r/Physics

When I ask ai this same question and yt they both say it is not exactly empty and some thing about Quantum field But my question were little different is hard to explain to be honest I wanted to in context of about ​mass and atoms and etc and how it manage because it feel wierd (my be because it's 3am) I know other planet just can't expand and take empty space because of there safe and goal to minimise surface tention and it would rrequired a lot of energy to overcome there binding energy i think or my be i am wrong So can some one tell me if i wan to learm this stuff what should i read oe study And also what maths topics i should study i wwant to study Quantum physics (field part

Just wondering If I can store meds in that wardrobe or if it's risky. It's a wooden wardrobe and the wall Is made of bricks, its an european house, not american

Basically as the title says, how would I go about doing numerical calculations from second quantisation? I'm mainly interested in circuit QED, and on the analytical side it's done mainly with second quantisation and creation/annihilation operators. However, if I try to proceed naively, where I go to the Fock space basis and write out the creation operator, for Bosons I'm limited by size of my matrix. The highest n number element is cut out, and when I try to do the commutator relation I can't get the identity back. The closest thing I've managed to find to representing creation/annihilation operators in a finite basis is the Jordan-Wigner transformation, but that's mapping Fermionic operators onto Bosons, and there doesn't seem to be a simple way to invert it. I could alternatively just put in more states than I need, but this would become very expensive very quickly (I would like to even model the environment and dissipation eventually).

What are some key terms that I should try to look for?

Not rly into physics atm but just smth to ask

I did my undergrad in physics in the US. Maybe 60-70% of it was focused on actually solving integrals rather than developing physics intuition, understanding degrees of freedom and constraints, etc. I think I did the infinite well problem at least 5 times using different mathematical approaches in different classes. On tests, I got the physics of every problem right because there would be no new problems, the only place I would lose points is a minor mistake like missing a constant somewhere.

I don't know what I don't know, so was this a good undergrad preparation or not?

I'm self-taught in physics, no formal background, just built the habit of using the Feynman technique: try to explain a concept simply enough that a beginner would get it, and wherever I get stuck is exactly where I don't actually understand it yet. It's brutal but it works, it forces you to stop hiding behind vocabulary.

What's strange is the more ideas I connect across domains, black holes and information theory, the holographic principle and consciousness, entropy and simulation theory, the less confident I feel about each one on its own. Every connection I make opens up ten questions I didn't have before. I learn fast, but the more ground I cover the bigger the unknown territory around it gets.

Is this just what deep learning of any subject feels like past a certain point, or is there a name for this specific thing, where connecting ideas across fields makes you feel less sure rather than more? Curious how people who've been at this for decades experience it.

Something I keep coming back to when teaching dimensional analysis is how arbitrary the choice of base units feels. The mole counts things, the kelvin measures average kinetic energy in disguise, and the candela is weighted by human eye sensitivity. None of those feel like they were chosen for deep theoretical reasons.

Compare that to natural unit systems where you set c, hbar, and G to 1 and suddenly the structure feels like it's telling you something about the physics rather than about 18th century French metrology committees.

The recent push toward defining everything in terms of fixed numerical values of fundamental constants is a step in the right direction. Fixing Boltzmann's constant to absorb kelvin into joules, for example, makes the redundancy explicit. But we kept kelvin anyway for practical reasons.

So my question for the community is: if you were designing a coherent system of base quantities from scratch, grounded purely in the structure of modern physics rather than historical convention, what would you actually keep? Would spacetime interval and action cover most of it? Where does charge fit in, given that alpha is dimensionless but e is not in SI?

Curious whether people think the number of base dimensions reflects something real about nature or whether it's entirely a bookkeeping choice we inherited and never fully reconsidered.

I'm a PhD candidate in the final stages. Up to know, I've been ussing Github Copilot for some help and suggestions when coding; to discuss some ideas or to gather information, summarize papers, etc.

Since Github capped the AI models one can use with the student/academia free subscription, I moved to Gemini cheapest subscription. However, I use VS Code for everything and i'm not willing to change. Gemini subscriptions do not work anymore for non-google IDEs.

What AI providers are you using that still allow integration withing VS Code? Would you recomomend Claude?

Thanks for the advice

Hello,

For reference, high school student with no physics experience (just curious).

Consider the following thought experiment:
imagine a 3d brain and then project it onto 2 dimensions, with all connections between neurons still intact and scale the brain to not lose any complexity or any information (overlapping connections being possible by some trivial mechanism, probably not an issue). Now give this brain the same input electrical signals as it would have in 3 dimensions. Assuming this brain is conscious. would it experience 3 dimensions?
I would argue yes, because it’s the same information and processes, but tbh, I don’t have a way to prove this instinct.
If so, could this idea be extrapolated a dimension up? I often see arguments that go a layer down, like I have, in these regards but not sure if those are sound or valid. If someone can formal logic it out, wouldn’t this mean there exists a theoretical 4d experiencing brain in 3 dimensions?
Very interested to hear answers or where this was ill defined.
Thanks.

Hello, i was curious if anyone has any suggestions regarding physics for newer learners?

Something very basic? Like a youtube channel, or books, or websites, something that would break it down for a beginner.

Thank you.

I am a science student in 11th class ( 1st Inter college year ) in cbse board , India . In our syllabus we learnt about equations of motion , Newton's laws and other chapters of mechanics , basically the problem with me is that i like to apply physics in my daily life , try to make experiment but i can't get precise outcome because the equation works in vacuum , but here on earth , air resistance , friction makes things go non-uniform acceleration ( here I am talking about motion of object on a flat surface or plane ) , how to calculate precise motion then