Modern and Theoretical Physics

For areas of the Earth that have experienced significant impact events, something measurable on the Torino Scale, would there be any possible way to measure effects on the subatomic particles within the radius of the impact? If so, what effects might one be looking for? For example, how could one setup an experiment to measure possible subatomic effects of the Vredefort Impact event in Southern Africa? Stony asteroid impacts that generate an airburst[19] Impactor diameter Kinetic energy at Airburst altitude Average frequency (years) Recorded fireballs (CNEOS) (198…

If I understand Einstein’s clock tower thought experiment correctly, Einstein saw himself on a train traveling away from a clock that was situated on a clock tower. From Einstein’s perspective, the hands of the receding clock would have appeared to be moving slower, hence, giving the illusion that the clock’s time had slowed down. Is this correct? If my understanding of the thought experiment is correct, does that also mean that the clock should have red shifted towards the red spectrum as well? I apologise if I’ve posted this in the incorrect section. My question is a theoretical physics question.

I set out to link the two ideas in a way that nobodies thought of doing before and I really need people who can Mathematically proof my work; I can already write a paper, it's not hard. But the math that gets tricky I'm still new to Quantum Wave Function Structures. Please contact me if you would be interested in reviewing my work, the papers 21 pages with 10 pages of references right now with more to come.

Hi, I'm curious about a type of particle that WOULD NOT be anti particles, but real negative energy particles : They would be define as : P + None(P) = nothing ( instead of P + None(P) = (energy / mass of both) ) all the charges would be opposite, and also mass... is it possible ? I suspect it contradict some equations..

This question is inspired by another thread in this forum, but it would be OT there. So: Does anybody have a valid reason to believe complex rest energy/mass particle can't exist ?

In other words, what is the longest possible wavelength which is physically detectable, in principle? Or, the slowest frequency?

while it is presumed that information is not lost when matter falls into a black hole, it seems understood that overall mass is lost when black holes merge. What happens to the information contained within this "lost" mass due to it's conversion into the wave energy? Is this not lost, or can be somehow reconstructed from the waves, as they extend across space, or perhaps resurrected from space/time itself after the waves have passed?

One person told me that modern physics support solipsism. I do not believe it. Does modern physics support solipsism? Does modern physics have any evidence that solipsism is true?

There is popular theoretical "belief" among some leading physicists that space & time may not be fundamental property's of the universe & the governing laws of nature. Theoretical physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed & Sean Carrol seriously consider that space and maybe time are rather emergent properties, coming from something more fundamental. This line of thought is driven by gravity and quantum mechanics at the most extreme small limits (Planck scales). It's a very interesting idea and if it gains any ground may open up physics to the possibility of better theories and a more fundamental understanding of how the universe works. What is you…

Hi all, The other day I was thinking about the electromagnetic spectrum and Nikola Tesla's famous quote.... "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” If light is a wave, but has a particle that we perceive as 'physical', a photon, and gravity is a wave with a hypothetical graviton (yet to be found), might it be possible that all particles are actually the 'physical' representations of different frequencies of the EM spectrum? Looking at the EM spectrum, with shorter wavelengths (and higher frequencies), the smaller the 'items' seem to be, so if we go further to the right with ultra sho…

When I took Communication Theory (quite some years back), I learned to my surprise that information has entropy. A message that's been received has an information content, and an expectation that the information will be received. Then I learned that sending a message has an expectation of being received; this is something that also intersects the domain of engineering--you want the sender and receiver to have a reliable channel and an agreed protocol. So that there is the connection: an experiment is in both domains, you need to do some engineering (after doing some design), then you get some information and then . . . analysis. You hand in the lab assignment and hop…

Hey everyone, first post here :) A while ago on another forum someone said that entanglement occurs in all reference frames (so is not subject to relativity of simultaneity). How is this possible? If two electrons are entangled and change spin (for example) how can these two events occur regardless of reference frame? Thanks for clearing this out (and sorry that I don't put this in the relativity or quantum physics board but I couldn't choose between the two. All of the best! S.

We know that elementary particle anti-particle pairs appear and annihilate even in a vacuum. This phenomena is (I believe) happening everywhere in the Universe, vacuum or not. What struct me as an interesting question and brought me here is whether the (volume?/quantity?/energy density?) of this phenomena is influenced by the expansion of the universe. For Example, say the rate of particle anti-particle pair creation is 100MUU (Made Up Units) per M^3, would that value decrease over time as the Universe expands. Or more interestingly, have been twice as prevalent when the universe was half its present size? Nearly infinitely more powerful right after the big bang?…

Ψ/ε0=c?

The misconception is that electrons carry potential energy around a complete conducting loop, transferring their energy to the load. What say you? I found the following video on u tube that discusses the scenario re the transmission of electricity. It also involves a giant circuit, a battery and a light bulb. The circuit stretches 300,000 kms long returning to the light bulb 1 metre away, and the question being ( disregarding resitiance) how long before the light bulb lights up....5 seconds, 1 second, 2 seconds, or 1/c seconds, or none of these.... Anyway, the video explains it better then I......

Since the days of Einstein, theoretical physicists have been the pinnacle of intellectual attainment. Ever ready to provide the answer to science’s greatest problems, the theoretical physicist is determined to be valid only by other theoretical physicists. The original theoretical physicists took data from early chemists and directly hypothesized how electricity or the universe itself might work, none too concerned for testing these hypothesis against logic and reasoning. If it was a new idea, and wasn’t overtly incorrect, it stood as a theory. These days, theoretical physicists strive to provide their moniker for some keepsake particle, unit, or or theorem. The…

Dear Anyone. So you've got a car powered by hydrogen. Totally environment friendly - so I've read - water comes out the other end of the process. (Not seen one for real, just read about them!) Now water is hydrogen plus oxygen, as you know, so some'ow (don't understand this bit!) the hydrogen you've 'used' is still there in the water. Wouldn't it be possible to separate the two back out again so they're both gases and re-burn the separated-out hydrogen in the separated-out oxygen? And if you get MORE water coming out the other end of the process, couldn't you just set up a loop so the new water would go back to the separator, separated back out and re-reburne…

If you can capture it accurately, any distorted sine wave, when taken apart by an FFT will reveal that the phases of the harmonics will always be at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° relative to the sine wave fundamental, without fail. This is not well known, since most people look only at the magnitude (amplitude) of the spectrum and not the harmonic phases, but if you do, you will "discover" this law. Even more interestingly, if you shift the wave over by 90° to make it a cosine wave, you will find that after doing the FFT, the harmonic phases are at exactly two values, 0° and 180° relative to the fundamental. In this animated GIF I apply 6 different distortions to a cosine wave a…

I've been kicked off of most bulletin board sites trying to make this point, but I discovered some interesting things about Harmonics that nobody else seems to know. In this animated GIF I show how the harmonic signature varies as the result of the phase angle where the distortion occurs in a sine wave. Here I show the spectra of several sine waves that were distorted by clipping (at the positive peak) and I record the phase angle where the clipping first started. It's a linear relationship, and I have worked out the formula for this too. This is not caused by the FFT, as I have proven this behavior on analog instruments as well. This is real. Who here wants to kick me o…

So the title gives the topic for discussion. Here is my introduction. An entanglement occurs when at least two bodies posses properties where observation (interaction) of that property value on one body (automatically) identifies the property value on the other body. A classical example would be a bag containing one red and one blue ball. Withdrawing one ball would automatically identify the colour of the ball left in the bag. But knowing the temperature one the one ball would not tell you anything about the temperature of the other ball. A quantum example would be two electrons in a covalent bond. Knowing all the quantum numbers of one electr…

I am learning the coherence of a quantum system can be maintained over very great distances and this leads me to ask the question in the Title of the thread. In that example distance is less important than the number of potential or actual interactions with an entangled system? Could that be considered as a kind of "distance" in quantum physics? If not ,what is the concept of distance in quantum physics ? Just the same as in classical physics?

Assume you have a black body object at 1000K as a light source and an ideal* PV cell at 300K to capture that light. From a thermodynamic point of view, a maximum efficiency of 70% could be achieved (carnot limit), assuming both elements as black boxes. I am wondering how this figure manifests itself in the PV cell, and why the following reasoning is wrong: Think of an ideal theoretical PV cell, that has following characteristics: infinite amount of junctions stacked upon to capture 100% of the spectrum, infinite diffusion lengths of charge carriers, fill factor of 1 and no resistance in any electrical element. Given this cell, every incident photon would excite an el…

" Negative Mass is a type of exotic matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg. " - From Wikipedia. This Theorem, Negative Mass, I have been Researching and I find it, very, very, Interesting! Basically, the Principle goes over that, Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Newtonian approximation of the Einstein field equations. The interaction laws are then: In yellow, the "preposterous" runaway motion of positive and negative masses described by Bondi …

Was the theory used to develop that time is effected by gravity were they based upon the use of an atomic clock? If so the electron has mass and thus it is effected by gravity and would that cause any frequency variations. Thus my questions is the effect of gravity on time an insight to possible travel or displacement based upon the interaction of mass with gravity using frequency? just my thinking as I start my learning of Atomic physics. ( I am referencing the claims of South American Shamans claims in the book A separate Reality)

It is the average of all of the energy in a region in space. If you took that average, there would be groups of random particles that exist at one moment in time. Then that area would have an energy level greater than zero. It is just another way of looking at it to get around the whole argument that random particle pairs don't actually add energy to a system. If the system actually is shown to have more energy, then that energy would have to come from somewhere, is the argument. If it comes from somewhere other than spacetime, then it would mean it is more fundamental. Basically, he is assuming that random particle pairs could be derived from quantum mechanic…