here's the train of thought: We smash particles together in an attempt to similate conditions as close as possible to the big bang event. I've read and heard that very early on, the universe expanded faster than light. It is also my understanding that gravity broke free of the singularity first, and then e/m, and then strong and t…

I have three questions. Your response will greatly help me in my research on gravitation. (1) Do gravitayional masses of matter and antimatter have opposite signs? (2) What's the sign of matter-antimatter gravitational force? (3) Does General relativity alllow matter and antimatter to warp the field of space-time geometry oppositely?

. Has any body any thoughts yet on Neutrino faster than light travel from LHC to Italy. This was headline news yesterday 23/09/2011. They apparently sent some neutrinos from LHC to Italy which arrived at faster than light speed .