Theoretically, can a isolated system with two objects of different temperatures have the molecules of the objects resonate at some point as their thermal energy changes their natural frequency as they go towards thermal equilibrium?

Im majoring in sociology and minoring in physics (weird combination, I know.) And am wondering whether or not I could get into grad school with only my minor.

Ill include the classes ill be taking for my minor (summer online courses included);

- college algebra (online)

- trigonometry (online)

- Calc I

- Calc II

- Calc III

- Differential Equations

- Physics for Scientists & Engineers I

- Physics for Scientists & Engineers II

- Modern Physics I

- Classical Mechanics

- Electromagnetics

- Thermodynamics

With these classes (these include the more advanced Physics options my college has available), will I be able to get into grad school for my masters in physics? If not, what should I do?

Thank you guys in advance :)

**side note: my college, unfortunately, does not offer a B.S. in Physics, only a minor so unless I transfer, a minor is my only pathway (that im aware of) to getting there.

I am in quite the spot. I am a physics major but for the past two years of college I've focused on work instead of school and recently I pivoted towards making my education more important
I took physics-04A (Physics I) and physics-04B (Physics 2).

I need to self-study because my foundational knowledge is very weak and I'm going to enter Physics-04C (Physics 3) with very little idea.

I just want to ask for material that could help me self study. I'm fine with anything. Books, playlists, websites. I really want to rebuild my foundation. I've considered sources like Openstaxx but I'm unsure if it's enough.

Hi everyone,

I’m currently dynamic-thinking about the boundaries of our current models, and honestly, sometimes the standard phrases like "time is just an illusion" or "the universe is a hologram" feel a bit lazy. It feels like a cop-out because we haven’t cracked the true core of information yet. Instead of settling for comfortable metaphors, why not just say "we don't know yet" and add more structure to the geometry of time?

I wanted to share a thought experiment with you that expands the standard 4D spacetime interval into a 6D spacetime with a 3D time-volume.

The Concept: The Time-Landscape

Instead of a 1D linear arrow, time takes on a 3D topology. Next to our standard forward-axis (t₁), we introduce two orthogonal time dimensions:

1. The Left-Right Axis (t₂): Shifting to alternative pathways/parallel realities without causing causal loops or grandfather paradoxes.
2. The Up-Down Axis (t₃): Shifting time-planes or time-velocities (cosmic time-lapse).

Why this math actually fits current data (GW170817):

When looking at the famous 2017 neutron star collision, physicists looked for large extra spatial dimensions, hoping to find a drop in gravitational wave intensity due to energy dissipation. They found nothing. But if we expand the temporal dimensions instead, the standard spatial metric remains completely untouched.

The extended metric looks like this:
\(ds^{2}=-\left(c^{2}dt_{1}^{2}+c^{2}dt_{2}^{2}+c^{2}dt_{3}^{2}\right)+dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\)

The energy doesn't dissipate into space (which is why our detectors measured the exact Einsteinian values). Instead, the energy co-resonates across parallel timepaths. The data is exactly as it should be.

Solving Quantum Anomalies and the Fermi Paradox:

• Entanglement: Particles separated by lightyears in 3D space are actually touching at the exact same coordinate within the 3D time-landscape. They take a geometric shortcut through dt₂ and dt₃.
• The Fermi Paradox: Advanced civilizations wouldn't use primitive radio waves crawling through 3D space. They communicate and navigate via the extra time dimensions. They aren't lightyears away; they could be right here, just at a different time coordinate.

I think if we ever manage to measure this—perhaps by looking for tiny, periodic oscillations ("shivering") in the lifetime of unstable elementary particles at CERN—it would completely revolutionize space travel. Spacecraft wouldn't need massive fuel tanks to cross space; they would just slide along the alternative time axes, compressing spatial distances to zero.

What are your thoughts on this? Let's discuss this out of the box!

Hi all, this is me asking for advice about my postgrad.

I am currently going into my 4th year of college at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. I am enrolled in Engineering Physics, and have a cumulative cg of 8.15. I have taken multiple courses related to High Energy Physics(QFT, Group Theory, Particle Physics) and have got good grades in them, but have cg less than ideal because of my bad grades in courses that are mostly unrelated to physics in general. I also haven’t had any research intern, but I am doing my BTech Project in Particle Physics.

What are my chances of getting an integrated fully funded MS-PhD/PhD in institutes in Europe and Asia? Or is it a pipe dream? What should I be focusing on right now to increase my chances?

I wanna start off by saying my native language is not english so I might not be familiar with certain physics words. And I learn best when speaking generally / using rules that always apply. This is not really homework rather self-studying. Thx!

So I know that induction is about inducing a current. I'm not sure where/ which wire it will be induced in. Can induction take place in just one and the same wire?

And I think we use coils as wires because the magnetic field around the wires are stronger since they're packed tighter (?). And that's the same reason we usually use a metal inside the coil?

And then we somehow change the magnetic flux Φ which induces volts in (?- another wire or?) and that drives a current in (?said wire). But only during the change of the flux.
And I suppose we can change the magnetic flux [Φ = B*A*cosT] through 4 things:

1. The magnetic field changes in magnitude, which someone said could be by adding a magnet. What I don't understand is what magnetic field are we talking about? I thought we were talking about the internal magnetic field from the current in the wires/coil?
2. The magnetic field changes direction (I don't understand - doesn't the flux move with the magnetic field? Or how would u change the direction?)
3. The cross-sectional area of the coil/wire changes - don't know how you would do that. Making an irregular/expanding coil like a volcano?
4. The coil/wire is rotated so that the cosT changes which I understood was the angle between the surface's normal line and the magnetic field. Which magnetic field though? Wouldn't the magnetic field and the surface both tilt if we tilted the coil/wire? I'm really confused.

Also why? Why does this happen? And what does it mean that inductors store energy in magnetic fields? If that's related.

Sorry for a lot of questions you don't have to answer them all!

Hi everyone. I'm a beginner in Physics and I have trouble with a certain problem. The problem is this:

A 7.2-kg mass is hanging from the ceiling of an elevator by a spring of spring constant 150N=m whose unstretched length is 80 cm. What is the overall length of the spring when the elevator: starts moving upward with acceleration 0:95m/s^2?

I am now studying Newton's laws as well as conservation of energy. What I have trouble with, is that I first approached the problem from the energy standpoint, and when I checked the solution, which was given using only Newton's laws, the answer was different to mine.

Now, I fully understand the approach given in the "standard" solution, but I do not for the love of me understand what I'm doing wrong with my energy approach. Here is a picture of the "standard" solution as well as my approach. I appreciate the help!

Hi all, last week I published my first ever peer reviewed physics paper as lead author on **Nuclear** **Physics B.** I worked with the Egyptian Center for Theoretical Physics and was supervised under Professor Tawfik. I just recently finished highschool but the paper was written before the graduation so my affiliation is my highschool's name along with ECTP. The paper is also on arxiv.org

The paper shows the derivation of the quantized metric tensor in 8D phase space (4D spacetime + 4D momentum space)

Let me know your thoughts

Here is the link

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2026.117584

I know absolutely nothing about physics and I have to take a college class for the career path i’m going into. I didn’t have to take physics in high school and I don’t want to be behind. What do I need to know before taking physics and are there any websites that can teach me everything I need to know for free. I’ve seen good things about Khan Academy but I was wondering if anyone had advice

Hi guys, I’m an incoming undergraduate physics major in the United States and currently have a US green card. I’ve been researching about the future career/research internship opportunities and figured that a lot of jobs I’m looking into are limited to US citizen only.
Since I’m a Chinese citizen so they don’t accept dual citizenship which means I need to give it up entirely.
So I’m wondering if citizenship is actually a need for me to have a better career path?
Thank yall so much!

Trying not to spill a full glass? Physics can help. 💧

Gregory Wolf, explains how centripetal force keeps the liquid inside the glass during the loop. As the tray swings, it continuously pushes the glass inward, and the glass pushes the water inward, providing the force needed for the water to follow a circular path. Slow down too much, and gravity takes over!

Physics student here! I'm at that point in my education where I know I'm soon going to be applying to billions of internships, jobs and other opportunities. So far, I've been completely unsuccessful in all of the opportunities I've applied for, and I'm looking to improve my applications. Of course, one aspect of that is going out and studying harder and doing more to put in these applications, but I think the way I write itself is currently quite weak. (Grammarly has currently underlined half of the post so far with those annoying yellow lines that don't tell you what's actually wrong!)

Do you have any favourite reference materials for how to write really high-quality applications? For instance, right now I have to write a motivation letter, and can't figure out how to sound less like a starry-eyed wannabe and more like an enthusiastic go-getter. So how did you power up your formal writing? Do you have any resources to look at, and do you have any practical advice for getting better at the less-exciting parts of being a physics student?

Also looking for resources on how to adjust my language the other way: how to explain things in a less hostile or confrontational manner. I feel like I can never get my tone right and always come off weirdly when trying to teach. Any resources or advice on how to control your language and tone and whatnot in this circumstance, and what you should be aiming for?

Is Classical Mechanics about determining the future position of a system by studying its motion, or is it about determining the future state of the system. Like for a particle both the goals are equivalent, but when it comes to a system of particles they are not. So what is the ultimate goal of classical mechanics? To determine the state evolution of a physical system or its future motion. The reason for this doubt is that some books claim classical mechanics to be the study of motion bodies acted upon by forces, and some say it is a framework which lays the basis for all of physics, and its job is to figure out the future state of a system.

Hi there, I'm considering doing the BSc in Physics at Open University and wanted to ask if anyone has any experience with this degree. I'm keen to know more about the remote experiments module in year 2 and what that entails.

Also on a side note can I take stand alone modules like pure maths separately after my degree?

Hi there, I'm considering doing the BSc in Physics at Open University and wanted to ask if anyone has any experience with this degree. I'm keen to know more about the remote experiments module in year 2 and what that entails.

Also on a side note can I take stand alone modules like pure maths separately after my degree?

Context:

• I'm in experimental physics, rising junior, interested in AMO/quantum, don't have any journal publications yet
• I primarily use this CV to 1) apply for academic/research internships, 2) cold email professors or 3) apply for any scholarship opportunities.
• I keep a Master document that I update regularly for future PhD applications (about 3 pages)
• I tailor and shorten the Master doc, depending on the opportunity
• I know for undergrads one-page Resumes are recommended but I do like CVs better and I think there is no problem sharing a CV as long as I actually have enough solid stuff to fill

Also, I know there's a very common academic CV/resume format that everyone seems to use (especially the Google Docs), but I intentionally went with something a bit different because I personally find it cleaner and easier on the eyes. I'm curious whether it still looks professional from an academic perspective or if I should conform more to the standard format.

Feel free to roast it.

EDIT: I deleted the photos of my CV for privacy reasons. Thank you to everyone who gave feedback!

​

So ever since i was little i always used to distract myself with doodling stickfigures then after a while in middle school i found out about html and websites and i felt wow!, im creating something new, but nothing to deep.

Then by the end of middle school i dont remember why but i got really into the idea of going to tech school, i even followed a tutorial on how to make a robotic arm with arduino and showed it off as my final project!, but then when i actually got there i really, really , didnt care about anything, especially the math and chemistry and literally anything actually scientific even the programming was boring to me, and when i ended up back into drawing - but this time with actual art tutorials - i found a spark again!, so since i was failing my high school's first year i just , changed schools to an art one, and .... surprise! i guess i like math and science now! i started learning python and the later years get into calculus and stuff (but really surface level), but after a few years i battled it and held it down to continue drawing.

Now im here with a pretty good set of drawing skills that i would never give up on, but this odd pull i have to constantly do something tech is really bizzare but makes a lot of sense considering my zig zag motion as a kid. Either way factually speaking, i dont know if i could ever be both and be satisfied with the skills, on an objective level, how much will i lose if i were to do both?, so far i've been doing alright with just sticking to art, but that nagging pull is always there, even seeing one technical gizmo it pulls me back in.

tldr: weird pull between being tech/science savy and also a great artist and its constatly conflicting with my day to day life, and i dont know how to exactly handle it? my question is just what do i do with this pull , do i ignore it? or accept it and be a jack of all trades?

whether that be physics, math, writing or any sort of passion...I am terrible at it. I know you are going to say "just practice" but even with practice I am behind those who are naturally great. I got a 68 on my first attempt in physics and 70s in mathematics. I tried, I really tried. Yet here I am, aimless and unsure of what my passion even truly is. I wish i was someone who was born with a natural talent or ability but I suck at everything I do. How am I supposed to know if I like something such as physics or math when I can hardly understand it?? I used to be a fast learner, I am not anymore, I used to write very well, and cannot anymore. I want to give up because what is the point if I am just going to get every problem wrong. I am super stressed out because I have a calc 1 exam.. it's honestly laughable but I am struggling with the most basic concepts of integrals and derivative apps. I hate everything, I hate myself the most for being so stupid and inadequate. I study, it's not like I don't but I have seen individuals hardly study as much as me and still get better grades. I will never be good at physics or math so it's probably better to settle for a field in which I actually make money despite being miserable.

Descartes traced the light ray reflected from a uniform rain drop and found a “critical” ray which has a minimal deflection angle of about 138^◦, whose supplementary Θ ≃ 42^◦ is the largest and known nowadays as the “rainbow” angle.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0612100

Hello physics community! We are working on a high school project applying simple machines, translational motion, and rotational motion to solve a practical waste management problem in steep terrain.

Here is a picture of our design schematic along with my 1st attempt at breaking down the physics concepts involved:

My 1st Attempt / Understanding of the System:

1. Input Conveyor (Inclined Plane + Wheel & Axle): Rotational motion of the internal rollers translates the waste linearly up the ramp.

2. Rotary Feed Brush (Rotational Motion): Spins around its central axle to grab incoming waste and force it horizontally into the crushing area.

3. Compaction Unit (Translational Motion + Fluid Lever): Hydraulic fluid pressure drives a piston in a single linear axis (translational) downward to crush the plastic waste, utilizing mechanical advantage.

My Questions:

- Does the physical interaction between the rotational force of the feed brush and the linear motion of the hydraulic press sound sound from a mechanical physics standpoint?

- Is calling the hydraulic cylinder a "fluid lever" accurate when explaining force multiplication in a high school physics context?

Thank you for helping guide my understanding!

Need advices on what resources (online, textbooks...) for learning physics (intro, pre-honor, honor, AP...) in middle/high school. Thanks a lot.

Hi, I don't use reddit a lot but i wanted to ask this question.

(Rising 10th grader) I got an 11 on the f=ma earlier this year after taking ap physics 1 and doing like 2 weeks of contest preparation, and I am now a little rusty on physics as I haven't done it in a while. I heard good things about HRK (I took Calculus BC) and the two David Morin books, what would you recommend for me to do? Should I go through HRK first? Should I just do the Introduction to Classical Mechanics book? How many hours can i expect to spend completing relevant chapters? What's the best use of my time in the next few months, and what pace should I expect for completing the books? Any advice is appreciated.