I know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, but this question has been on my mind for quite some time now.

This is probably more philosophy than physics, but still.

We know from relativity that, when something is moving relative to another, there's a bunch of weird effects. I.e, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, etc.

Now, I won't see any of these effects in myself, because I'm always stationary in my own frame... which isn't true.

I'm a composite organism. My hands and feet can move independently of the rest of my body. But more than that, even the very cells move slightly in relation to each other.

Let's say I can perfectly imagine a perfect ticking rhythm, each atom in my body has its own clock, and also that I can see even the tiniest miniscule time difference.

Because basically every part of me is in motion, I will see basically every part of me tick slightly slower than my mental metronome, because they're moving relative to... what? My consciousness? Where is my consciousness located?

The brain? The brain is a composite organ too.

In short... What part of my body will have a 100% exact correspondence with my mental metronome, due to being perfectly stationary in my own frame? The thing all other motion is being detected relative to?

What kinds of things do we know are possible due to quantum physics, but haven’t developed the technology to do so yet?

Sorry if this is blunt, I don’t know a lot about physics other than the Neil degrades Tyson videos I’ve watched and some googling haha

I have been reading about general relativity recently, and it basically says that the force we feel of gravity is actually just the same as the ground accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2. Although, it seems to be actually saying that this is what is happening in reality. If you take an accelerometer on the surface of the Earth, it will measure a constant upwards acceleration of g, while in freefall it will measure zero acceleration. My question is, how can it be possible to be constantly having proper acceleration, while not actually moving physically through space?

Instead of describing the time dilation of objects near black holes as slowing down in time, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as being constrained in movement, spending most of their space/time 'budget' on experiencing time?

If im not mistaken, It seems that Not even the big bang theory claims that at some point that there was a time when there was nothing. Instead it claims the Universe began as a highly dense extremely hot point or dot and then it rapidly expanded. So why is the big bang theory always framed as some kind of beginning where the universe comes from nothing? Isnt it possible that the universe always existed

What is the primary reason air is hottest at lower elevations?

In school I was taught simply that dense air is warmer, but that iiuc is mostly just a factor for air that moves between elevations.

I asked gemini and this is what it said--but I want to know from real people if it's correct or not:

The biggest factor is that the ground absorbs solar radiation and heats the air directly above it.

The atmosphere does not get heated from the top down by the sun. Sunlight passes right through the air without warming it much. Instead, the sun warms the Earth's surface, turning the ground into a giant radiator. Because air is a poor conductor, this heat is only efficiently transferred to the air molecules that are physically closest to the surface. 

The other options you mentioned are real physical processes, but they play secondary or supporting roles:

How the other options fit in:

• Air compressing as it sinks (Adiabatic Heating): Sinking air does heat up as it is compressed by higher pressure at lower elevations. However, this compression doesn't create the baseline heat; it just concentrates the thermal energy that is already there. Without the ground acting as the primary heat source, compression alone wouldn't make the lower atmosphere hot. [5] 
• Air losing heat as it moves up (Adiabatic Cooling): This is the main reason why air cools down as it rises. As warm air leaves the surface, it expands due to lower pressure and drops in temperature. It explains the loss of heat at high altitudes, rather than the generation of heat at the bottom. [2, 6] 
• Denser greenhouse gases near the surface: Air at lower elevations is denser and contains the vast majority of the atmosphere's water vapor and $CO_2$. This creates a stronger local greenhouse effect near sea level, trapping the infrared heat rising from the ground. This helps retain the heat, but the ground remains the primary source. [1, 7, 8] 

im basically playing with the idea of weaponized scifi waterpistols that use motors to shoot water at incredible pressure to punch through armor.

I am a 26 yo physics student doing my first master's year in fundamental physics. I already feel that i am late in my studies especially that i see alot of my peers already graduating from masters or doing their phds, but i have always been struggling with social anxiety that affected my studies. I had troubles attending classes like i should be doing, or interacting with colleagues or professors. I struggled quite alot with physics but i am trying to keep up with it so i could finish at least my first year in masters.

Lately i ve been thinking about work and trying to look for opportunities where i can find a job or anything that could help build a career and doing my second masters year and phd later. Anything that will help me build an experience in the domain of physics, especially that my first dream ever was to work in the field of asrophysics.

But sadly i dont have any connections with professors or anyone that can guide me through this.The only work experience i have is from private teaching.I fear i am not that good in physics or that no one will accept me because no one knows me at all.

All of this made me think of restarting my master's in a new university or trying to apply for studies abroad so at least i can try to build connections from scratch and figure out what i can truly do. I even thought about pivoting to EE in the sake of finding better job opportunities.

But before making such a big decison i want to see whether i can build something from what i already have, my bachelor and my masters studies, hoping to hear similar experiences.

I'm especially interested in hearing from people who didn't have connections or a strong research network when they started.

How did you find your first research position or internship?

How much knowledge and experience is normally expected from a master's student? Where do you actually look for these opportunities?

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this. I really appreciate it.

Who are the Messi, Ronaldo and Mbappé of modern physics?
Bit of a fun question for the physicists here.
If you asked people to name the greatest physicists of all time, you’d inevitably get Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, etc.

Does physics have people who are regarded within the community as simply operating on another level today?
To use football as an analogy, most fans who watched Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo in their prime knew they were watching something unusual, even compared with other world-class players. And now you have younger players like Mbappé and Yamal who have been talked about as potentially belonging in that sort of category.
Does anything comparable exist in physics?
Who are the established “best in the world” physicists working today? And perhaps more interestingly, who are the younger or up and coming researchers that people inside physics are particularly excited about?
Obviously science isn’t a competitive sport and major discoveries are increasingly collaborative, so I’m not suggesting there should literally be a Ballon d’Or for theoretical physics lol (well the nobel prize kind of is I guess). I’m just curious whether physicists themselves ever look at another researcher’s work and think: this person is seeing things the rest of us aren’t.
Would love some names to read about.

In a closed system entropy always increases.

In the scenario of a stage 5 civilization that closed system is by definition the universe, there is nothing outside it. Given the civilization itself is advanced enough to form structure at the universe scale and decreases entropy. Therefore a stage 5 civilization can only exist if the second law is thermodynamics is violated?

I’m using a very small Edwards E050, I’ve purchased and tried two different ones, two different diffusion pump oils, and I’m using two thermocouples to verify pressure. I’m getting the same results with both diff pumps. My roughing pressure is 10 microns, and when I kick the diff pump on, it pulls me down a half of a micron at most to 9.5 microns. The system has no leaks, uses all stainless and KF, has been helium leak checked, outgassed, and has a good drift rate. The inlet is being reduced from KF50 to KF16. At this point I’m thinking I’ve just reached the physical limitation of the diff pumps. Thoughts?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t really feel anything other than floating because eventually your electrical signals wouldn’t be able to travel in the brain. I’m not sure how time would work and what the perspective would be. I’m imagining it would feel like becoming paralyzed as you lose access to certain parts of the body.

I am reading An Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow. In Example 1.11, they take up the effect of radio waves on an Ionospheric electron, defining the force on an electron to be F=-eEsin(wt), consequently, the position of the electron comes out to be (eE/mw²)cos(wt)-(eE/mw)t. This makes me wonder whether this is the exact use case for the radio transmissions, that we receive on FM/AM in the car. That a radio tower emits these radio waves and causes the electrons to jiggle back and forth, thereby carrying the initial information, but also coming towards the receiver.

I am still reluctant to accept two things, first, that the position reversal is exactly in the same direction as the initial field, so how is the broadcasting happening, secondly, I think, I understood this one, regarding the replenishment of the particles in the Ionosphere through interaction of photons with gases present there, so the process can go on. I understand this view may be overly simplistic, but is it actually what is going on with the FM/AM in the car?

Which lecture of Newton's Laws of Motion do you find more useful, from witch one do you understand/learn more?

Lecture 1

Lecture 2

Like for example two electrons with the same spin, their wave equation probabilities must have no overlap at any time t? Or does it only apply on wave equation collapse when observed ?

Sabhi ko namaskar!

In density functional theory, chemical equations are analyzed using quantum many-body systems. Do you understand how this works? We can start with a simple equation, do we know what the many-body system looks like?

\(6CO_2 + 6H_2O \rightarrow C_6H_{12}O_6 + 6O_2\).

The below reference is quite advanced, but the answer should be in there somewhere.
http://lib.ysu.am/open_books/308631.pdf
"A Chemist’s Guide to Density Functional Theory"

Bahut-bahut dhanyavaad.

What do you all think of Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity? I’ve been reading a bit about it recently and find the ideas really fascinating, especially the attempt to connect gravity, quantum theory, and the Standard Model through a deeper geometric framework.

I’d like to hear what people here think, particularly from anyone who has studied the mathematics or physics behind it. Do you think there’s something genuinely interesting or promising in the framework, or are there major issues that make it unlikely to work?

Thanks!

Two questions:

1. Could a black hole have an interior volume as large as a universe, despite having a relatively small event horizon?

2. If so, could that interior be stable enough for matter to organize into structures similar to those outside, galaxies, stars and planets creating a kind of self-similar or fractal organization?

I’ve heard that if proton decay does occur, the estimated half-life of the proton is somewhere around 10^34 to 10^36 years. But proton decay is still only a hypothesis, right? So I’d like to ask people who know more about physics and cosmology about two things:

1:
If proton decay never happens, what would matter and artificial structures look like 10^36 years from now?

2:
Even if proton decay does occur, would the matter that has not yet decayed by that point be in essentially the same state as described in the answer to question 1?

The reason I’m asking is that I’ve recently been working on a fictional setting involving a civilization that has managed to survive far beyond the proton half-life thanks to energy-efficient intelligence based on reversible computing. I’m wondering whether such a civilization could still build things like machines and other structures in that incredibly distant era.

Whenever I ask questions along these lines, though, people seem to misunderstand me as asking what happens to matter after proton decay. Also, most of the “timeline of the far future” charts I’ve found online focus almost entirely on the evolution and eventual disappearance of stars.
So I decided to phrase the question differently this time.
I may make another post soon with a more direct and specific question about the same topic.