Modern and Theoretical Physics

Before you continue reading, I'd like to say that I have minimal education in physics, and that this is a topic I'm interested in. If you don't have time to waste, please move on, and have a nice day =) I was reading up on the Chernobyl disaster, and how Fission is so far the only attainable method of Nuclear energy, and how Fusion gives 3-4 times the power of Fission, and doesn't have near the same quantities of harmful byproducts. So, my question is, what is preventing us from being able to use Fusion? And why are high density and temperature necessary to create it? Again, bear in mind that I'm a novice with minimal education in physics. Thank you =)

I have been pondering something for many years. I can't be sure looking at the facts that have crossed my path, that the universe is indeed expanding without doubt. I understand the Doppler shift, but in analysis could it not be that it only appears that our universe is expanding, when in fact we are moving faster toward the center of our universe. And of course those bodies closer to the center would be moving even faster. And if this was to be, would it not explain why most of our universe is apparently missing? This would please me very much as getting rid of some of the rediculous concepts such as the multitude of string theories, (Which I consider mathmatical …

does a photon pick up speed when it begins ?

i theorize this it works by forcing matter into a state of compression, where by on a certain plane, the quantity begins to share energy (forcing random garbage together), then sorting the energy. i use pressure because by the time the matter begins to shift under certain pressure, i would imagine that you can use that pressure to keep the process going. (dropping 1000 tonnes of garbage ontop of another 2000 tonnes, then under electomagnetic force) this causes an alignment of energy, as the energies align, i believe they can be sorted. fact or fiction? Please excuse the crude nature of the drawing, i hope to get my point across. Also notice …

I was thinking about this question today and started wondering whether it even makes sense to talk about the density of a fundamental particle. It makes sense to talk about the density of, say, a nucleus. You would define it as the amount of volume taken up by the protons and neutrons (as opposed to the space between them) over the amount of total volume enclosed by the nucleus as a whole. The density of protons and neutrons could in turn be likewise defined except in terms of quarks and the space between them. But a quark is (supposedly) fundamental. It has no internal parts. So do we say that its density is 1 (occupied volume / total volume = 1), in which case a…

Lets say all of humanity gets together and builds a massive boardwalk that surrounds the earth about the equator. The boardwalk is 1 mile off of the ground. Then all of the supports for the walkway are taken down at the same time. WOULD IT FLOAT??!?!? Assume that gravity is somehow perfectly evenly distributed.

Hello, The Big Bang supposedly set matter and energy (the four known forces) in ‘motion’ causing ‘events’. A simple example: elements of the electroweak force holds an egg on the surface of a table while the mass of the Earth warps space and accelerates the egg while pulling it towards the center of the Earth. The sun warms the air which causes wind which pushes the egg off the table and it splats on the floor. Or something like that… you get the idea. These events take place because of physics. The longer I study cosmology and quantum physics and despite reading a growing amount of material on the subject… the more that I see… no reason, value, proof or purp…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test) On the right of the link is a photo taken a few milliseconds into the Trinity atom bomb test. You can see the smooth surface of the fireball shock wave expanding out, and you can see the rough dusty base where it (presumably) is interacting with the ground. But what is the paler band between the two? Also there are some blotches on the surface of the fireball. Are these as a result of the tower or bomb casing perhaps?

In nuclear fusion when four protons come together to form two protons and two neutrons making a helium nucleus. The mass is less than the original 4 proton atoms. This is explained by the helium nucleus having the same amount of 'negative energy' equivalent to the mass difference. Now, what is this 'negative energy' precisely...the PE or something else?

When possible disaster caused by strange matter is considered, stakes are obviously very high. Therefore also alternatives that do not seem so likely should be taken into consideration. There might for example exist particles that none of present theories predict. One could assign a positive probability for an alternative that there exists a particle whose parameters are in certain intervals. The following alternative exhibits potentially different behaviour for cosmic rays and the LHC, what comes to security. The point is that the particle might catalyze transform of ordinary matter to strange matter. Suppose there exists a scalar particle R with following prope…

Hello. first of all sorry if my english is hard to understand but english aint my native language. I wonder if somebody has done an experiments to look if time goes slower among warm objects compared to cold objects? I´m thinking like this. I´ve learned that time goes slower for an object the closer to the speed of light it gets. And that time goes slower the more mass an object has So by Einstein laws for example a clock on a ball that weights 1kg that travels at 50% of lightspeed will show the same time that for example a clock on a ball that weights 2kg but travels somewhere less than 50% the speed of light, According to Newton laws both have kinetic energy in form…

Could dark energy be particles leaking off other branes?

Amazon lets you browse this new HEP book by a CERN theorist Gian Francesco Giudice . The book went on sale three weeks ago, 25 January, 2010, and is currently sold out and back-ordered. It went to the top of the physics bestseller list. http://www.amazon.com/Zeptospace-Odyssey-Journey-into-Physics/dp/0199581916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266250510&sr=1-1 See what you think. The guy is good with words, images, and stories. Has a keen sense of humor. Plus he is a smart theorist who has been there at CERN since before 2000, sociable, insider perspective.

I enjoy watching the BBC documentary "Parallel Universe." However, does this idea that M-Theory can lead to other universes really hold water? Is there REALLY a universe where the events of Harry Potter actually took place? Is there REALLY a universe that I rule over with an iron fist? I know it seems extremely bizarre, but is it actually a valid theory that some degree-carrying scientists actually believe? Or, is BBC just a ratings whore?

Firstly, apologies if this is only the most recent in a long line of threads all asking virtually the same question, it wasn't my intention to be repetitive. A cursory glance around the forum didn't really give me what I was looking for, and so I felt it wise to put my query to the community. Basically I am looking for books. Books that can take me from someone with only a very basic level of Physics knowledge, up to someone who at least knows the basics of the theories at the forefront of our knowledge, even if I will never be able to practice them myself. I have only an undergraduate degree in chemistry so far, and so understand the basic principles of quant…

If the earth was smoothed out, even the ocean beds, so that the earth was like a smooth ball , and the water of the earth's sea bodies was placed on the earth , how deep would the water be on average. I tried the calculation myself , please tell me if there is error you can see. Numbers: Volume of water: 1.3 billion km cubed Average ocean depth: 3.79 km Average earth radius: 6371 km First , to calculate the Earth's radius by considering it's concave shapes , subtract average ocean depth from earth's mean radius.(The average earth radius might take into account mountains and if not then say if radius should be increased) Smooth earth radius = 6…

Are there any theories out there that consider space a field (or Field-Like? If space can't exist without matter and vis versa, wouldn't that imply they are somehow tied together? If a single particle/mass existed in an area without space, maybe a specific quantity of space would exist around that particle/mass?

I don't know if this is the place to discuss this, but, let's try and see where the moderators move this. I have written an article, which takes a philosopical approach to constructing a universe model. I have never published anything outside the company that I worked for. I am now reitred. I have decided that it would be best to publish in a philosophy periodical, since the model is based on a philosphical premise and reasoning, mixed with very little actual mathematics. I developed this model over a period of 40 years, and it represents my lifetime attempt to understand the actual universe. I am sure the model would be contentious. Of interest to me is …

"Nowbody understands quantenmechanics" Richardt P. Feynman Not that The problems with the wave particle dualism only ocur when jou think of "real materia " , with the mathematic model of QM there are no problems-so why not give up a real world, think that it`s all mathematics , perhaps in the mind of GOD and no real world and no real universe has ever existed ! Such crazy thinks as menkind and the universum DO NOT EXIST its all a great but wounderful imagination ! See also the Philosopher Descartes :I think , so I am !

Sorry Repeated thread, accidentally posted in mathematics. im new plz help First of all, this is purely a conceptual question and i do not know the answer. But i have heard that theoretically infinate universes could be the answer (string and quantum theory etc.), and this to me has as many answers as problems. First is the concept of infinity, i find it very difficult to seperate the concepts of infinity and nothing (zero). If one exists, it simply seems natural to me that the other does also. Somehow i find myself to be mathematically minded (im guessing) and to express infinity you must use the "number 0" in some form. First let me express this is si…

We are all aware of the importance of geometry in the formulation of modern physics. Prime examples include general relativity and Yang-mills theory. Supermanifolds owe their conception in quantum physics where a semi-classical understanding of fermions is required. Specifically, the notion of how to integrate fermions in needed in the path integral formulation. Loosely, one should think of supermanifolds as "manifolds" with both commuting and anticommuting coordinates. In the physical language that is both bosonic and fermonic degrees of freedom. Via the inclusion of minus signs due to the anticommuting nature of some of the coordinates most of the theory of cl…

This is based upon a device created by professor pompei at mit in california. the device is a kindof speaker system that uses light to allow the listener to hear it. for example suppose the light shining on the dance floor only the people within the beam can hear it anyone outwith the lightrange could not hear it,the light had an encapsulated audio signal that was audible to those on which the light sone the "vibrations " from the light somehow travel the the body to the ear and can be heard. ANYWAY I WOULD TO ASK ONE OF YOU HITECH CLEVER IF YOU COULD TRY THIS.......... I PROPOSE THAT IF ONE "CRANKS UP THE JUICE" IN THE ENCAPSULATED AUDIO SIGNAL, I BELEIVE THIS W…

This is a collection of links to video lectures on string theory from CERN - introduction to string theory, string theory, string theory for pedestrians etc. http://www.infocobuild.com/education/audio-video-courses/physics/string-theory-cern.html

What causes a nuclear bomb to explode? I am under the impression that the explosion is the result of pressure. Is this impression correct? I ask because I am just starting to try and understand how a black hole forms. To this point my understanding is a star collapses the pressure causes an explosion. The star then collapses again, except this collapse is unable cause enough pressure to create another explosion. I have tried to think my way around the next questions. Why doesn't the first explosion blow away enough mass that the formation of a black hole can not occur? Why isn't there a continuous chain of explosions?

I was wondering if one could think of matter as 'condensed energy'? Which lead to an idea that there must be something for energy to condense onto? Thanks!