Physics thread

...

still here to answer physics questions :)

got any cool physics videos?

Try this>>5899224

What's the Square Root of the state of Russia?

how does gravity and magnets work???

Not sure, but the change is proportional to Stalingrad :)

Gravity works as shown in the video essentially except instead of a 2D elastic sheet it warps 4D spacetime.

Magnetic fields are generated by currents (moving charge). If you move at the velocity of the electrons you see a pure electrostatic field but if they are moving you see a magnetic field to make equations of motion in the two frames equivalent.

Hello comrades Anonymous

...

Well he came up with general relativity which TBH is quite a bit harder than special relativity. He deserves a lot of credit.

still here reading my differential geometry textbook.

we can see magnetic fields using magnetic film sheet, is the magnetic field actually moving at incredible speed, or just became static? sorry for my retard grammar, my linguistic part of the brain somehow stopped working

What's that new particle? Uh, it was called 'god's particle' I think?
What it do?

The field is static. Changes in the field propagate at the speed of light.

Allows your to write a mass term for the electron in the standard model that is lorentz covariant and does not conserve parity. So basically a necessary part of theory because real.

why do my spaghetti o's keep making lightning

You put a spoon in the microwave. It will absorb all the microwaves and become exceedingly hot.

Does/would a tachyon have negative mass?

if i light up the brushwood and blow on it, i oxygenize it and it flames up. If i blow on a candle, it goes out. Why? Is it like when u r ice-skating the skates get cooler, cuz the energy gets transferred from skates to new, cold ice, instead of warming up from friction? Like i blow on the wick and the air drains the heat from it?

To put out a fire you either need to remove the fuel, oxygen or heat. When you blow on a candle the movement of the air across the wick removes the heat from the flame. This prevents the wax from reaching the temperature it needs to be at to burn and so puts out the fire.

Conversely when you blow on brushwood the heat is still there but trapped, you're just helping to circulate oxygen.

If an indestructible grain of sand traveling at the speed of light hit a person, how much damage would it cause?

Why is momentum (sort of the same as mass current) related to energy but electric charge current is not?

E^2 + (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2

Imaginary mass I would imagine. Not too sure.

The same thing happens when you blow on a candle gently. It burns brighter. If you blow too hard it goes out. This is the same as with the firewood except you have to blow a lot harder for it to go out.

no
double no

If you consider a single electron moving through space, it has a momentum and charge current associated with it.

Without the presence of other charges, the electron experiences no potential and hence no change in total energy.

Only in external potential where charge current is important (EM fields for instance) will the electron's charge affect its total energy.

One would more correctly write in lagrangian form L = ymc^2 - V where ymc^2 is the total relativistic kinetic energy (mass + kinetic) and V is the external potential.

so it is just like ice-skatng

I read in a book a while back that as an object approaches the speed of light (without actually reaching it obviously) its mass increases. Is this true and if so where does the mass come from?

On a completely separate note, how the fuck does the Hawking Radiation result in a net loss of mass from a black hole? Shouldn't there be an equal number of particles and antiparticles forming both inside and outside the event horizon resulting in the net gain/loss from quantum foam being 0? Or is there some law that presents antimatter from forming outside while matter forms inside because this would result in antimatter being created? Am I making sense?

f=ma
newtons law

you lazy fucker that's easy

No.

Burning is not a reversible process. A chemical reaction is going on which requires a certain activation energy to happen. This requires the average temperature to be higher for the reaction to be ongoing.

Blowing on any fire gently supplies it with more oxygen allowing it to burn more but blow too hard and you cool the fuel down below the critical point for combustion as said
. This applies to both candles and brushwood. Except you need to blow much harder on brushwood to get it to go out.

The ice skating analogy is confusing me. Skates stay cool because friction melts the ice below them so suddenly the skates are effectively dipped into an ice water bath so will remain at all times at freezing point (because any increase in heat will melt ice, not increase temperature).

Energy is mass. If you push a car with a stick up to near the speed of light you have supplied it with a bunch of kinetic energy. This kinetic energy will cause an increase in any measurement you make if, for instance, the car were to drive over some scales.

However if the car accelerated up to that velocity under its own power there would be no measured change in mass. Can you see why?

If you solve field theory equations around a black hole you should get a current of particles coming out from it. From far away this looks like radiation. The mechanism to make sense of this is that a particle and antiparticle are created but one particle falls into the black hole and the other escapes to infinity. Since they were created from nothing but prevented from going back to nothing, suddenly you have violated energy conservation unless the black hole decreases in mass.

If you knew some field theory this would be easier to understand because the particles form a vacuum loop diagram so are not necessarily on shell so can have a negative energy.

I figured as much but it never hurts to get a second opinion. I just wish my math was better.

Why does the electron have a g-factor (that is not 1.) Why is the electron not like a uniform ball of charge? I heard one model was a uniform ring of charge rotating at the speed of light but I don't understand that.

before they "melt the ice to be dunked into ice water" they r already being dunked into ice, u fuck. Ice skates r being cooled down with friction. The blades get cooler, not warmer. So is the wick.

...

...

ye, it finally struck u. Go curl up into a ball in the corner and die of shame.

If your lungs aren't made of lava, yes, blowing on a flame will cool it.

just like sliding a blade across ice

I can't decide if you're a professional moron or just a gifted amateur. Either way I'm done arguing. Have fun feeling like you've won because you got the last word. Simple mind, simple pleasures after all.

still better than havin no mind at all

When you measure the spin of an electron you basically look at the EM interaction between it and another test particle with some spin. The strength of the interaction is proportional to the g-factor. In quantum mechanics there should only be 1 magnetic interaction but in quantum field theory you can write down two diagrams (I would do it but there is no oekaki app) and both contribute so the factor is 2.

Actually it is slightly more cause we are only considering tree level (no loop) diagrams.

The electron has so far been found to have no lower bound to its radius so honestly we don't know what it really is.

there must be a bound, the center of an atom

Why is daddy's semen so sticky, compared to mybrothers?

...

How would one solve a double functional integral like ∫ T[f,g] [D f] [D g] where T[f,g] = ∂f/∂t ∂g/∂t?

...

Can i phisically slap you?

Is there an afterlife?

If the mathematics of the quantum relm conflicts with the mathematics of everything else does that imply that our system of math is wrong…

Call me a newfag if you want, but what is this symbol

Does the existence of the "god" particle mean that mass effect technology is possible?

...

...

...

Ireland might reunify.

dubs

OMG that's like a cute trap version of Kevin Rose.

Why do probability wave functions in QM needs to use complex numbers? I guess one could also use vectors or matrices but complex numbers are the most natural presentation because?

That's to give an orbital angular momentum. I always thought it was spin that was strange which is a property of a free electron.

The only functional integrals I have done have been gaussians (due to the path integral). The method there was to complete the square by transforming the functions. I don't know any other types that can be evaluated since i am not a mathematician.

Are f and g functions of more than 1 variable since you have partials? Also what tags give you latex?

The mathematics does not. The maths of basic QM is incredibly easy, it's the interpretation that's hard.

it's the Higgs boson, not God particle. What a silly name.

The answer is not that we know of yet. We only know about its interactions with the basic standard particles so far.

The complex plane is isomorphic to R2 so of course you can use 2 vectors. Most of basic QM is formulated in terms of matricies and vectors anyway.

The reason complex numbers are nice is that rotations are as easy as multiplying by e^ia where a is the angle. You could always use vectors and require a 2x2 rotation matrix but this is harder to work with as there are more numbers to deal with.

Also the euler identity means that travelling waves (of which a linear combination make up all QM) are expressed very nicely.

The problem with complex numbers is that they are limited to 2 dimensions. This is where geometric algebra comes into play which extends the idea of complex numbers to n dimensions. I am currently working on this.

wew

THAT MOTHE FUCKER

...