I am currently doing a presentation and i need some references but im quite lost rn. What are some good references for these subjects?

How do I Calculate the average thrust from propellant composition and volume for a mixture of powdered sugar and KNO3? (35% and 65% respectively) [I took powdered sugar composition as 6.97% cornstarch(C6H10O5) and 93.02%sugar (C12H22O110)]

Hi all! I am here to ask about the perception of the physics community of some journals. Apart from the top ones that we already know (Nature Physics, Rev. Mod. Phys., Science, etc), what is your opinion on

• Phys Rev series (not PRL)
• Communications physics
• npj series
• Scientific Reports

If you work in condensed matter as me, even better!

I've been working on a theory to show why space must dilate from the point of view of a photon in order for time dilation to appropriately affect external light trying to reach an observer.

tl; dr The foundation of it involves what I will call "Absolute space" -- which is essentially a timing space shared by all photons -- and "relative space" -- which is spacetime, and which dilates relativistically.

...

As we know, time dilates relative to an observer, either relative to the velocity of an observer, or as they progress into denser and denser gravity fields.

This relationship shows us that space must be dilating relative to a photon, and that as it enters into that space, it trades time in order to penetrate deeper into that space. And the time it trades is proportional to the dilation of space itself.

In order to demonstrate this, please see my theory as follows:

First, let us define time for the entire universe. Time is an unfoldment that happens in accord with the smallest, discretely measurable changes that occur within the universe. (Or within any given system.)

This means that whatever undergoes the most changes within a given time interval must be the second hand on that clock: and that thing is the photon, because it travels at the rate of causality.

Now, the argument is that it travels at the rate of causality... in a vacuum. But I am going to argue that it travels at the rate of causality unless it is interacting with something. And I'm going to argue that it does not interact with space.

In order to do this, let's state something else about causality, as the rate at which light travels in a vacuum: since each discreet change in location that can be measured for light correlates to the shortest interval in which anything else can be undergoing a change, then that means that (Δ location = Δ time) from the point of view of a photon.

In order to represent this spatially -- in the understanding that the motion of a photon is straight, unless that path is distorted by space -- we can represent the path of a photon with a straight line. So a photon will follow space, where relevant, but it will travel straight from its point of view. Let's call this straight line a "Light Line".

Once we have this straight line, the next step is to describe its component part. A single unit of this line.

And this definition is as follows: 1 unit of time on that line = 1 unit of space.

In fact, in order to do this we can use the existing units, the Planck length and Planck time.

Let's call this unit combining both a "Planck square": for each Planck length a photon travels, the universal clock ticks forward one unit of Planck time.

Now, let's make an assumption: because the rate of causality is the fastest rate at which any change can occur, it is in fact impossible for light to exist in different time frames relative to other light. They must all exist in the same time frame even if, externally, it looks like time dilates.

In order for this to happen, imagine all photons in the universe following Light Lines (as described above) running parallel to each other. This is what I am calling "Absolute Space": i.e. it is the universe from the point of view of the photon. And since there is no relevant time less than the time of least action for the photon, all photons MUST act at the same time.

Now, as you know, time dilation can occur. But the argument that I am making here is that it DOES NOT occur from the point of view of photons. Instead, space dilates.

We see the evidence all around us in relativity: Why does time slow from the perspective of an observer, relative to motion? Because the speed of light is a standard clock, measured by photons. If you are standing still, they measure that time at a standard rate, while covering a standard portion of space.

However, if you are in motion, the photons measuring that time now need to cover the same INTERNAL space, but more EXTERNAL space -- i.e. however much distance was covered in motion -- in a given second: it's like making the gears in a clock cover a physically larger distance in order to turn. (And in fact, this is why time dilation occurs).

So it is space dilating that slows down time. (This also applies to black holes. But it will be apparent -- in this model -- why that occurs once I finish explaining everything else).

So allow me to model this, starting over:

Imagine a black space filled with parallel Light Lines of all the photons. This is Absolute Space, and nothing about it ever changes: all of the light lines can be said to exist eternally in both directions (into the past and future) and all of the photons are always at the same place in their light line (the present moment, which they all count simultaneously); i.e., they are all on the same relative Planck Square (a timespace square, from which the least possible action is taken by the photon... meaning you can say the photons teleport from one square to the next, or that they travel, and it really makes no difference), no matter where their Light Line is in Spacetime itself.

These Light Lines are descriptions of the paths of photons in 2D space.

We need to bring them into the 3D universe, without changing their fundamental action, where one square of space always equates to one square of time, this relationship not changing with time dilation. (And, in fact, being what allows it, as I will describe.)

Before I continue, I will say one last thing: since the rate of the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the volume of 3D space that it traverses to a given destination must always be constant as well. But light must primarily travel the exact same number of Planck Squares as all other light. So how can this be possible? Allow me to explain.

Imagine absolute space. But imagine a single Light Line, made of Planck Squares. Now, imagine a square frame of space -- the center of which each Planck Square passes through.

This square represents relative space, so we'll call it a Space Frame. Each Planck Square passes through the center of a Space frame. And while Planck Squares don't shrink or grow because they are in Absolute Space (defined entirely by universal limits), Space Frames can shrink and graw.

The standard area of a space frame correlates to a 3D volume of space -- but, critically, it is not space itself. It is just a proportion of 3D space that allows us to say that 1 Planck Length = 1 Planck Time = 1 Standard Unit Space Frame.

1 Planck Length MUST always = 1 Planck Time, but these terms are only equal to 1 space frame in a vacuum, since all other space must be dilated.

Now, let's say a Light Line is going into a volume of space. If it is approaching an Object A, which is completely still, in the vacuum, there is no relativity needed.

But if it is approaching an Object B going away from it, and by the time it has caught up to Object B it will be at precisely the same location that Object A was, but moving at 4000 km/h, then what happens to the light that is approaching that object?

It has to deal with the fact that that object has shrunken frames of space.

So how does this look in the framework I've described?

What happens is that since light moves at an absolute speed, but space is shrunken, it can't go through as much volumetric space per Planck Length that it travels. And since the Planck Length correlates 1:1 to Planck Time, every time light uses an extra Planck Length to make up the distance between itself and its location, it loses -- relativistically -- one Planck Time, thus slowing down time from the perspective of the outside world.

It's very much like the vanishing point in art. If you can imagine a railroad headed away from the bottom of the frame of a painting, and into the distance, the rail road tracks come together until they squish into a point in the distance.

From the point of view of a photon, this is analogous to the fact that it would look like there isn't very much distance from where the tracks begin at the bottom of the painting to where they squish together at the vanishing point: but if you physically travelled that whole distance, it would unpack into the full length, and you would have to travel all of it.

However, for light in this framework I am describing, what is instead happening is that each relative "squish" of the train tracks uses up more time to travel that squished part of the track. (Which is, in fact, what happens if you try to travel a train track and want to measure how much time it would take by using the painting itself.)

So the more an object dilates space by squishing it, the more time it takes a photon to reach that object. It will always reach the object (unless that object is travelling at the speed of light), but the amount of time also correlates to the number of Planck Lengths (or Planck Squares, if you combine the two) that it has to use to reach it, and because of that, its wavelength is stretched out over those extra squares it had to travel, thus redshifting its energy.

We were going over this example of a banked curve problem in class in our circular motion unit and we’ve already covered force components and vector addition earlier this year.

The context is a car is driving along a banked curve, and our job was to determine the centripetal force algebraically using the basic terms (m, g, Ff). The car is moving at a constant speed and isn’t moving up or down the hill. (Look at the image below) in the answer given my teacher wrote that the Normal Force is equal to the Net Downward force (weight and the downward component of the friction force) divided by cosine theta. Earlier in the year we worked on many problems where the magnitude of the Normal Force was ALWAYS EQUAL to the Net downward force, and as such the only way to stop an object from moving down hill is to have another force applying up the hill, yet no he contradicted that by allowing the Normal force to be greater than the net downward force and couldn’t explain why that was the case. So is the Normal force able to be greater than the Net Downward force and if so, why? Or is it always equal and if so where is the extra vertical force component coming from to even out the net downward force so that the car isn’t accelerating into the ground, if there is one? Or is it something else entirely.

Image link: https://imgur.com/G4PbSkS

I'm working on my AP Physics hw, and I'm stuck on a problem regarding the change in linear speed of balls swinging around a center as the length of the string increases. The question is, in summary, "by what factor does the linear speed of a ball swinging around a cylinder via an attached string change when the length of the string is doubled?" edit: the string is slowly let out via a mechanism in the center.

The problem that I'm hitting is, by conservation of linear momentum, it doesn't seem like its linear speed should change at all, but by conservation of rotational kinetic energy, it should be 1/2 the speed. Could someone explain this to me?

Also, 1/2 was an answer and 1 was not, so...

Hey guys, I’ve been researching QFT a lot as of late and while researching, I found that there were apparently two different types of QFT one being local QFT’s and the other being non-local QFT. This has caused me a lot of confusion and I was hoping someone could clear the confusion I have.

1. Which of the two is preferred by most physicists and why?

2. Outside of the locality, are there any major differences in prediction between the two QFT formulations?

How do local QFT’s account for the non locality of QM as proven by Bell’s inequality and related experiments?

Title question. I think people trying to learn more about physics is generally great and gatekeeping the subject is super lame but sometimes the way social and mainstream media portrays certain physics fields gives me a headache.

For example, I kind of hate the way a lot of people talk about Quantum Computing. I find it crazy how some media sources or companies let people believe that we're anywhere close to publicly available reliable quantum computers. And I cannot stand discussions about QC company stocks and using it to do industrial things like mine crypto.

Idk maybe I'm just a hater.

Teachers teach formulas I get it, but when I asked what these formulas are here for, he was like "what do you mean?", officially they are there to read and learn; I asked what to learn and he lost me. Formulas are basically here to measure a thing and tell to other guy because you can't tell it to the other guy how it was or done, formulas gives precise value. You could create your own formulas to understand something, but universal formula's everybody knows so your's only you could understand and others will have a hard time understanding them and waste time. Teachers are dead dumb not knowing why they are used, ask to your teacher and you'll know the answer—"it's they are selling you on worthless information".

I could use chatgpt to get formulas if I need for a project, instead of going school learning everything that doesn't even contribute to what I am doing, such a waste for humanity's time. Most kids are dumb, only growing like a normal kid and getting a job and dying like a piece of shit with no money in the pocket, those normal kids they need to go to school to learn how to serve other kids that haven't gone to school, so don't waste your time with those kids. Maybe their kids will change, alpha generation will be something. Schools are just for launguage learning and writting, and a little bit of basics. I will rather work in McDonald's for 14 years than waste my time in college degrees.

So I’m doing an experiment for school and idk what’s going on!!

I measured the initial temperature of a stainless steel spring, 73.4 Fahrenheit, at room temperature.

Then I placed it in hot water for about ten minutes. Pulled it out with metal tongs and it was at 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

I leave it on the side to cool down, expecting it to go back down to room temperature, but instead, it becomes 70.1 degrees Fahrenheit?? Why did it get colder?

Is my thermometer broken??? Edit: infrared thermometer btw

Considering that light always travel a c no matter the frame of reference, am I correct to assume that it is an absolute limit, an impossible speed to reach; so is it what we would call an infinite speed ?

Therefore, I can not understand why we observe the speed of light having a finite number (c) from any frame of reference.

I am surely not aware or misunderstand some concepts of reality laws.

Hey guys I am looking to exchange some projects ideas and knowledge to expand knowledge 😉 any groups I could join to do that? Any meetings meetups? 💪🏿

Because there is no friction in space wouldn't that mean that if you shot a gun in space the bullet would go on forever(assume it won't collide with anything). And because it would go on forever woulde t that make it in perpetual motion? If so I thought that perpetual motion is impossible according to thermodynamics

This is probably a very simple question, but I wasn’t really taught physics in school. Please don’t call me an idiot in your reply haha

As I understand it, high levels of radiation will generally decay organic matter. But, how does it affect inorganic matter; for example, if I were to just bombard my PC or my house with gamma rays, what would happen? I know items can slowly become discoloured (or at least I have been told that the American flag on the moon is pure white by now), but would this happen to inorganic matter even if their colouration has not been caused by an organic pigment?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I just thought of this and now I'm curious. I know the spin of charged particles can be measured by passing them through a magnetic field, but to my understanding the same results would occur if you measured a zero-spin particle with some angular momentum around an axis.

I'm aware that some properties of spin like the Pauli exclusion principle allow you to get measurements that way, but I'm more wondering whether non-spin angular momentum affects dynamics in a way that spin doesn't.

Thanks!

This has been bugging me. All of our stellar data is tainted by our distance from the stars we're looking at. At some point, we'd have to be so far away from Earth's frame of reference that our measurements would be meaningless, right? All the stuff in the universe is moving and evolving and where you are in it determines what information you're receiving from the stars. So, every star in the sky would be in a different part of its timeline at any other place in the universe and that sounds like a problem that's just too big to solve. Like Trying to figure out the design on a tapestry by looking at the tassels.

just found out about antiparticles. first of all, are these actual things that exist? and secondly if so, can we take an antiproton and a positron and make an "antihydrogen"

I think I understand Bernoulli's principle, but why does air speed up as it moves over the upper part of an airfoil? I watched a video that said that the bottom and the top of the airstream don't even reach the end simultaneously. Is it because vol/time remains constant and the top part has a longer way to travel? I don't know. I understand how it works in a pipe, but not in free air.

I assume RGB (O)LEDs are less efficient than white LEDs because I've read OLED panels need more power to function compared to LED backlight (at same luminocity). As backlight panels function by filtering out frequencies, OLEDs themselves are vastly (could be more than 3 times) less efficient compared to white LEDs.

As R/G/B/W are just some bands of frequencies of photons, I don't see any fundamental reasons for the inefficiency. What is the reason? Which of R/G/B are most inefficient and why?

Title, really. And how is information defined?

I’m confused on the physical interpretation of gas pressure inside the volume of a container.

I am comfortable with the idea that pressure arises on the walls of the container due to the constant elastic collisions of molecules with the wall.

I just don’t understand how this extends to the rest of the gas in the container: does it make sense to think about a pressure throughout the gas?

It seems like it would directly depend on the rate of molecule-molecule collisions, and would not necessarily be tied to the pressure on the walls.

Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

I've been exploring an approach to the three-body problem that trades precise position predictions for more reliable general behavior predictions. The key idea is removing time from the equations entirely.

Instead of trying to calculate exact positions, we map out:

• Possible system configurations (like triangular arrangements, binary+single arrangements, etc.)
• Which configurations can transform into others
• Which states are stable vs unstable
• Natural barriers between different configurations

Think of it like weather forecasting - we can't predict exact temperatures weeks ahead, but we can reliably predict patterns and ranges. Similarly, this approach might let us predict things like:

• Whether a triple star system will remain stable
• If one body is likely to be ejected
• Which configurations the system naturally gravitates toward
• Probability of transitions between different states

Initial mathematical testing looks promising because:

• It works with the chaos rather than fighting it
• Reveals natural patterns in the system's behavior
• Could provide reliable long-term predictions (even if less precise)

Has anyone seen similar approaches? I'm particularly interested in:

• Related work in celestial mechanics
• Applications to other chaotic systems
• Mathematical frameworks for this kind of state-space analysis

Would love to hear thoughts from people working in dynamics, chaos theory, or celestial mechanics.

Edit: This isn't about solving the three-body problem exactly, but rather about making it more practically useful by focusing on general behaviors instead of exact positions.

The revised title better sets up reader expectations and makes the practical value more immediately clear. Would you like me to adjust anything else?

Is QFT local or non-local?

What are the known limits of QFT and what new physics is theorized to be needed to fix it?

In QFT, each particle/antiparticle gets its own field. Would it be possible to formulate a QFT where all particles are excitations of one underlying field instead of each particle having its own field and why was it formulated such that each particle had its own field.

Hi this is Bob I got a question about my second site

Hi this is Bob I got a question about my second site

For a fine structure state |nLSJ⟩, how to find the relation between ⟨n′L′SJ′|r^2|nLSJ⟩ and ⟨n′L′|r^2|nL⟩?

hi all! I’m a little over half way through undergrad and majoring in computer science, and I’m going to be starting physics next semester. My only exposure to physics in the past was in high school during Covid, and remember practically nothing.

I took calc 1 already, and will be taking calc 2 aside physics 1.

According to the syllabus, these concepts will be covered

• mechanics
• kinematics
• force
• newtons laws of motion
• work and energy
• momentum
• rotation motion
• torque
• angular momentum
• conservation laws
• gravity
• harmonic motions

I’m just looking for any programming project ideas that will help me apply and learn the concepts I learn, and as a plus look impressive on my resume

Sorry for the probably silly question. Given the equations U = PV, P = BT² I want to find the fundamental equation. Since P cannot depend on N, I know that U only depends on S and V. Therefore, also S only depends on U and V. However, if I calculate S using this equation: d(S/N) = ds = (1/T)du + (P/T)dv Given that 1/T = Əs/Əu and P/T = Əs/Əv, I get S = 2UV + kN, where k is an integration constant. So S depends on N or not??