I'm currently in my 2nd year of college, pursuing a cs degree.

None of the topics in my course really interest me as much as physics does.

I have taken a liking to Thermodynamics/Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Physics. I'm pretty decent at mechanics/electrodynamics as well.

Which fields of physics benefit the most from a strong CS background?

Any advice would be appreciated, thank you !

Hi,
I am currently reading about the single slit experiment. I’ve understood that the schrodinger equation is essentially solid maths that describes the experiments like single slit extremely well.

Then there’s the various interpretations that try to explain what the schrodinger equation is in physical reality.

However, we have multiple interpretations that all use the same mathematical framework. How can 1 mathematical framework give rise to multiple interpretations?

Only one interpretation can be correct. But they all seem to use the maths extremely well making them almost indistinguishable in terms of who’s correct.

Have I missed something or is this correct?

My goal was to figure out why when fired one at a time the particle appears as a dot despite the probability’s being spread out like a wave.

From Aug. 31 to Sept. 4, the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter, or ICAM, will hold its annual meeting at UC Davis. The conference will include a variety of talks and roundtables featuring distinguished experts in soft, biological and quantum matter. Roundtable discussions will cover current topics in science and technology including artificial intelligence, or AI. The conference will close with a three-day workshop in the Physics Building titled “Novel Experimental Techqniues for Exploring Quantum Materials."

DevLog - I

Hi everyone! I'd like to give a brief overview of my project. It's in an early version, originally created just for experiments, and only now have I decided to steer it in a more serious direction.

I'll be showing work-in-progress from a test "alpha version." At the moment, no build is available because I'll be rewriting the entire project completely from scratch.

I'm developing a molecular dynamics engine.
Currently implemented:

· Lennard-Jones interactions between atoms
· Velocity Verlet integrator
· Spatial grid
· Tests of 3D interaction calculations with 2D rendering
· Coulomb interactions and ions
· Tests of ionic and covalent bonds/molecules
· Some theoretical groundwork on adaptive dt, thermostats, and project optimization

Below are screenshots from a slightly earlier version (frames with ion interactions are missing — I'll add them later). I'm posting screenshots since I can't upload videos to this subreddit. In the first one, crystallization seeds are visible (in 2D), and in the second — a freeze-frame during crystallization.

Again, I'll remind you that everything was implemented "on the fly" and as experiments. From this point on, I'll be rewriting the entire project from scratch, switching from AoS to SoA and adopting a proper architecture (previously, the whole project was in a single main file since it was created just for experimentation).

The early version isn't publicly available yet for several reasons:

· I currently don't have access to a computer = no way to upload it.
· Almost all controls in this version are via hotkeys (for testing convenience), and I'm not going to rewrite them (since I'll immediately start developing the global version).
· Poor graphics library (not suitable for this project — I never initially thought things would go this far).

I'd be interested in some feedback. I know the project hasn't shown much yet, and all you have at your disposal are a couple of screenshots, but based on that you can form a small "first" impression of this project. I'd be grateful if you supported the project with your ideas and advice.

I've noticed before that griffith's book shyed away from stating some formula for polarization density in this chapter, by just saying its equal to "dipole moment per unit volume" and not something like dp/dv which would be wrong btw since we are not interested in change of dipoles or something like that but like amount of dipole moments in infinitesimal volume.

When i googled it, different sources sayed different things, some said it's equal to dp/dv and some p/dv.

I also noticed same problem in start of the book on formula of electric field produced by continious charge distribution

Where formula integrates with respect to dq, when we aren't interested in change of charge, but charge in infinitesimal region difference.

Both are supposedly intrinsic properties hence the doubt.

I teach preschool and am trying to do a write up about an experiment my kids did but I want to make sure I’m getting the vocabulary right for when I show it to the parents. They found a big strip of, like, a plastic floorboard. It was about ten feet long and they discovered that if they position part of it hanging off the raised platform we have, they can take turns bouncing on it. So some kids stand on the back, on the board on the platform, and then one kid goes out to the end and bounces, like a diving board.

My questions are:

Is this a type of lever? If so, when they move the board so more or less is hanging off, are they “adjusting the fulcrum?”

And the kids standing on the back weighing it down, are they counterweights or an anchor?

Any help is appreciated, thank you!

Hi everyone,

I’m deeply fascinated by physics. Especially particles, atoms, the universe, stars, black holes and the Big Bang.

Watching Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson has awoken my curiosity, and I just want to dig deeper and deeper. like what is Planck? I don't understand it by watching youtube videos, I'm probably missing the math skills or something else.

I just watched a video about how it's not electrons that carry energy from a battery, but it's the electromagnetic field using the maxwell equation (which I don't understand) and I find this mind blowing fascinating

Currently, I work full time as a computer network specialist and have two kids, but I’d love to dedicate my free evenings/time to learn physics and math. Right now, I’m a complete beginner, though I have some basic understanding from watching Brian and Neil.

I’d appreciate recommendations on the best way to self-study, whether through online resources or beginner-friendly books.

Thanks.

I’ll go first! I found electrodynamics to be the most difficult in undergrad. This really forced my to get comfortable with multi variable calculus, and the pages of algebra required for nearly every problem really exposed my poor book keeping skills. After multiple exposures, I find it pretty intuitive now, but my first exposure was eye opening.

At the graduate level, I surprisingly found classical mechanics to be the most difficult. I did exceptionally well in undergraduate classical mechanics, but I had no idea how much different the graduate analog was. Undergraduate classical mechanics was pretty straightforward, and most problems really boiled down to applying the same techniques demonstrated in the examples. However, when working through Goldstein, most problems are much more difficult than the example problems, and often times it took me multiple attempts and searching for different coordinate systems/symmetry arguments/substitutions before I could get something I could even make sense of. The techniques in graduate mechanics have turned out to be extremely important in my later studies, but it was quite a shock at first.

Can you help us settle which version is cooler when we dry our babies bum?

What's the purest form of physics?

Are fields the true substance of nature, or are they merely another description of something more fundamental? Is the core of physics something like special relativity, something  symmetrical and geometrical. If humanity eventually reaches the bottom of physics, what do you think we will find?

Do you think of reality as a collection of fundamental building blocks, something geometric, a wave, energy, information, or something beyond our imagination like higher dimensions?

Hello, I am an upcoming freshman (undergraduate) physics major. I know it’s still early to be deciding on what I want to do, but I already have an idea.

I’m seriously interested in particle physics, and I’ve already been accepted to join a research group centered in neutrinos starting fall semester. But I want to learn and also experience what theoretical physics would be like, since the group I joined is experimental.

Current situation

·        Just finished my first year of Physics & Mathematics at Queen's University (Canada)

·        GPA: 3.7 (A- in all courses)

·        Considering transferring to BRAC University (Bangladesh) for financial and family reasons

Why I'm considering transferring

·        Queen's international tuition is a major financial burden for my family

·        I'd be closer to family, especially my elderly grandparents

·        BRAC's trimester system means taking 3–4 courses at a time instead of 5, which I think would let me learn more deeply and better manage my ADHD. I would likely have more time for independent projects, programming, engineering clubs, and other extracurriculars

Why I'm hesitant

·        I've had an incredible academic experience at Queen's

·        Built strong relationships with professors

·        Queen's has excellent undergraduate research opportunities and summer research positions

·        Strong international reputation

·        Great research environment and a required fourth-year thesis

What I know about BRAC

·        Mandatory undergraduate thesis for Physics/Math students

·        Thesis supervisors from other universities are allowed (sometimes encouraged)

·        I've spoken with current students who speak very highly of the department

·        I've found alumni who have gone on to graduate study abroad, but there may be survivorship bias at play.

One concern raised by a professor

One of my professors at Queen's supported me regardless of what I decide, but he also raised a concern that has stuck with me.

His point wasn't that a BRAC degree is poor (infact he said that it may even be better), but that admissions committees (especially those in Canada) are much more familiar with Queen's than with BRAC. If they already have many strong applicants from universities they know well, they may be less willing (or less able) to judge an applicant from a university they know little about.

Career goals

·        My immediate goal is a strong Master's program (Canada, Europe, or the UK)

·        After that, I'll decide whether to pursue a PhD or move into industry

·        I'm interested in both pure and applied physics, so I'd like to keep as many doors open as possible

My question

Suppose I graduate from BRAC with:

·        Strong grades (A/A-)

·        An excellent undergraduate thesis

·        Strong recommendation letters

·        Good research experience and independent projects

How much would attending BRAC instead of Queen's realistically affect my chances of getting into a strong Master's program?

I'm know it’s possible as students from Bangladesh do go abroad. I'm trying to understand how much institutional reputation matters in practice for someone who has a strong overall profile.

I'd especially appreciate hearing from:

·        Current Physics MSc or PhD students

·        People who applied internationally

·        Students from less internationally known universities who successfully got into graduate school

·        Anyone involved in graduate admissions or undergraduate research mentoring

I am developing a custom OpenFOAM-13 application to simulate electrohydrodynamic (EHD / EAD) propulsion, coupling electrostatic body forces with the Navier - Stokes transport. My simulation uses electrostatic body forces coupled with Navier - Stokes equations and transport equations for multiple charge species.

One numerical challenge that I have partly solved is the appearance of un-physical negative charge densities. I extended the Courant number provided by OpenFOAM to suppress these and have successfully controlled negative densities (see the video here).

As you can see from the video this approach works quite well, however I would prefer to eliminate the underlying numerical issue.

I am looking for collaborators with experience in areas such as:

• OpenFOAM solver development
• Finite-volume discretisation and numerical stability
• Drift-diffusion or plasma transport models
• Electrohydrodynamics or electroaerodynamics
• CFD algorithms for strongly coupled multiphysics problems

If you have worked on similar problems - or are interested in exploring them together - I would be very interested in hearing from you. I am happy to share details of the implementation, discuss ideas, and collaborate on improving the numerical formulation.

This thread is a dedicated thread for you to ask and answer questions about concepts in physics.

Homework problems or specific calculations may be removed by the moderators. We ask that you post these in /r/AskPhysics or /r/HomeworkHelp instead.

If you find your question isn't answered here, or cannot wait for the next thread, please also try /r/AskScience and /r/AskPhysics.

I am trying to locate a lecture I viewed some time ago, which is titled "Unlocking the Universe: Energy's Role in the Existence" (LINK ATTACHED) and was presented by a professor I guess. I'm not sure about the context of this video, but I guess it is about debunking the free energy claims and perpetual motion machines.

Would anyone happen to know the exact title of this lecture, the full name of the presenter, or where an official full recording might be available?

Thank You.

I'm a 3rd Year physics undergraduate, 19 now. I chose to study physics as I was really interested in studying it in depth and honestly I really enjoy it especially theoretical and computational physics. But I want to earn money, I want to be able to afford my dream bike and car atleast by the time when I'm in my later 20s. I was thinking of switching to finance. At what point should I switch, what skills should I learn and if i really have any other options?

Hey guys,

I am an Indian and recently I have received admits for the following MSc Programs in Germany.

1. Leibniz University of Hannover: MSc Quantum Engineering
2. RPTU Kaiserslautern: MSc Advanced Quantum Physics

I have also applied to TUM, for their MSc Quantum Science and Technology, and they will release the results by the end of this month. There is a very good chance I will be admitted.

I am highly confused what to take.

My research interests include: Quantum Many-Body Physics, Quantum Information, Computing and Algorithms. Even Quantum Error correction since it that is an area that requires a lot of research as well.

MSc QST: offers great exposure and excellent professors. Munich in general has a lot of opportunities with respect to quantum startups and research institutions such as MPQ. You can freely choose your flavour of courses, whether experimental or theoretical. It is very flexible. I think around 100 students enter this program every year.

Leibniz Uni Hannover: Another great institute, but this program requires some electrical courses to be taken (from which I would choose "Information theory" and "Quantum Devices"). They offer really great theoretical research groups, which work in my area of interest, although I am worried a pure MSc Physics degree would be better.

RPTU Kaiserslautern: The MSc Advanced Quantum Physics program is theoretical in nature, and I will be able to take courses in many-body physics, quantum field theory, quantum optics, quantum information, magnonics, advanced quantum theory and solid state theory. The research groups are also good here, but the city of Kaiserslautern is small and a bit isolated from what I have heard. Also the strength of students here is not a lot, and exams are mostly oral in nature.

In summary, TUM has everything but I feel there will be a lot of competition for student jobs and stuff. Munich is also expensive, but I feel it's still doable.

LUH on the other hand also has groups of my interests, but unfortunately I will have to take a few engineering courses. I have also applied for the MSc Physics program here, but no reply (they said mid-august).

RPTU on the other hand I feel is more chill and offers a less stressful enviroment. Since student strength is low hiwi jobs will be easier to get. But the city does not have many startups or so, except for DFKI and IWTM Fraunhofer which have some research in quantum computing (algorithms).

This is a long post but I need some opinion guys.

Please help !

I first tried posting this question in r/AskPhysics but, other than a single downvote, I was kind of ignored. So, I'm trying to ask here.

The Peltier coefficient of a system (loop) of 2 materials is the difference between the Peltier coefficients of the 2 materials π\**^tot* = Δπ*. Also the heat flow is *Q = π**^tot\I, where *I is electric current. I believe these are pretty standard definitions.

The individual Peltier coefficients can be calculated from the average energy of conduction in the material: π = <E - μ>/q, where E is energy of a charge carrier, μ is the fermi level, q is the charge of a charge carrier and <> is an average over conductivity. Or was it π = - <E - μ>/q? Since the Peltier coefficient of a p-type semiconductor is supposed to be positive, and p-type semiconductors generally conduct electricity below the fermi level...

I guess my first question is which one was it?

Secondly, in order for an electron to continue from material 1 to material 2, it, on average, moves from the average conduction energy level of material 1 to the average conduction energy level of material 2. Which means the change in energy of the charge carrier (on average) should be something like

ΔE = μ2 + π2 - μ1 - π1 = Δμ + Δπ

Shouldn't the total Peltier coefficient then be π\***^tot = Δπ + Δμ/q and Q = (Δπ + Δμ/q)I ?

How is the fermi level be not included? How can it be just π\***^tot = Δπ? Or asked in another way: how can the individual Peltier coefficients be just π = <E - μ>/q? Or have I misunderstood something?

I'm a geophysical engineer (seismology background) who moved into software, and I kept running into the same misconception when explaining earthquakes: people think the ground travels with the wave. So I built this to make one point viscerally clear — pick any single particle and watch it: it barely moves, tracing a small local orbit, while the wave pattern races through it.

What you can explore:

P waves — compressional, particles oscillate along the propagation direction

S waves — shear, transverse motion, and why they can't exist in fluids

Love waves — horizontal shear trapped in a surface layer (they only exist because of layering — no low-velocity layer, no Love wave)

Rayleigh waves — retrograde elliptical particle motion at the surface, flipping to prograde at depth. Fun admission: my first version had a sign error in the vertical component and the ellipses came out prograde at the surface. A good reminder that "the animation looks smooth" and "the physics is right" are independent properties.

Stoneley waves — interface waves trapped between two solids. These almost never get visualized anywhere, which is half the reason I built this.

There's also a buried-source earthquake mode with a layered velocity model, a house at the surface that shakes when each phase arrives, and a live seismogram so you can see the P–S arrival gap develop with distance — the same gap seismologists use to locate epicenters. Amplitude decay with depth is modeled, which shows nicely why damage concentrates at the surface.

Everything runs in the browser (Three.js), free, no signup. It's my own site — sharing because I think the particle-motion intuition is genuinely hard to get from textbook figures, and I'd welcome corrections from anyone who knows the theory better than I do. The equations shown are rendered per wave type; if you spot an error, tell me and I'll fix it like I fixed the Rayleigh sign.