Modern and Theoretical Physics

Hello to you all, Is anyone familiar with this view? That the speed of light has slowed, perhaps up to 10-30% within the past 2000 years? Most everything I have found on the web indicates that this theory is not embraced by many. Yet, I do know some people who hold to it, so perhaps it is still an ongoing possibility? I admit I have only a surface knowledge of physics, so I was wondering if anyone who actually has an understanding of the field views this as a credible theory. Am I correct in that someone supporting the view that lightspeed is decaying would have to reject the notion that the universe is expanding?

Ok so i read this story about a kid who went insane on radioactivity. It seems like a bunch of bullcrap. I mean c'mon, i think it is ridiculious. http://business.fortunecity.com/executive/674/fission.html

I know this is impossible, but if there was a way to shrink really small, what would happen if you touched an atom? Would it be like a solid metal, or would it be more like electricity? I know the electrons would be like electricity, but what about the nucleus? Also, if you shrank to a size where atoms are the size of basketballs, would you be able to pick up an atom? If you dropped an atom on a solid surface, would it bounce? What would the other properties of the atom be? How would it look and feel like? Would it have any type of smell?

I`ve read quite a few times on here that the Universe is expanding from no particular point, but from ANY 2 points one may care to mention. then we have the Atom with it`s Nucleus and surrounding Electrons, Most of the atom is in fact "Empty Space". so are Atoms also increasing in Size too or rather "Expanding"?

I was reading the thread on the 2 dimensions of time in this forum, and i just thought of somethin but please correct me if i am talking rubbish. theirs are 4 dimensions up down left right back wards forwards and time right. but time is only one dimension so would it not just account for one of the other 3 dimensions or is it in someway layer on all the dimensions. sorry if it sounds stupid somebody please explain this time thing. Thanks

Can anyone please help me in this. Jsut want to know what is the speed of electron inside a electric current. As per my understanding current is flow of elctrons. And my question is that if it equal to speed of light (it works the moment you switch the circuit on) then why the einstein theory of increase in weight at speed doen't come to picture for it. new to this form. sorry if i have posted this to a wrong forum.

Hawking has introduced the mathematics of imaginary time in order to curve the universe back on itself. It is an untestable mathematical model. It might mean something if we could measure it. Where is Stephen Hawking's imaginary clock? He needs to show us or his idea must be relegated to the the status of nonexistence; like some do with the Aether.

I understand the geometry of space with n dimensions and see how greater than 3 dimensions of space would apply to a theoretical reality, but what about more dimensions of time? Does that even make sense to consider 2D time? I can't quite get my head around how that might work.

About an hour ago I saw something quite interesting on one of the science channels. An experiment with superconductor, liquid nitrogen and a magnet was done - and it was amazing. What they did is put this 1inch circular superconductor in place and then poured liquid nitrogen over it and after that they put this little cubic magnet on top. What happened is that the magnet was hovering above the surface of the superconductor and it was suprisingly stable, it could even keep spinning in the 'air' above the surface at about 2cm... It might be that you have already seen this but it's the first time I see it and I have no idea of how it works, so I thought if anyone could f…

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm Tells you lots of info about this. How do you think these may work? I have heard the following theories. -Static Electrical feild -Magenitic feild -Gravational feild -Other EM feild -Ionic wind -Electrons moving from wire to foil. -Vibratios of the wire -Movement of the foil Some of these have been dissproved I am just interested in what you guys think.

Ok, this might take a couple of replies for me to put this in a way people can understand but here's a first shot at it. Last night I was about to go to sleep when I had a strange thought - Why do people view the universe as three perpendicular vectors (up/down, left/right, back/forth). Also similarly the 2D universe would be viewed and measured according to a square grid. But why cubes and squares? Sure they seem an obvious way to look at things with the nice right angles but when trying to link the 2D to the 3D it makes things a lot more complex. For example: Take a square. Simple 2D object, four corners, four edges, one face and of course being 2D it’s completely flat…

I am VERY new to particle physics, but I am getting hooked. I have taken an eye upon the Higgs Particle and Field. Scientists say that it is the interaction of the Higgs Field containing Higgs Particles that matter gets its mass. Namely, the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons are set into motion because of the molasses effect of them "rubbing" with the field of Higgs Particles, thus giving kinetic energy to the quarks, hence the nucleus's mass, thus giving all matter its mass. Just in the last hour, I was thinking about something pessimistic. Why can't it be simply gravity, and NOT the Higgs Field that is interacting on quarks to give objects its mass? …

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=183330#post183330 "String on skids?" is a poll. (I forgot to indicate that in the headline.) Like to know your opinion----and your guess about future research----and also if there are differences. Probably there's no right answer, nobody's an expert about the future. But if several people post guesses we'll be able to see whose was right.

Plasma balls discharge charges of light. Light can be influenced by magnetic fields. Could they be compacted by magnetic fields enough to be able to cut matter. Something like a laser but with a controllable length.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000005FC-2927-12B3-A92783414B7F0000&pageNumber=2&catID=2

Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that extends beyond the orbit of sattelites. Magnetic fields repel super conductors. With that said why couldn't we create a space ship made out of a super conducter that would lauch itself into orbit using the earths magnetic field?

Hi I have a small question: Does temperature influence radioactivity? Uranium 238 have a half-life of around 4.5 billion years. If I heat some U238 to 1,000,000 degre K does the half-life change. My guest is yes more collision will increase the chance of the atom to emit an alpha particule. My next question would be is it possible to heat a stable element like lead so it will become radioactive ? Thanks for your answer

I hope this thread is put correctly. When I stand on an insulator and touch a charged objects (Van der Graff generator) , why I can't feel a shock? On the other hand, if I stand on the floor, I could feel the shock.Why? Would there be any difference if the object is an electric toy car which is "leaking" electricity? I wonder if the " complete circuit" plays an important role for

i have a book that discusses lunar geology and states about craters "frequently shows negative gravitational anomalies due, probably, to the subterranean pressence of the meteorite" please explain

I was in the car today thinking if the second dimension was just a shadow of ours but not a shadow formed from light . When we see shadows they are always in two dimensions. This woud then make the first dimension a shadow of the second and we would be a shadoe from the fourth and so on. What do you think of this?

Why do only iron , nickel and cobalt can be striked to be become a magnet ? Why do other element cannot?

I read a interesting article in this months issue of scientific american about the production of antiatoms, in particular the antiatom of hydrogen. The research was developed to find out whether their was any flaws in the CPT symmetry, and whether they could implement a new fuel, providing thrust via the anihilation of these antiatoms and atoms. What the particle physicists had to do was to find how to capture antiprotons and positrons seperatly via a trap to make antihydrogen. They first of all needed acess to the CERN particle collider. To produce antiproton, they needed to fire a proton into a copper wire or metal (from memory).And to produce a positron, they nee…

Suppose i take three equal laserbeams (equal phase, wavelength, etc.). I then put two of these laserbeams next to each other, seperated a distance D less then their common wavelength, and directed in the exact same direction. Next I put the third laserbeam some distance L opposite the other two, and direct it so that the first two laserbeams will meet the third at some point P. Because the beams are in exact phase, there will be a certain L for which the beams will be in exact anti-phase in the region where they meet. In this situation, will the first two beams then act as a sort of wall for the third, and will the portion of the third beam shining through D act as …

can anyone tell me where i can find information on conductors , semi conductors and superconductors . i am an engineering student and so i need very well explained info . and has to sort of detailed info .

I am currently reading Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos. In the begginning just explains the basics of the currently accepted physics stuff. I just learned about Higgs particles. It says that the Electron and the Neutrino are the same particle exactly, and only behave differently because the universe is filled with a gas of only electron-specificy Higgs particles. What i dont understand is that if they are exactly the same particle, how can there be an electron specific type of the Higgs thingy? Wouldn't that imply something different about the electron? If they are both exactly the same, and the Higgs make the electrons behave as they do, why don't all the neutrinos becom…