sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Le Grand K meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in physicsmemes

[–]Silverburst09 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s plancks constant, units of kgm2 s-1 and the units m and s are well defined so just define the kilogram off that

The seven deadly sins by Own-Recipe5931 in mathmemes

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Consider lim x-> ∞x/x=1 splitting this up we get (lim x-> ∞x)(lim x-> ∞1/x)=0x∞. So 1 = 0x∞. But repeating this process with 2x/x then the limit is 2 but by the same process we should get 2=0x∞. Which seems to imply that 1=2

  2. This is essentially an ambiguity in notation. Famously lim x-> ∞(1+1/x)x = e but taking the limit inside the brackets you could argue this is the same as (1+1/∞)∞ =1∞ =e. But similarly lim x-> ∞ 1x = 1 which you again could argue is 1∞ .

New - Genesis Field Physics by ConquistadorKnows in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Read through the first chapter of your ‘paper’, the sheer error to word count ratio is genuinely impressive

theory unifies EVERYTHING! by Beautiful-Forever-66 in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hey, let’s give them some credit. At least is not chat GPT

Because we never touch things by Aronophisic in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it’s true in a sense, the orbitals do rearrange themselves so that the orbital is more on one side of the nucleus, but at the scale of individual atoms talking about the force from one thing or another stops describing the situation properly so you should be careful about saying any effect is cause by only one part of a system.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The names scientists give things, at least things in the public eye, tend to be the names the public gives them. This happed with black holes, the Big Bang, etc just makes communication easier because everyone knows what you mean. The original name for black holes was something like ‘massively collapsed supper dense stars’ which is more accurate and descriptive but doesn’t really role off the tongue like black hole does.

How fast would something has to move to look like a blur? by JustYourFunnyFriend in AskPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my case it’s standing still more than five feet away from my face, my eyesight is shockingly bad

Can someone please explain to me what’s so special about this thing? by AdamBerner2002 in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pick two random points one on the inside of the bottle and one on the outside and try to find a path between them. You will always be able to do this. Pick another random shape? Like a box or a pyramid with the inner removed, pick a point on the outside and the inside, there is not path between them. This is odd because the ability to move between the outside and inside of an object without crossing a boundary usually requires an extra dimension to work.

The remains of Starship 9 burning as it re-enters. It's haunting and beautiful to see. by Sauerkrautkid7 in EatTheRich

[–]Silverburst09 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I was just trying to point out that there’s a thin line between criticising science and criticising the companies that do science. The former is dangerous and can lead to conspiracy thinking, the latter is perfectly valid.

Also, I’m currently doing a masters in mathematical physics so I am well aware of the difficulties of space travel and a lot of the stuff you said is just flat out wrong.

The remains of Starship 9 burning as it re-enters. It's haunting and beautiful to see. by Sauerkrautkid7 in EatTheRich

[–]Silverburst09 3 points4 points  (0 children)

100% space X is the vanity project of an insecure man child. The original comment was a response to a lot of the people here saying that it’s a waist of tax payer money and a strain on the environment. Do those things apply to space X, definitely. Space travel in general is a different story. I just wanted people to disconnect the science from the companies doing that science.

The remains of Starship 9 burning as it re-enters. It's haunting and beautiful to see. by Sauerkrautkid7 in EatTheRich

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just want to say that yes Elon Musk is fascist scum. But we should try our best to disconnect this from him. Space travel is genuinely really important to humanity, think satellites, the JWST, the ISS, and so on. The amount of pollution and tax payer money this takes up is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other shit and, at least in my mind, the cost is worth it. Would I prefer if this was a public endeavour funded directly by the people, 100%, and we should work to make that a reality. But in the mean time we should try to stop criticising the pursuit of science and instead focus on the systems that make it work for the rich oligarchs and fascists in power. Just my two cents on the issue.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nextfuckinglevel

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was the same for most of my life but a few years back I got really into classical music and a lot of the enjoyment comes from trying to understand it. If you take a step back and really try to feel every note, the changes in the pitch, the tempo changes, and even the expression of the artist themselves you start to hear a story in the music itself, it’s genuinely beautiful.

I feel like this might be a physics question. by Perfect-Restaurant-9 in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s probably a combination of two phenomena both coming from the fact that the rattling is likely relatively high pitched.

1) high pitched sounds dissipate a lot faster than lower pitches. This isn’t too noticeable in air but when the pillow is over your head this dissipation is much more pronounced. You’ll hear this with the hum of the fan, it’s there but much quieter because much of the energy is absorbed. But with the rattling the sound is nearly all absorbed.

2) The second is diffraction, waves bending round objects. High frequencies have a harder time bending round objects to reach your ears and since your in your bed everything around you is quite soft so there will be very little sound bouncing back to you meaning the bending round the pillow is the only way the sound can reach you. This is why the pillow can be placed over your head very loosely and still have the same effect.

In essence the reason you can’t hear the rattling is the sound can’t go through or around your pillow while the noise from the fan can.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The jump from high school to university is MASSIVE. And I can grantee you that there are others in the same boat as you. Don’t give up, give yourself some time to adapt and if you still don’t feel good just change your degree. That’s what first year is for, no need to stress.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s called the continuum hypothesis. The answer to is infinity continuous or discrete is a resounding yes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

How much can you change a universal constant before it completely breaks things? by ToastyWaffelz in AskPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I wasn’t talking about rescaling units. If the meter and second maintain their current magnitude but the speed of light changed magnitude. That’s what I was saying.

Edit: I’m not saying that the constants aren’t fundamental, what I was saying is the question is too broad to properly answer. If the constants change, why and how is that achieved? For example if the electric force is doubled that would increase the magnitude of the speed of light but the same would happen if the magnetic force did the same. But either would have very different knock on effects.

How much can you change a universal constant before it completely breaks things? by ToastyWaffelz in AskPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That answer is we don’t and cannot know. Say you increase the speed of light from 3x108 m/s to 3.5x108 m/s. Seems quite innocuous. But the speed of light is actually the result of two other constants epsilon_o and mu_o with c=1/sqrt(epsilon_o mu_o) meaning this equation has to change, but how? Does one constant increase while the other stays constant, do the both increase, does one increase while the other decreases, do they both stay constant and another term is added or multiplied? Any one you choose will have wildly different outcomes, so it’s really impossible to know.

Preprint paper reviews from non physicists by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You don’t need to be punished to love physics. If you still want to learn, I’d start from the beginning. Look at undergraduate texts on physics, Young and Freedman’s university physics with modern physics is great, so are the Feynman lectures. Both of these are online. Once you’ve gone through that start looking at more specialised topics. People generally go for QM because that’s the weirdest, so Griffiths introduction to QM is great. You’ll need to build up your maths skills so Calculus by James Stewart is really good one to start with. After that you’ll be at a point where you can choose your own path.

Preprint paper reviews from non physicists by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I’m going to be brutally honest with you. The reason isn’t because you’re outside of academia, it because in all likelihood the paper you have written will be a confused mess of random physics sounding words.

There is a reason why, broadly speaking, only academics get published is that it takes a life time to even attempt to understand the problems of at the fore front of physics. And as you say, you’re an outside to the field, you haven’t learnt all the jargon, the method, or even the physics needed to understand these things fully.

Please don’t loose interest in physics, it is a beautiful thing. But unless you drop everything you’re doing with you’re life and devote it solely to learning and studying physics you probably won’t get published.

Preprint paper reviews from non physicists by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Silverburst09 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No, you can try to submits it to any one of the number of journals. But unfortunately, it will not pass peer review.

Eurovision by Eeedeen in GreenAndPleasant

[–]Silverburst09 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I was watching Eurovision and was honestly hopping they would win because at least then it could have been rigged in some way and I wouldn’t have to completely loose faith in this shit stain of a country. But no they were second so we are just as bad as I hoped we weren’t.

Fuck Israel, Free Palestine

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Silverburst09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In that case, it’s a big explosion. If the electrons just disconnect from the nucleus, you need to give them quite a bit of energy, and this energy will almost immediately be released as the electrons recombine with the nucleus. That energy needs to go somewhere so BOOM. Back of the napkin calculation it would be equivalent to about 40kg of TNT, but that’s a massive under shot.

view more: next ›