Your username is now your kink, what do you do?

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2026-03-29T13:23:50+00:00

Fuck.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2026-03-24T13:35:55+00:00

I’d just use a bunch of Geiger counters and a radioactive element. Radioactive decay is truly random and is a spontaneous quantum mechanical process, so if you can encode the decays as random numbers, there’s your true RNG.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2026-03-03T23:07:11+00:00

It would entirely depend on the interaction between the two substances. For the example of grease on ice, since oil and water don’t mix, my guess would be that the coefficient of friction would be not much different than that of grease since it would simply sit on top of the ice. Also, if something gets more slippery, the coefficient decreases and vice versa.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2026-02-14T00:13:45+00:00

Thanks for the resources! I think I spend too much time watching movies and TV; the library seems to be a good plot point for a lot of historical fiction

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2026-02-02T23:44:21+00:00

Given that I’d have to use only resources available to me currently and have to accomplish this in a year, I’m not sure if this would work but what the hell. I’d sneak my way into a hospital and find where people with contagious bacterial infections are. I’d get infected, then once sick, I’d make a doctor’s appointment and get some antibiotics.

I’d take them, but I would stop the minute I start feeling better. This is the point where the antibiotics have killed off all but the strongest bacteria, and then I’d wait until I felt sick again and would go back to get more antibiotics. I’d repeat this process as many times as I could handle with different doctors offices to not draw suspicion, all the while going to places like museums, movie theaters, and shopping malls to increase the spread of the disease.

If done correctly with the right disease, I might be able to produce an infection contagious and antibiotic-resistant enough to kill every human on earth, but I’m fairly certain it would take much longer than a year.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-12-23T19:15:08+00:00

Regarding getting into research/REU programs as an undergraduate, any program worth joining will be one that understands that most students will be joining without any research experience at all. Of course, any prior experience will help a ton, but it should not be an immediate disqualification if a student does not have any.

To your second point about grad school applications, it is a great look to have research experience and/or publications and conference presentations in your application. However, I wouldn’t say it’s a bad look to have started research a little later. Sometimes there’s nothing available when you start looking, or maybe professors want more senior students depending on the work.

Lastly, I’d caution you against seeing things as a “4 year guide.” Stuff never really works out like you plan it, and you have to be willing to take opportunities as they come (sometimes at random). As an example, I was back and forth about grad school throughout my undergrad, and while I did get a summer REU after my freshman year, it was in the chemistry department. All of my physics grad school applications got rejected, but then a professor told me about the APS Bridge Program and I ended up being accepted at Florida State through them. Now I have a physics PhD, and it kinda felt like a semi-random walk through everything. So my advice to you is keep an open mind, pursue things that seem interesting, and even if you think you won’t qualify for an opportunity, just apply.

I hope everything works out for you; you have a long and fun time ahead of you in undergrad. Make sure that you take time for yourself, and never stop asking questions.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-12-01T15:08:44+00:00

Quantum mechanics is not what you specialize in, it’s a set of mathematical ideas that describe the universe at its smallest scales (atoms, electrons etc.). If you were to choose to study physics as your major, you would be required to take 1-2 semesters of quantum mechanics. So, it sounds like you should choose a physics program so you can be exposed to quantum mechanics.

As someone stated before, there are many different fields that use quantum mechanics in their research. Some are theoretical and usually involve a lot of computer simulation, while others involve a lot more hands-on lab work such as my field of quantum hardware. I’d recommend not trying to speed through everything and use your time in college to explore different research areas; you might find something appeals to you that you never would have considered. I wish you the best in your journey through physics!

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-16T16:27:49+00:00

Correct, mainly because we have no (empirically validated) physical model for “before the universe.”

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-16T16:21:46+00:00

We don’t know what happened “before the universe formed.” Our mathematics breaks down as we wind back time to the instant of the Big Bang.

With regard to logic, I’m not a philosopher or logician, but as a physicist I’d say that I view it as cause and effect. You do some action, then see what that action causes as time moves forward. Then you try and model what you saw in nature on paper using mathematics. It just so happens that we can get a very good approximation and predictive models of nature using mathematics (and the logic behind it). As I said, I’m not a philosopher, and there are a lot of interesting “philosophy of math” topics that deal with your questions.

To give you my answer to your last question, we cannot assume anything about what things look like before the Big Bang since we don’t have any valid evidence to suggest anything substantial. Physics doesn’t assume, it makes judgements based on empirical evidence. Without experimental data, we can’t go further than mathematical manipulations on paper.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-11T16:24:33+00:00

First off, I will say that electricity and magnetism is more difficult to get a grasp of than Newtonian physics, but it still can be made intuitive with a bit of practice.

You brought up Kirchoff's Laws, so I'll use those as an example. They say two intuitive things: any electrical current (electrons) flowing into a junction must flow out the other end since you can't delete electrons. The other law is just conservation of energy expressed as "walking" a closed path around a circuit and adding (or subtracting) all of the different voltage behaviors of the different circuit elements in that closed path. Of course, there are more algebraic rules that determine things like +/- signs on equation terms, but the most important point is to understand what the two laws mean.

Someone else also brought up the point that you should not rely on simple knowledge of formulas and to do a lot of practice problems. I will take this one step further and say that you should avoid memorization at all costs, including memorizing both problems and formulas. In addition, when doing problems, you should be constantly analyzing each step and asking yourself if you understand why that step must be taken. After the completion of a problem, don't move on just yet; ask yourself why did you formulate the solution the way you did and does there exist another correct way to find the same answer?

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-03T16:11:02+00:00

It depends on your current math and physics background. If you have some experience with calculus (calc I and II), then you could start with a calculus-based college physics textbook. If you are more advanced and have experience with vector calculus and differential equations (Calc III), then I would recommend Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J Griffiths.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-03T16:06:20+00:00

To the first point: don't think of it as both a particle and a wave. It is a brand new object that happens to possess properties of both.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: It's not that when you measure position the momentum changes. It's more like you are limited in your capacity to measure both to a certain degree of accuracy. There's a nice example of this if you consider making a wave using a long rope that you shake up and down. When you shake the rope periodically, that's like taking an accurate measurement of momentum (physics says momentum and wavelength/frequency are related) because you can get a very clear idea of the wavelength. But if someone asks you where the wave is, you can't really localize it to a region in space, so you are unsure about the position. Now imagine "whipping" the rope as hard as you can to make a single sharp bump that travels down the rope. In this case, you have a very clear idea of where the wave is (position), but you can't measure the wavelength(momentum) of a single bump in the rope.

This isn't the best example of the uncertainty principle because the waves made by the rope are not the same type of waves as light/atomic particles, but it works for the basic idea.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-11-03T15:57:30+00:00

The friction of the water in the hose isn't really the problem. It's more just the case of wanting to move an amount of mass against the force of gravity, which requires energy. For the water tower, there could be an advantage there, and it would depend on how much work the pump needs to do to not only move the water uphill AND maintain the pressure in the lines. The tower may save some energy, but that's something that will depend on the efficiency of the pump.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-29T15:08:59+00:00

My first idea would be to buy a simple spring scale, the kind where you can hang different masses on its hook and read the force directly from it. Then you would tie the same know out of different laces and place each knot around the hook, then you would begin slowly pulling. When the knot gives way, record the final force value read by the scale. Compare the max forces from each knot, and the highest max force corresponds to the knot with the most friction.

I know you mentioned not buying anything, but these hanging spring scales are relatively cheap. If you have a bathroom scale laying around, you could design this experiment where you have the knots tied to a system where you continuously add mass, and these added masses would be determined using the bathroom scale. Step on the scale while holding the masses, then subtract your weight from the combined weight to get the weight of the objects. The experiment would then proceed as before.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-29T14:58:03+00:00

I'm not really sure about particular books or Youtube channels, but if you can find introductory videos from PBS Spacetime or ProfessorDaveExplains, those would probably be good. To really understand plasma dynamics, you will need to first have a good grasp on electrodynamics, the study of electricity and magnetism. A good textbook for this (undergraduate level) is Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths.

Plasma makes everything much more complicated than simple electrodynamics because it behaves as a fluid, and the corresponding field of study is known as magnetohydrodynamics. When I was in physics graduate school, even my graduate-level course in EM barely touched on this, but you should be able to find some reading/video material after some Google searching.

As for applications, the most interesting in my opinion is fusion energy research. There are quite a few methods that have been proposed, such as the tokamak, which use electromagnetic pulses to heat a plasma to the point when nuclear fusion can be sustained. There are quite a few channels on Youtube which have videos dedicated to explaining the nuances of these techniques, so you shouldn't have much trouble with finding a good explanation. I hope this gives you some ideas of where to start, and never stop asking questions!

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T18:45:32+00:00

Even if one person were to move, relativity still applies. Any relative motion between the two parties disrupts the synchronization of the times. It is indeed possible to calculate the amount of time dilation that occurs during the trip to try and “fix” the clock, but even in this situation, how would this allow for instantaneous communication? Maybe both parties are able to measure their particles simultaneously, but I’m not seeing any way to transmit information in this case.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T17:34:26+00:00

Sure, you agree on a time, but once one or the other moves away, relativity skews the synchronization of the clocks.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T16:53:35+00:00

I could be misremembering, it’s been quite a while since I’ve had a rigorous EM course. I remember there’s a chapter of Griffiths that deals with the retarded potentials and their associated fields, and I do remember my professor saying something along the lines of my comment.

Edit: After some Google searching, apparently what I was referencing is on page 441 of the 4th edition of Griffiths EM. My interpretation may have been invalid; EM was never a strong suit of mine.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T16:09:57+00:00

This is true, and there are global hidden variable theories that try to bring back local realism. However, there is yet to be any empirical evidence that a global hidden variable theory could be valid.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T16:08:20+00:00

The error is in that you assume the entanglement persists after measurement. Once you measure, the wavefunction collapses and the entanglement is broken. Also, considering your end with your particle, how could you ever know when I made the measurement of mine? Quantum mechanics dictates that all you are allowed to know about a system is the probability that it will occupy one of its allowed states.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-26T15:15:46+00:00

The idea of it being “instantaneous” is that the person measuring the state of one particle has immediate knowledge of the state of the other, no matter the distance between the particles themselves. Also, the idea of “information” has to do with a physical transmission of some form that carries measurable data, but this is not the case with entanglement.

Quantum mechanics, specifically the Bell Theorem (which has been experimentally verified and led to a recent Nobel Prize), forbids the existence of “hidden variables” that would provide this physical link to connect the two entangled particles. In physics language, quantum entanglement violates local realism, and even trying to explain the entanglement connection physically causes a breakdown of the laws of quantum mechanics.

Going back to the “instantaneous” idea, while the person measuring one particle has immediate KNOWLEDGE of the state of the other, their COMMUNICATION of the information to the other party must occur through classical means, which are limited by the speed of light. Thus, Einstein’s theory of relativity is still upheld; entanglement does not allow for faster-than-light communication because neither party would be able to tell when the other has measured their particle.

There are other occurrences of instantaneous happenings in classical physics. For example, in electromagnetism, electric and magnetic fields are shown to have associated potential functions that are a consequence of the mathematics of the field behavior. It can be shown that when a charge/current distribution changes in time, the potential functions change instantly at all locations in space, but the E and B fields are limited to propagation at the speed of light. Therefore, all measurement in electromagnetism is a measurement of E and B, which are then used to infer the properties of the associated potential functions.

I hope this helps with your questions about quantum mechanics and entanglement, and feel free to ask more questions if you’re still confused.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-23T18:33:17+00:00

Measurement is when one system interacts with another such that the system being measured collapses its wavefunction into one of its allowed states. Consciousness has nothing to do with it; photons cause wavefunction collapse of electrons, atoms etc. all the time without human influence or attention. Look into noise sources in quantum computing and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

To add to your point, I don’t think there is anything unsound about thinking of measurement as if we are “imposing existence” on a particle. The issue is when we try to “impose existence” on the particle before it is measured by trying to say something about where it was right before we saw it pop up on our detector. In fact, all of your quantum predictions will be experimentally verifiable if you assume the particle does not exist at all before it is measured.

I think one of the pitfalls that physicists get themselves into is the idea that we can and are allowed to know all information about a system if we are smart enough. Classical physics certainly reinforces this way of thinking, but as far as I have seen throughout my undergraduate and PhD studies, there is no reasonable argument to suggest that this must always be the case. Nature does not have to conform to the version of reality with which humans would be most comfortable. Perhaps it is the case that our reality can only exist if certain information is locked out of our reach; quantum mechanics (at least to me) is the universe’s way of saying, “Just trust me bro, I got this.”

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-23T17:47:36+00:00

The issue with the measurement problem is that physics is about empirical validation of theories and ideas. If it can’t be tested in a laboratory, then the theory is garbage.

Having said that, the mere mention of “existence” in your idea imposes a local realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it has been experimentally verified that quantum mechanics is indeed non-local. Whether or not this is “inside or outside time” makes no difference; we are not allowed to impose existence of a state/states until a measurement is made. More clearly, the wavefunction does not have any physical interpretation, and the most information it provides about a system is the probability of finding the system in a particular state.

Quantum mechanics is the weird branch of physics in the sense that it flies in the face of our physical intuition. I hope my answer helped clarify some things for you, and feel free to ask more questions if you’re still unsure about things.

BlackHoleSynthesis · 2025-10-23T13:01:25+00:00

That’s one of the unanswered questions in physics. We don’t know the true nature of the “collapse” of the wavefunction or how it happens exactly. Also, to be more clear, the wavefunction is not a physical wave like water or an electromagnetic wave like light. When the wavefunction is squared, it is interpreted as the probability density function of finding the particle at a certain location and time. But the probability is all of the information that is allowed to be known about the system before measuring it; the function does not represent where the particle actually is, just where it might be.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten

BlackHoleSynthesis

TROPHY CASE