Modern and Theoretical Physics

How well can you predict the public's interest in string theory as shown by January sales of books? Put down your forecast and we will see at the end of the month who got it right. As an indicator we can use the "String NASDAQ" index which is the average standing (say, at noon that day) of the five most popular string books on the Amazon GENERAL PHYSICS BESTSELLER list. This is a list of 100 titles, with the top bestseller in that category being #1. A lower number indicates more reader interest----so if string is a hot topic there will be several string books with low standing on the list and the average will be low. In December the index was mostly in the range …

http://cmu.edu/news/archive/2007/January/jan23_stringtheory.shtml Thoughts? (I can't find a link to their actual paper, that would be much appreciated, even if I'm too dumb to understand it)

Hello everybody:-) . It's been a long time since I posted here, but I think now I may have some more interesting things to come back and discuss now, and with a SLIGHTLY better sense of understanding, or if not that, at least familiarity with the concepts which I tend to discuss on these forums. Anyway, I remember one of my professors mentioning a relatively simple scenario, that was once a paradox in theoretical physics but was resolved, yet it defies me how. I know that the subject matter concerned is electrodynamics, mechanics(as the title may suggest) and general relativity. Anyway! Finally to cut to the chase; We have the often heard "I drill a hole through…

This is one of two examples I promised in this thread about how to make theories that advance physics. My goal here is not really to suggest this hypothesis (though it would be nice it it worked) but to show where I looked for it and how I developed it. As a layman, I'm not able to read the vast majority of the physics research, so this may have been suggested and rejected already, but I've not heard of it in common conversations, so it's either too boring/useless or it's just plain never been suggested. An un-abstraction of the standard model (it's long but really straight forward, feel free to speed-read) I've suggested looking for un-abstractions when looking …

are they Over? for the "free thinker" or the guy in his Shed etc... is there anything New left to be discovered, something blindingly Obvious that`s been overlooked perhaps? or is all great discovery done in Labs worth billions (and often using the same amount of volts)? has it All moved now to Sofware and technology related "stuff" and the likes of Chemistry where there is Still a slim chance of a new/accidental/serendipitous discovery? facts, as well as REASONABLE! opinions welcome

wat is your view on aerodinamity's relation to velocity

Hello Was just wondering if dark matter exists, could dark light also exist, and if so what properties might you expect it to have? Mr D

This is one of two examples I promised in this thread about how to make theories that advance physics. My goal here is not really to suggest this hypothesis (though it would be nice it it worked) but to show where I looked for it and how I developed it. As a layman, I'm not able to read the vast majority of the physics research, so this may have been suggested and rejected already, but I've not heard of it in common conversations, so it's either too boring/useless or it's just plain never been suggested. A look at the fundamentals of physics What better way than to look at the interaction of space (gravitation) and energy (Photons). Since energy creates gravitatio…

How can physicists say that particles, for example the photon or theoretical graviton, 'carry' forces? It just seems more logical to me that forces are caused by disturbances in a universal field that manifests itself as the Four Fundamental Forces. So a nucleon absorbs a gluon (Strong force) emited by another nucleon and they're automatically supposed to be attracted to eachother? Wouldn't it be more likely that forces are caused by fields themselves, not particles? Can anyone explain this to me?

So I was thinking when you are "splitting" atoms, particularly within like a fission based bomb there is quite amount of thermal energy released. Is there anyway to produce the same effect but instead of thermal energy being allowed, its coverted into kinetic energy? I am guessing this would be called cold fission.

All I'm asking (as I'm not a subscriber) is if anyone knows of any other articles for the following...

2 questions really, beta emiters give off Electrons and Positrons so naturaly these must at some time have the occasional collision, and give off 2 photons at Gamma, is this correct? also, would that explain the Blue glow that pure Radium has in the dark? (possibly Cherenkov radiation).

In a recent paper brought out called "Achieving transparency with plasmonic coatings" The idea of using plasmonic coatings to make an object appear transparent was suggested. The proposal involves using plasmons to cancel out the visible light or other radiation coming from an object. This idea only works on a small (microscopic) scale. The full paper can be seen here (for free): http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0502/0502336.pdf And more about plasmons can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmons http://home.hccnet.nl/ja.marquart/BasicSPR/BasicSpr01.htm I found this link where it was published by Nature but a subscription (which I don't h…

I realize this is a very basic question, but I am a layman, and would appreciate a solution to my idle curiosity. Question occurred to me in the wake of the London spy incident. Are there any elements (natural or man-made) which exist ONLY in radioactive isotope forms, that is, have no non-radioactive form?

I read this PDF once by some professor, it said that basically particles are wormholes and that the (3+1) dimensional observer sees the opposite ends of the 5D wormhole as electric charges. So, my question is, could charge be the manifestation of submicroscopic wormholes?

Theory of the star The Abstract: In that work is given extended formal of the equation of Bor for hydrogen atom, which allows to enter the energy level of the positron in field of the neutron with orbit less minimum classical radius. Strictly proton, in this understanding ,is there minimum energy level of the positron in neutron. When turning the positron with nearby orbits less classical with smaller radius on orbit with big radius occurs the radiation of the neutron and antiparticles. On the last internal îðáèòå we have get fool mass of the system to equal mass of the proton. When turning on external orbit occurs the radiation and absorption of the quantum on …

After reading this: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24240 thread. it addresses a question I`ve been pondering for some time, the Idea of a "DC" or "flatline" photon from a PM. if you had two shaped explosive charges with a VOD of 7000m/s each with a front load of a NIB magnet and set to smash both of these magnets into each other at ~ 14Km/s. with a suitable pick-up coil nearby, I predict you should get a White Noise EM spike. if we take 300,000 and divide this by the 14 we get 21,428.6, so this spike should appear around this wavelength. does this sound feasible?

Could someone please explain to me why Be-8 is unstable? I tried to find the answer on the web, but all I could find were references to how unstable it is, and what the consequence of that are. Thanks, Airmid.

If the universe's fundamental building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects rather then 0-dimensional points, wouldn't this completely rule out the notion that atoms exist? If so, would cosmic strings be measurable, or more of a conceptual rule of thumb that helps us understand the universe better?

Dear Folks, Here's my original question and updated responses: I have posted this Question all over the web, physics forums, science magazines, academics in plasma physics and condensed matter, I have received little response. I thought this might interest you. I have been researching Hydrogen-boron Fusion. Here's the most important posts, if this technology is real, it's history changing. In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint …

Hi I am supposed to write a 5000 word essay on a Weinberg-Witten Theorem which forbids the existence of massless particles with helicity j > 1 in any theory with a Lorentz-covariant energy-momentum tensor and how both graviton and gluon evade the assumptions of this proof due to gauge symmetry. I was wondering whether anybody could point out some references which might be useful. Thanks in advance

I have a few questions concerning the relation between gravity and the zero-point field but to avoid ending up with a complicated thread and depending of the answers I will ask them one and one. 1) Is the strength of the zero-point field inside a volume of space related to the gravitational potential inside the same volume ? Would for instance the force between the plates in a Casimir experiment get stronger or weaker if the experiment where done in the spacestation instead of on the surface of Earth ? The reason for asking is the Unruh effect which seems to indicate at least a possibility thereof. Unruh demonstrated that the very notion of vacuum depends …

Could fecund universes provide the seed data for non-local hidden variables which could deterministically describe apparent quantum indeterminacy? Could seeming randomness in fact simply be the result of a complex heritage of parent universes, each one more complex than the next? My reasoning is as follows: If the fecund universes hypothesis is correct, and the formation of a black hole creates a new universe, then the most statistically likely universe is one which comes from a line of universes that generate a lot of holes. Black holes are formed from stars. More stars means more black holes. If apparent quantum indeterminacy is the reason for the n…

We were talking about absolut in zero in chemistry last week and I thought of somthing, Absolut zero is the tempature at which molecules stop moving. What happens at the subatomic level? Do the electrons keep moving, or would they cease movement as well? If they do keep moving, would a theoretical temp. even colder then 0 k cause them to stop orbiting the nucleus and fall to the center?

This is a quote by Paul Davies. Can anyone explain what he's talking about? Is the number 400 something that was calculated or just an example? Btw, I copied it from here.