I m 13. I have a dillema rn. Physics has been my passion since 6. But now I understand the cost. Not only ultra hard problems and concepts, but the overall pay is low

I've watched multiple videos, read numerous articles, and even delved into the original paper. Yet, I still have some lingering questions.

A beer for anyone who can enlighten me!

1. Einstein was working on concepts of light, time, and inertia—sure, I get that. But how did he connect all that to E=mc²? It's still unclear to me. I'm sorry, but it is. How did he really come up with it? Please don't just say he revisited the concepts of time and light. That he tough about putting the speed of light into intertia concept. Why? That's not enough. How's, really?

2. According to a lot of experts, Einstein made a particularly singular statement about this equation. He said that the mass-energy equivalence and the constant speed of light are involved in every reaction. That's something, but okay, I can accept that. But why should it be involved all the time? Saying it is not enought.

3. I understand what it can mean, and how important it is. I know it implies that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa, with an incredible ratio of equivalence. But the big question.. why do we struggle so much with doing it?

Any other tough on it? Be my guest :)

I’m a 9th-grade student preparing for Physics Olympiads and looking to deepen my theoretical understanding. I’ve already covered math topics up to Calculus 3 (calc 3 included), and while I’m currently going through Physics by Halliday, Resnick, & Krane (5th Edition), I’m finding the theory a bit too simple given my math background. Is it safe to switch directly to David Morin for mechanics and then Griffiths for electrodynamics to get the rigor I want, or is there a specific reason to stick with HRK before tackling those upper-undergraduate texts?

I’ve not done physics ALL YEAR. Ive not studied even a bit. I dont know anything at all. Im a smart guy I scored 99% in 10th i dont know what happened to me in 12th. It just hit me. I want 60+. Can someone PLEASE guide me on how I should do that? I’m lost and panicking. I’m in desperate horrible need of help. Please help me. It’s 17th today. I have 18th and 19th in my hands. It’s my physical education paper tomorrow. Please help me. I just want guidance. Im in cbse. Indian.

i always wondered if we can do it, the arc reactor might not be doable but certainly a power source could be integrated

Im 20 yrs old. Ill be 22-23 when i start. I want to begin from undergrad then slowly build my knowledge, and phd (maybe). What are the best universities that are affordable? (It may be a stupid post for this sub) Edit: Around means in Europe and Usa. Im interested in time and relativity. Im from Asia. My country isnt good at anything. I will leave one day. Most of my friends go abroad to earn. I'll also go one day but I want to go for something I like. Im not rich tho.

Alright, here's the thing. I have wanted to study physics since 10th grade. I am really passionate about it, so much so that I am currently a member of the Egyptian Center for Theoretical Physics holding a research position focusing on geometric quantization of the metric tensor of General Relativity in 8D phase space. I have also written a textbook on General Relativity which is very math heavy. However, it has occured to me that physics majors do not easily get employed, and if they do, it's a teaching position at a highschool. Even with grad school, it's still very hard to get into a good research institute that pays well. So, I am thinking of majoring in electrical engineering and self study / work at the Egyptian Center for Theoretical Physics and have engineering as a backup to get employed easier. Also, I founded an international research institute which I manage, so hopefully that can still keep me engaged later on.

Any advise moving forward? Should I stick with my decision? (Highschool senior)

In classical physics, mass and charge are different things. But if one were to consider inertia (i.e. resistance to acceleration) as an effect of interaction with vacuum, one would assume that there is an analog of mass - electromass - dependent on field rather than matter.

Everyone is used to Newton and Einstein, where mass is a property of an object. But if one would pay attention to how a charged particle accelerates in different electromagnetic configurations, one would notice: its inertia can "change" depending on the field.

Experiment

I took a standard experimental layout: - A gold microsphere (12 µm diameter) suspended on a thread in a vacuum chamber. - To this microsphere I applied a controlled charge (±). - Around it I created a controlled radio-frequency electromagnetic field (in the range of 10-100 MHz). - I recorded the deflection velocity, initial acceleration, and frequency of natural oscillations using a laser interferometer.

When there was no charge, everything happened as per Newton's textbook. When I applied a charge and applied an external alternating field, I noticed that:

the acceleration of the particle when the same force was applied decreased slightly.

That is: the particle "got heavier" under certain electromagnetic conditions. But mass can't just change, can it?! I checked everything: - Temperature - stable. - Magnetic noise - shielded. - Static noise is eliminated.

And then it hit me:

It's not the mass of the body that's changed. It's the inertia - the manifestation of how the body resists acceleration - that has changed under the influence of the external field.

The inertia of a body is made up of two components: 1. Own mass 2. inertial addition from interaction with the background of vacuum and external fields.

Mathematically it looked like this:

m_{\text{эфф}} = m_0 + \alpha \cdot E² + \beta \cdot B² (photo)

Where: - m_0 is the natural mass of the body, - E, B - electric and magnetic field strengths, - \alpha, \beta - interaction coefficients depending on the charge and size of the body.

Why is this necessary? Applications 1. A new form of motion control Without the traditional motor! If inertia can be varied - you can make objects move or brake by only changing the fields around them. 2. inertial shields Ability to protect people from overloading in transportation by changing their inertia at the right moment. 3. Space navigation A ship that can reduce its own inertia at the right moments requires less fuel. This is the dream of all space agencies. 4- Studying the structure of the vacuum This effect is direct evidence that the vacuum is not empty but physically active. It can be a bridge between classical and quantum gravity.

Hi, I'm really high and I'm thinking about if Michael Phelps is as fast in water, technically, as Usain Bolt is on land. So if Michael Phelps was not up against tension and density, could he cruise as fast or if not faster the Bolt? Michael Phelps is the fast swimmer at 4.7 MPH and Usain Bolt, the fastest runner, at 27.7 MPH. Not sure if that question is insane, I'm sure we need more factors.But: can Usain race a car like Michael can race a boat? Could a boat beat car and a car beat in boat in equal proportion with reasonable relation and the physics they are respectably facing?

It seems we are at the brink that advanced LLMs can do math quickly and well, with very good accuracy. Will this lead to a great increase in productivity of physics research (which is very math intensive)?

Hi everyone,

I’ve developed a model derived from first principles that predicts the rotation curves of galaxies without invoking dark matter. By treating time as a dynamic field that contributes to the gravitational potential, the model naturally reproduces the steep inner rise and the flat outer regions seen in observations.

In the original paper, we addressed 9 galaxies, and we’ve since added 8 additional graphs, all of which match observations remarkably well. This consistency suggests a universal behavior in galactic dynamics that could reshape our understanding of gravity on large scales.

I’m eager to get feedback from the community on this approach. You can read more in the full paper here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389282837_A_Novel_Empirical_and_Theoretical_Model_for_Galactic_Rotation_Curves

Thanks for your insights!

Hello! I am currently 2nd year physics student, and at the second modern physics class we recently started getting into particle physics, but the professor absolutely sucks. I have no idea how he made it to being a prof by presenting the most interesting topic this year in the most boring way. I was looking forward to this topic since I started uni, and I don't wan't the bad prof ruin it.

Do you guys have any youtube lesson recommendations, that go as much in depth as possible, without going into proper QFT and QCD?

I really want to hear this in an interesting way and books only seem to work for revision for me.

Thanks.

I am an upcoming freshman and I am looking into taking the graduate Classical mechanics course rather than undergraduate.

Now I understand that that does sound pretty silly, but on a knowledge based level I believe that I can do it. I have read several advanced level textbooks and monographs in the field of classical mechanics and mathematical physics. From the (quite brief) description of the course, things like Hamiltonian-Jacobi theory, variational Formulations, canonical Transformations, and the like are all things that I have had a good grasp on for a couple of years and have gone a good ways past.

The main thing I am worried about is the fact that it is my freshman year. I have always heard that even with a good understanding of the subject that the college classes can be challenging and that graduate level courses are another thing entirely. While I love physics more than pretty much anything, I would prefer not to spend my first semester holed up in my dorm trying to keep up with homework.

If you have any judgment that could be helpful let me know.

I'm taking my first exam, and I know I won't do well because it's all just memorization. I'm horrible at memorizing things, and I just don't know what to do. Every upper-level course has Calc III as a prereq, and idk how I'll graduate on time now.

I'm explaining about this equation "Hψ=Eψ"

You take a wave function, 𝛙, which is a function that describes where a particle might be, and do a mathematical transformation to it (derivatives, matrices, whatever). You end up with the same function again, but scaled up (multiplied) by a value. That value happens to be the value you can observe through experiment. In this case, because the mathematical transformation is the Hamiltion operator, it calculates the Hamiltion energy (potential plus kinetic energy). Providing we know what H looks like for that system we can predict its energy. The one displayed in the post also adds time dependence, which is a little more involved but the same idea.

I'm not saying you have to SWED but more than like once a month. I ask because I'll be starting a physics degree soon and would like to know if the long term effects would significantly affect my grades and cognition based on your personal observation/experience.

While I may not have proper education on physics I still may have quite a good idea, so please humbly clarify some mistakes I am just a 7th grader.

I am exploring a new conceptual model of the space time "fabric", where space time fabric can act more on as a fluid than a rigid sheet. While at large scales it behaves continuously, at extremely small scales (approaching the Planck length), it's possible spacetime could be discrete made of fundamental "chunks" that flow and interact like particles in a fluid. This is speculative, but thinking of spacetime this way could help visualize how quantum mechanics and relativity might connect, while still respecting known physics at observable scales."

Would this concept be valid, slightly valid, or notoriously inaccurate?

Jesus, I studied as hard as I can during these 16 years, and is it coming to an end after these 2 years of master's? ( I don't plan to do PhD)

Promise me after these 2 years of master's, the industry will be easier.

Rant/Vent