Science topics: Physics
Science topic
Physics - Science topic
Physics related research discussions
Questions related to Physics
I have several confusions about the Hall and quantum Hall effect:
1. does Hall/QHE depend on the length and width of the sample?
2. Why integer quantum Hall effect is called one electron phenomenon? there are many electrons occupying in single landau level then why a single electron?
3. Can SDH oscillation be seen in 3D materials?
4. suppose if there is one edge channel and the corresponding resistance is h/e^2 then why different values such as h/3e^2, h/4e^2, h/5e^2 are measured across contacts? how contact leads change the exact quantization value and how it can be calculated depending on a number of leads?
5. how can we differentiate that observed edge conductance does not have any bulk contribution?
When a material is in a Topological state, the conduction in 2D TI is due to the edge channel. If I am using a Hall bar structure where I am doing Non-local measurements as can be seen from the attached file. Many papers say that there is edge conductance of h/e^2 corresponding to one edge channel. If in a Hall bar there are 6 terminals. this is distributed as 1:5 and each channel show h/6e^2 resistance. I do not understand why there is only h/6e^2 resistance even though voltage measurement is done at one terminal? please help
Dear Sirs,
This question, it seems to me, may arise in the first meeting with general relativity theory. Free falling box with its locally inertial coordinate system, e.g. in the Earth gravity field, moves the same as space particles of the real spacetime continuum. So we can imagine that around us there is "a fluid" of space particles which moves towards to the Earth center. The imaginary fluid penetrates freely through the matter.
Have the space particles some dimensions (maybe the minimal one as real water, e.g.), any properties or even any forces accociated with them, does the motion look like the viscous or ideal or non Newtonian fluid?
I would be grateful of any comments on spacetime as fluid.
What are the quantum materials? Quantum phenomenon takes place in every material at atomic level. then how to define quantum materials? is Iron (magnetic materials) quantum material as it shows magnetism which is the quantum phenomenon? if not then what are quantum materials?
A beam of identical particles sent in a Stern-Gerlach equipment splits in four parts. What is the maximum value of ml+ms for these particles?
ml is the magnetic Quantum Number & ms is the spin Quantum Number.
An electron is in the state l=0,ms=1/2 when the x-component of its magnetic moment is measured.What values may be obtained &with what probabilities?
What about the z-component of its magnetic moment?
The publication of a research: OPTICAL GEOMETRY IN THE FORBIDDEN CITY, show after carefully analysis of the an metal alloy horse with concave eyes .The investigation show the horse was designed and realized by the Jesuit Painter -Architect:
Giuseppe Castiglione (1688-1766), during his 50th years of service under Nr.3 Qing Emperor , from 1715-1766. As explained in the report the intention of Castiglione was to convert the Emperor Qianlong (1711-1799) to Christianity, but due yo rigid protocol in place, he can't due directly, but realizing work of art with technology , in this case (physic concept of light). As he can't be discovered for eventually any questions arising from Emperor about this phenomenon, in particular the left eye, where a triangle is visible ( sign of trinity) , as well as in the link (inserted at the end of pag.1 of the here attached research , to the video of 28th seconds ( eyes became real in the last 12 seconds).
As apparently brain neuronal mechanism of the retina is involved, with calculation and knowledge Castiglione used to realized the virtual image? probably the first in the history.
Considering also that he keep in consideration daily light, as an alibi, as daylight don't show any affects.
Thanks
I came across this question (attached below). I tried to solve it but got stuck in the portion where we need to calculate the inverse tranform. I found a solution of this question (also attached below) but there, in the encircled portion, I couldn't get how they took a 2x factor out and change the limits from (-∞, +∞) to [0,+∞ ). I know that we can do this changing of limits only if it's an even function and can take the limiting points [0,+∞ ) iff the function is of the form y = ax2 . But here the term inside the exponential function is of the form y = ax2 + bx + cix, where i =complex number, and accordingly the limit should change to some random [m,+∞ ) in place of [0,+∞ ). Also, the 2x factor would not be there because the limiting point is changing from [0,+∞ ) to [m,+∞ ) and the graph will not be symmetrical across X=0 Axis.
I will be highly grateful if you can kindly clarify my doubt or let me know where I am making a mistake in understanding the question.


Are BPDs (Basal Plane Dislocations) and Misfit dislocations different or same? If different, what's the difference between the two?
Heisenberg uncertainty principle was initially proposed for position-momentum conjugate pair. It states that the concurrent precise measurements of position and momentum of a subatomic particle are not possible. This idea has been extended to another pair of quantities, time and energy, without proper justification. Therefore, there has been an endless debate on the validity of the uncertainty concept for the second pair, such as:
· Can time be considered as an observable quantity?
· Are these variables dynamically conjugate, both in classical and in quantum mechanics?
· Does this pair exhibit similar principle as the position-momentum?
· The mathematics of the uncertainty of energy-time pair is not well defined as standard deviation of time does not make sense.
Furthermore, if a certain duration of time is necessary for the accurate measurement of some quantity like energy then we should consider it for momentum too. However, in the latter case, it has been accepted during the history of uncertainty principle, that the measurement of the momentum of any particle can be taken with an arbitrary accuracy irrespective of the duration of the measurement.
If momentum should be treated like energy then it is better to separate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle from the inevitable measurement inaccuracy of some physical quantities within short interval, which is well understood in science. They seem to be completely different issues, which are kept under the same title.
The nucleus is He-2-4 which was mysteriously encountered using the logic of my own thinking and more ansatz than Dirac and Murray combined.
The discovery of the mysterious He-2-4 nucleus and its geometry enabled me to calculate its mass accurately in 3 parity ways.
Using some logic I hit He-2-4 only to know its mysterious properties known but not taught much: (0) Most Symmetric, (1) Most Abundant, (2) Most Stable, and (3) Mother Nuclei to rest except Hydrogen.
A Geometric Model Satisfying.. (1) Quark, (2) QCD, (3) Yukawa Strong Force Quanta of 200 or 204 Electrons. (4) Thompson Problem of equidistribution charges, (5) CCP Packing of Energy or Mass in the most efficient way in Nature which makes sense for Nucleus, (6) Satisfying Vector Equilibrium Model, and showing evidence of Gravity Gradient Through Density.
Enabling: Leading Through Accurate Calculations it 3 Parity Steps with 99% Accuracy, applying Energy Equivalence Principle and Equi Partition Energy Theorem.
Dear Friends, I feel obliged to share this with you as some of you wanted me to share. This is a very mystical experience to me, as it is not me but some transcendental revelation. Many discoverers have experienced this. When I re-read the paper, I get shudders and goosebumps.
Please read my paper on He-2-4 to understand the Geometry of the nucleus, which is the mother nucleus for the rest of nuclei along with the father Hydrogen. The first compound to be synthesized in the Universe is HeH (Helium Hydride) as found out. It is one of the most read scientific papers on Research Gate with 1167 reads (along with some more reads in another version of the paper) and with 4 Recommendations. Reads for such an esoteric subject are rare. It often stands out as the "Most-Read" status and from 2017 to 2018 it held this record.
In 2008, I hit upon a connection between Photon and Electron/Positron without violating any laws of Physics except one experiment which is the most famous failed experiment. e.g, Michelson Morely. Then in 2010, trying to fit my theory in Strong/Nuclear Force, I hit this mysterious nucleus which we are not taught about. It took me till 2017 to get the geometry and calculations for its mass right.
My theory is nothing but 3 Orthogonal Fields shown in most of the EMF and QM experiments in Physics: where Electric, Magnetic, and Space are orthogonal fields. Unfortunately, we take (Vaccum of) Space to be granted and fail to understand that it is a Field with Supra Super Fluidity (it is like the Ghost passing through you without you feeling it, like in the case of millions of Neutrinos passing through you and one not feeling them but in the Yogic path you could wake up to this field). Some of you have seen my yogic trick of temporarily increasing the size of my fingers or toes by meditation but the second part of the experiment demonstrates that Space is a dynamic Supra Super-Fluid Field.
I was only encouraged to publish the paper when I found I was using the same units as Yukawa used, who was the first Noble Prize Winner for the Strong Force. His approach was more complex modified Dirac Equations but mine was a simple argument, that Nature would reuse components previously built in its walk of the Stack of Reality. The same arguments I used that Electron and Positron are 3D-vortexes weaved using Photons (in Space-Time constraints).
Like Crystal Molecules having Geometric Structure, the nuclei have it too. Modern Physics can't give us a simple picture of the nuclei.
He-2-4 nucleus is the most Symmetric, the most Abundant, the most Stable and tries to satisfy Quark and QCD models. It uses Yukawa's unit of the strength of 200 Electrons Mass (actually 204), the Packing of Spheres Problem (for most efficiently packing mass per unit of volume, which makes sense for a nucleus) for the inner layer, and the Thompson Problem (of distributing 'n' charges in Space for minimal energy or entropy needed for stability) for the outer layer. Then gradient of Gravity is seen (which justifies using Space as Field). e.g., gravity decreases with the increase in the altitude and lighter-dense things float up, while heavy-denser things float down.
The Noble gases are not only stable because of 8 electrons in their orbit (except He, in which case it is 2), but the Noble nuclei are stable with the quanta in units of He-2-4 (which is not taught). The corollary is that a skyscraper is not stable because the top floor is stable but the ground foundation is also needed to be stable.
It also satisfies the Equal Partition Theorem and the Principle of Reuse/Recycle by Nature, which Modern Physics does not use. It uses Muon and Anti Muon as building blocks - the next higher energy/mass resonance of Electron and Positron.
It proposes uses of a Space Field which can be called Dark Energy, Higgs Field, Ether, Prana or Chi. It uses Equivalence Energy Principle to see how much Electro Static Energy will be required to hold the cluster of 12 Nodes and 6 Nodes in the next layer.
There are three parity ways in which the mass of the nucleus is calculated to the accuracy of 99% (variation will happen based on speeds of the nucleus and secondary effects). In complex calculations, we match results up to all digits in three different paths! The baffling part is that all complex vector and energy operations in three different paths lead to the same result while satisfying all the two theorems of Physics and other constraints from Quark and QCD models!!!
It also demonstrates the Gravity at works at this fundamental level (which is mentioned in another paper).
Update, recently I found out that that Yikawa's Quantum was thought to be Muon first and later identified to be Pi Meson! This brings my model of He-2-4 using Muon more justified!
Preprint
Preprint
Generally, we always try to give low input to operate a device. What are the minimum values of voltage for CMOS technology and magnetic field for spintronics technology?
In Becke's B3LYP hybrid functional, Fock exchange is being mixed with Slater LSDA exchange (and then plus gradient correction), plus correlation expressions. But what LSDA exchange parametrization is used?
- It appears to me that Becke in his DFT Thermochemistry I paper (J. Chem. Phys. 96, 2155 (1992)) uses the VWN parametrization, being the then modern alternative to the older Perdew-Zunger version.
- Then in his Half-and-Half paper (J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1372 (1993)), he apparently switches to the then recent Perdew-Wang 1992 parametrization.
- In his 3-parameter hybrid (DFT Thermochem III) paper (J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5648 (1993)) he seems to only comment on correlation being taken from the PW 1992 parametrization and not mention which LSDA version he uses for the exchange part, presumabely still the standard Slater exchange (E_X ~ int n_(alpha)^(4/3) + n_(beta)^(4/3) dr.
So which LSDA parametrization is used nowadays in B3LYP? Did people stick to the VWN version from Becke's initial paper or did they switch to the more modern PW version as Becke probably did? Or do different implementations in program packages use different versions?
I am working on the multi-dimensional spacetime. I realized that we can describe and expand the relation between the energy, mass and momentum of the particles from one dimensional spacetime and create their relationship formula in the higher dimensional spacetime.
I realized that dimensional analysis is not valid in this method. I didn't find any source for discussing on the dimensional analysis when some terms of the equation belongs to n-dimensional spacetime and other terms are belong to the m-dimensional spacetime.
For instance, does the unit of the measurement of the energy of the a one-dimensional particle is equal to the unit of the measurement of the three-dimensional particle?.
these are my preprint paper and equations that not supported by dimensional spacetime.
These Preprints are under review, I don't know that could I use natural system of units for overcoming consistency.
Good research is based on good relationship between the mentor or supervisor and the scholar. What are the qualities a supervisor or mentor must have to have a healthy and friendly environment in the laboratory?
A performance task? A standardized test? Or some other means? Why?
Does the website describing physical devices and experimental techniques exist:
in one subsection, within one direction, realizations of physical devices are collected;
in style - something similar to github, so that you can make changes;
not only articles, book shapters, but links to models in Ansys, Comsol, OpenFoam, etc;
presents digital twin of real home-made and industrial production physical devices (preferably not made in proprietary software);
examples from various fields of physics are given, i.e. modern rethinking of the book Technische kunstgriffe bei physikalischen untersuchungen / E. V. Angerer?
I'd love to see a rough sketch of how the task would go.
Dear Sirs,
The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.
But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.
Could you clarify the above controversy.
Dear Sirs,
R Feynman in his lectures, vol 1, chapter 12, Characteristics of force wrote:
"The real content of Newton’s laws is this: that the force is supposed to have some independent properties, in addition to the law F=ma; but the specific independent properties that the force has were not completely described by Newton or by anybody else, and therefore the physical law F=ma is an incomplete law. ".
Other researchers may consider the 2nd Newton's law as a definition of force or mass. But R. Feynman did not agree with them in the above chapter.
What is your view on the 2nd Newton's law?
I need someone to help me write the Physics for Simulation using Cosmol Multi Physics:
Fresh air is introduced into the coil at the inlet which is the left hand side of the coil. The shell consists of hot flue gas passing through it to heat the coil and the Air passes out through the outlet at the right hand side.
I want to simulate the temperature at the outlet over a period of 5 hours.
The focus of the Simulation is shown in the attached file below based on the error report from the COSMOL Simulation result. I need help to write
the Physics for Cosmol addresss the error.


Sometimes , we use term of "zero time" in a formulation but are we sure it is really "0" ? maybe it is 0,000......1 and is there a "zero" time(can we stop the time?), or sometimes, we say v=0 are we sure?
On the other hand
1/0 = infinity. Well then, what's "infinity"? How does it work in all the other equations?
infinity - infinity = 0?
1 + infinity = infinity?
If we use closest number to zero-monad (basic thing that constitutes the universe-everything-)Gottfreid Leibniz, in his essay “Monadology,” suggested that the fundamental unit of all things is the monad. He intended the monad to have some of the attributes of the atom, but with important differences. The monads Leibniz proposed are indivisible, indissoluble, and have no extension or shape, yet from them all things were made. He called them “the true atoms of nature.” At the same time, each monad mirrored the universe. If we use monad instead of zero, every equations work
I think Science says "Every Thing had originated from a basic thing"
I conducted a experiment whose conclusions were opposite as that of Big Bang. So, based on the conclusions of my experiment I concluded that some points in Big Bang Theory are wrong...
i came across this while studying X-ray diffraction
In the (electro-) conducting materials, as I know, there is an energy gap between the valence band (VB) and the conduction band (CB) that can be brought to or near-to the Fermi level by doping (p-type or n-type dopant).
But ( My question is ), If I want to design a (semi- or super-) conductor's materials (inorganic or polymeric) , Which properties would I look for? and, also, Which characterizations would I consider for the properties' investigations? What are the requirements for the materials' property (with regard to its band structure) to achieve the considered structure-property relationships (or requirements ) for the preparation of the conducting materials?
I know that an infant's brain can repair itself when damaged but why doesn't the same happen in adults after stroke or brain injuries?
Hi,
I wonder how torque changes with different angles of the torsion axis. Please find the attached figure. I can see how to find out T1 (Blue colour) but not T2. Do I have to compare cross-sectional areas? It would be great if someone can share your thought on this or any formula on this.
Regards

Dear Sirs,
Everyone knows the derivation of Lorentz transformations from electromagnetic wave front propagation. But Lorentz transformations are the basis of the general mechanics theory. It seems to me it is logically correct to derive the transformations from purely mechanical grounds. But how to do this? Mechanical (sound) waves are not of course applicable here. Or there is only purely mathematical approach? I The later is also not good in physics. Could it be derived from gravitational wave propagation? If it is so is there any controversy because General relativity is based on special relativity? I would be grateful for your suggestions.
Journals with review time of 2-4 weeks and publication time of <6 months.Impact factor journals >1.
A high grade energy can be completely converted into a low grade energy, however visa versa is not possible for a spontaneous process. Since PE can be converted into KE but KE cannot be converted into PE when the process is spontaneous. Therefore should we consider KE is a higher grade energy like work and electrical energy?
I am applying top gate voltage using Al2O3 (100nm) dielectric. I would like to calculate effective elecrtic field applied using this top gate. I can apply top gate voltage of 1V (say). how much effective electric field can be obtained by 1V top gate.
Please help me
What research data is available/known (e.g. papers, surveys, simulations, data sets, etc.) on modelling a Business Enterprise finances (Microeconomics) based on mapping its Financial Elements (like Asset, Debt, Equity, Income, Expenses, etc.) to the concepts of natural laws of Physics (like Mass, Energy, Force, Momentum etc.)?
I need to do MD simulation for positrons (antiparticles of electrons). Is it possible to do MD for positrons in the liquid medium?
Dear RG Academics who Travel,
This is an important topic because many academics relish going to desirable places for conferences. My husband and I used to travel to scientific conferences but so much red tape is involved he and I are glad to attend mostly on video conferencing technologies (yes, like Zoom and others whose names I don't know. No intent to favor one or the other technology company)
It is good to remember that social bragging rights do not equal additions to knowledge (i.e., what exotic place one has traveled lately.). Yet, local economies are helped by all kinds of conferences and the money that they bring.
There are costs and benefits either way, so please share your ideas about continuing in-person conferences when there is little we cannot do via remote presentation, informal conferring and virtual "hallway" chatter.
Look look forward to your ideas.
Dear Sirs,
I would like to find out whether galilean relativity principle (which means the same
form of three Newton's laws in all inertial frames) is derived from the three Newton's laws or
any other classical mechanics statements.
I think that such a notion is mistaken, because, if it were correct, we should take that all these constituent particles originated independently from each other and then met together with formation of each atom separately, what is highly improbable. The droplet nuclear model is, possibly, more realistic. However, the PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation leads to the conclusion that atomic nuclei are composed of positively charged substance, which can be termed protons, and of mass/energy, which can be termed neutrons; both can be symbolically taken particulate.
When it comes to choosing a good journal, it has always been debated which one is more important? Impact factor (IF) or journal quartile (Q)?
I give an example, you have three following journals, which one would you choose?
1- IF: 1.3 & Q1
2- IF: 2.5 & Q2
3- IF: 3.9 & Q3
Please select one of the three journals above and give a reason for that.

Mysticism is often treated as the opposite of science. But is it? Please see
Dear Colleagues!
I hope you are all doing well. I have a question to all of you. I love to teach and so far I have been teaching everything from international business, marketing, management to organisational psychology. I feel ambivalent towards this however.I love to teach and Im curious in my nature and what better way to learn new things than to teach? However I also feel that if I continue being a generalist It might also be bad since I risk loosing touch with my main specialisation.
What are your thoughts? Your experiences?
My speciality is this :
Best wishes Henrik and professor Hugo 3 months old who keeps me company when Im trying to work :-)
Ps stay safe.
I am looking for good books/articles for the study of solar wind. I would be happy to get your valuable suggestions. Thanks.
When we derive the formula for length contraction, we use the direct Lorentz transformation. But for solving the formula for time dilation, we use the inverse transformation. Why is that so?
I have read that time is defined in terms of entropy (entropy of the universe maybe? I'm not sure). But entropy is a macroscopic quantity which makes time a macroscopic quantity. Yet time is a parameter in Schrodinger's equation. So we have a macroscopic quantity appearing in a microscopic equation. That makes me think that this microscopic equation is really a statistics equation. It produces deterministic solutions but maybe these deterministic solutions are just mathematical procedures for statistical calculations. That would be consistent with the fact that these solutions actually are used for statistics calculations. Does it makes sense for a macroscopic quantity (time) to appear in a microscopic equation, unless it is a statistics equation? Or, am I mistaken in calling time macroscopic? My primary question is whether Schrodinger's equation can be derived from some set of statistical postulates. The question is not whether the equation was historically obtained from statistical arguments (we already know it wasn't), the question is whether the same equation can be derived from statistical arguments. What Schrodinger was thinking at the time of producing his equation is not relevant to this question.
If we evaporate Sulphur in a closed chamber along with the MoO3 films, will it convert MoO3 to MoS2?
Recently, an unknown particle flow named Aether Wind (and Aether Inflow) has been reported by Jeremy Fiennes (see attachment) which can change light speed and cause time dilation. However, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free Wu’s Pair traveling in vacuum space, like a moving particle, there is no need of carrier (medium). Since aether defined as a photon carrier which couldn’t exist, it is therefore assumed that this unknown particle is nothing but the graviton. For the same reason, despite the accuracy of the experiments, aether wind should be considered as the gravitational flux. As gravitational field reflecting the concentration of graviton vectors in the static state, gravitational flux reflects the changes of the concentration of graviton vectors in the dynamic state. Time dilation in both east bound and west bound air flights obtained in Hafele-Keating experiment must be inaccurate. There should be no time dilation because of the symmetrical distribution of graviton flux in the orbit. Furthermore, Reginald Cahill re-analyzed Dayton Miller's interferometer results and claimed that light travels at a slower speed towards the centers of sun and Milky Way. It is believed this is due to the bombardment of gravitons in the strong graviton flux from sun and Milky Way no matter of aether inflow. (to be published).
What could be the reason for a charge up in a device. I noticed that when I measure the temperature dependence of resistance, at the lowest temperature there is i very sharp increase in resistance. this increase depends upon waiting time at the lowest temperature. Why device charge up with time. if I restart measurements again, it starts from the initial value.
please someone experienced this?
Dear Sirs,
I did not find this material on the internet. There are only mechanical models of some aspects of self-replication. Full mechanical model is absent. Of course it is enourmous problem if one precisely build it. But maybe there are simple and simultaneously more complete mechanical models? I prefer purely mechanical self-replicating machine but self-replicating robots are also good.
Anomalies in Orbital Mechanics.
Hi,
I am doing a short survey with some of my friends in order to understand the need of researchers (from fabrication point of view). Ideally, our target audience is anyone who does fabrication or would like to use fabricated samples. It would be great if you could share your experience and fill this survey. In addition, we would really appreciate if you can pass it on to your friends/professors – they could be chemist/physicist/biologist/electronics device people etc. anyone as long as you think they fit in target audience.
link to survey - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdowIZpMyMaWB7x0P5LmwFAOC2_nyCwsUXunO8eU30nNjejMQ/viewform
Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help.
I want to publish my MATLAB program. "Impulse Response of a Hypothetical Blackhole on a Spacetial Rigid Body". The hypothetical blackhole that I mentioned in my programme is formed from Karl Schwarzschild expression. So, how do I publish it?
Is that possible to do so?
What is the procedure?
I am looking to understand what is soliton in qft, not in optical devices because it seemed to me that solitons look very different in optical field than in qft, but I am trying to understand what this means and I am very confused about topological solitons , the solitons are like taking L = 1 2 ∂µφ∂µφ - U (φ) and after use a metric like mikosky metric, after this I could use euler lagrange for the field of motion equation and this would give me a non-relativistic lagragian , and the problem is that I cant get the static solution because I don't know how to do it, are the solitons a static solution for some potential? , Maybe solitons should exist only in the 1d + 1d field which has local symmetry u (1) or are there solitons in 3d + 1d? ,what means solitons in BRST quantazation bacuase i fell that brst dosent have any relatiship with solitons.
Generally, when we calculate the carrier density in 2DEG from SdH oscillations (Field dependence of sheet resistance) and QHE (field dependence of Hall resistance) it should match. In some cases it was found that carrier density calculated using both data differ. What is the reason behind this difference? What is the physics behind the calculation of carrier density from SdH oscillations and Hall resistance data?
Can I apply this method in general for such objects?
I aim to analyse the permeability of aluminum to liquid gallium by measuring it's velocity at individual grain boundaries using ultrasounds.An ultrasound-based characterization technique is motivated by its higher temporal resolution.
But open to more suggestions regarding the problem statement.
The term "phase" is always a confusing thing for me. When we recoding images, we say that we have recorded the amplitude and phase. Amplitude I am able to relate/ physically understand by connecting with intensity. As, intensity increases, the amplitude will also increase. But the phase term is still I am not able to digest. I am not able physically understand the phase term, like understand the amplitude term. Can anyone explain this?
I have studied the mathematics of Phase. But I am not able to physically relate it.
Why many highly successful physicists like Ludwig Boltzmann, Paul Drude, Paul Ehrenfest, Arnold Berliner, Percy Williams Bridgman, Augustus Matthiessen took their own lives at the pinnacle of their careers? Was it because they did not learn to manage stress or there is some other bit of a mystery?
Do every research need to learning to manage stress as it can have life-saving consequences?
1) What are the differences between Order and Anarchy?
2) Any examples of Anarchy in Universe, Nature and known knowledge?
3) Anarchy also follow some rules?
4) Is Anarchy a part of Order?
5) Is anarchy a change maker?
6) Anarchy in real is an Anarchy?
7) Any other parameters and observations about anarchy?
Thanks
Gravitational or else called acceleration time dilation, has actual effects on clocks since it slows down matter vibrations and thus time evolution of matter and therefore tick rates on clocks. The larger the acceleration the slower time passes (i.e. not time itself but how time is measured). A clock coming out of acceleration into an inertial frame of reference would be found relative to lack in time. So acceleration would have caused a permanent effect on the clock (lost time) independent of the frame of reference. Gravitational or else called acceleration time dilation is an actual physical effect and phenomenon that slows down molecular vibrations on matter. This above, includes also biological clocks and the aging process of living organisms. A man on Jupiter would age much slower than a man on Earth, assuming he/she is immune to the hostile environment of Jupiter :)
Kinematic time dilation or else named constant velocity time dilation is a different phenomenon. It is an apparent time dilation effect but with real consequences on how we measure time and our everyday life like the GPS satellites which loose in average 7μs in time each day compared to clocks on the surface of the Earth due this SR kinematic effect. At the same time they gain time about 45μs due the gravitational time dilation effect [GPS and Relativity][1] .
These two opposite effects must be accounted for 45-7= +38μs per day, a total amount of time dilation the clocks on the satellites are going relative ahead in time (faster) compared to the clocks on the Earth surface and compensation must be applied so all clocks are in synchronization.
For the question one may rise that the velocity is not constant in the case of a GPS satellite orbiting the Earth so that it should not be considered as a SR kinematic constant velocity time dilation since velocity vector is changing all the time direction and therefore this is an acceleration and not constant velocity?
However, relativistically when the two motions are compared and not each as isolated cases, this is not true since relative to the Earth's spin which is also circular motion effectively it is the same situation as two objects moving with different constant velocities in two parallel linear straight paths in space. The GPS satellites orbit the Earth (not Geostationary or Geosynchronous orbit) about twice every day (2 orbits in a 24h period at about 14,000 Km/h speed).
Last but not least, I must clarify what I mean with the term above "apparent" time dilation effect and phenomenon?
By this I mean that this kinematic SR time dilation effect is observed and can be measured only during flight and its due the finite speed of light c and the relative different positions in space each time of the two objects in relative motion. Due the finite and not infinite speed of light, time delays are introduced on each of the two observers residing on the two objects trying each to measure the clock reading information of the other so that at the time one observer receives the clock readout of the other due to the propagation delay of this information, an added amount of time has already passed on the clock of the observer at the time it receives this information.
Therefore the observer perceives this as if his/her clock is running faster than that of the opposite observer. The effect is larger the more larger the relative speed is. This is however an apparent effect observed only during flight and has no permanent effect on matter (tick rate of clocks). Therefore, assuming that their relative constant velocity motion would come to an abrupt stop and totally neglecting the acceleration time dilation effects (i.e. gravitational time dilation effects due this abrupt stop in relative motion) then the two observers meeting back both in the same inertial frame of reference and comparing their clocks' time readouts would see no difference on the time recorded on their clocks. Their clocks will show exactly the same time!
Is there a way to test experimentally and prove this above hypothesis that SR kinematic time dilation has no real effect on matter (i.e. clocks' tick rates) in contrast to gravitational acceleration time dilation which does actually affect matter and slows down the tick rates of the clocks and therefore affects physically interdependent of frame of reference, how time is measured?
Well I believe yes. Compensate a GPS satellite for a year only for the gravitational time dilation (i.e. clock on satellite runs +45μs faster per day) and do NOT compensate for the whole year for the kinematic SR time dilation effect (i.e. clock on satellite appears to run -7μs slower per day).
According to the above information at the end of the year the clock on the orbiting GPS satellite would lack in time about 365x(-7μs)= -2.55 ms. Bring the satellite down to Earth from orbit to stationary position and read out its clock time.
My prediction is that there will be no any 2.55ms time difference and the satellite clock will display the same exact time as the reference clock on Earth within the error bars of the experiment [2].
In summary for the case of the kinematic SR time dilation, it is not that the matter of the two objects is time dilated but rather the measurement information traveling from one observer to the other that is time dilated during flight.
Note: The satellite would probably burn out during reentry but the atomic clock could be shielded and safely landed with an ejection mechanism and parenthood.
References
[2]:
Research Proposal Does Special Relativity's kinematic time dilation have a phy...

Hello everyone
I have a metal thickness gauge with twin crystal probe and It does not have the ability to correction V-Path automatically.
- How to calculate V-Path correction in UTM (Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement)?
Hello,
I have been looking for a citable reference for this, but I'm not finding any.
So far I have found two links on the internet, which mention different values for it. One mentioned 17e28 1/m^3 and the other one, 8.5e28 1/m^3 (links provided below), and both seem to be blogs, so not citable.
Does anyone know which one is correct? Also, it would be really helpful if you could provide a citable reference for it.
Thank you.
1.
2.
It sounds that shorter λ (more energy) makes the wave more powerful to go through a specific thickness of the material, but the weaker wave does it better. How are the interactions of the wave with the molecules?
Hello Dear colleagues:
it seems to me this could be an interesting thread for discussion:
I would like to center the discussion around the concept of Entropy. But I would like to address it on the explanation-description-ejemplification part of the concept.
i.e. What do you think is a good, helpul explanation for the concept of Entropy (in a technical level of course) ?
A manner (or manners) of explain it trying to settle down the concept as clear as possible. Maybe first, in a more general scenario, and next (if is required so) in a more specific one ....
Kind regards !
(see recently announced potential promising discovery from CERN about leptoquarks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.11769 ,
https://www.scinexx.de/news/technik/indizien-fuer-neue-physik-erhaerten-sich/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR6P0aRqYf8 ).
A new boson existing (i..e new force) is possible unifying essentially the electroweak with the strong force.
It is said that bandgap engineering/ tailoring can be done by:
1. Making alloy semiconductors
2. Using Quantum Well structures
3. Use of strained layer materials
My question is that under which strain conditions the Light Hole Band can move upside of Heavy Hole Band, which subsequently cause change in bandgap.
Thus greater violations measured do not cause greater temperature change measured on the detectors?
(As a reminder, the argument for quantum entanglement demonstrated by the EPR experiment is, that it seems that the photons don't have a definitive polarization before the measurement and this is only decided during the measurement on the detector and somehow communed instantly to the other detector thus violating the speed of light).
This I find crucial because if the process of the experiment is not adiabatic as possible say in a photon EPR experiment thus there is non sufficient large signal to noise ratio S/N of the detectors then the experiment could have an Gaussian noise loophole.
This Gaussian noise would be common in both detectors and therefore responsible for an apparent violation of Bells Inequality. With other words the detectors-polarization filters (i.e. measurement) are forcing photons with very close polarization angle to the filter but not the same, to align to the polarization angle of the filter with the same probability on both sides of the experiment and therefore responsible for the violation? Is there an EPR experiment free of this potential loophole?
The illustration here describes this possible loophole.

Valleytronics can be realized by accessing different spins coupled with different valleys. In monolayer TMDs, time-reversal symmetry should be present while spatial symmetry should be broken to realize spin-valley polarization. People use a magnetic field to detect this spin-valley polarization. then why TRS is not broken on applying magnetic field?
Talking to Dr. Jörn Schliewe inspired me to raise this illustrated question and how you may call these barriers in the experiment of diffraction? Would you call it n-slits or n-obstacles?

Maxwell's equation for land Gravity Surveys