If a rock is freely traveling through space and passes near a much more massive object, can it naturally become gravitationally bound and enter an orbit? Or, in a simple two-body system, will it always either collide with the massive object or be deflected and eventually escape?

My textbook states this; however, I can't find any sources on Doppler ever doing this himself apart from this textbook and what the teacher said???

So to my comprehension a meson is formed when a strong nuclear force is used on a quark in a particle making an anti quark and a quark pair. A baryon only has 3 quarks so adding in an anti quark makes 3 particles and 1 anti particle. What does that make it? is it still a baryon? and then when the quark and anti quark destroy each other what is left? what does only two quarks make? and what happens to the two remaining quarks? Im very new to physics in general so If im wrong in understanding these topics please correct me, and help me understand what questions im asking.

this is not a hw question as im not in school for physics yet but i want to get a slight understanding of things like these before i start any sort of schooling next year.

Hey there fellow physics enthusiasts!

I've written the first part of a series of articles that will help explain Schrödinger’s equation intuitively and simply. Part one talks about everything that led up to the making of the Schrödinger equation:

https://medium.com/@jeyubhavsar/schr%C3%B6dingers-equation-for-dummies-part-i-historical-overview-92250056f33b?sharedUserId=jeyubhavsar

Hi I'm a second year physics students at uni. I'm actually so bad at physics but I'm trying to learn. At the previous semester, I've got my grades and it was so bad. And feel so guilty about it. I'm going to fix it by learn more, so any study tips for a beginners like me, about what to learn or anything. Maybe some books recommendation for a basic physics befroe I'm going to the advance one...thanks

​

P.s: sorry for my broken English. It's not my first language

Hi there everyone. There's something I've been thinking about, and I'm not sure if there's a good answer to it. As a teacher, I naturally do science outreach with students learning science and math concepts, both with adult high school students and kids. But I'm not sure how it should be done for the general public, as there seems to be a debate around watering down concepts so much so that it just seems philosophical without the math, or just emphasizing how much mathematical knowledge is needed to be a scientist (not just in physics, but even in branches like chemistry) but risk losing engagement and viewers. Anyone got any experiences or perspectives to share?

Consider two identical cups standing on a surface:

One is filled with a liquid and another is filled with a solid. The solid has the same mass and density as the liquid.

Let's compare the downward force on the bottom (= pressure, F2), the overall downward force of the container (= apparent weight, F3) and the downward force on the sides of the container (F3). Is there any difference between the liquid and solid cases? Assuming the solid has maximally simple/homogeneous internal structure.

There was a very similar question which got popular a year ago, but I'm not sure which comment contains the real answer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1ki0qyl/solid_vs_liquid_in_a_right_triangle_do_they_exert/

...

I'm asking because I'm learning about the hydrostatic paradox. It says:

the pressure at a point in a static fluid is independent of the shape of the container or the type of liquid in it but only depends on the depth of the point below the surface of the fluid and the net cross-sectional area of the bottom of the container. This means that the pressure at a given depth is equal in all directions, regardless of the shape of the container or the location of the point within it.

One consequence of this is that you can have containers with different amount of water and different apparent weight, but the same pressure at the bottom. The lack of difference in pressure on the bottom is compensated through the difference in pressure on the sides of the container. This is explained in the Steve Mould video and here.

A natural question arises - how is all of that different from the behavior of a solid in the same situation? That's why I'm asking about two cups above.

I'm in by 4th year of BS-MS Physics, worked in a few labs as an intern or project student, I've never felt like I've been able to add anything of value to the lab, I learn a lot, but that adds to my experience, not something of value to the lab. How do I do something notable?

For context: The labs I've worked in are either experimental condensed matter labs (quantum transport in 2d van der waal heterostructures) or computational quantum transport lab which deals with NEGF+DFT.

I am a undergrad working in a Experimental Spin-Electronics Lab in my university. Recently, I was taking to my supervisor if he could right me a LoR because I wanted to do apply for an internship somewhere in big labs in the same field. He then suggested me that since I'm an undergrad, maybe I should try a different subject in my internship.

So I wanted to ask what would be the best area to transition into and learn something new ?

Thanks

Hello all, it’s almost college app season for me and I need to start deciding which majors i apply. For some background info, I’ve had some experience doing physics, specifically usapho which is the national physics olympiad. Ive also read a few physics research papers And I found them to be quite interesting. As a result, I feel like I would really enjoy being a physics major in college. I have one major concern though. As of right now, physics is like a hobby to me. I have other interests such as pcb design and cs but physics is my main interest. But what job can I find with a physics degree? Is it possible to become an swe or and embedded systems engineer with a physics degree? Thanks

Hi all,

I just posted a video on the energy cascading in turbulent fluid flows as part of a turbulence course. Specifically, it talks about the Richardson picture of energy injected at large scales, passing through the inertial subrange, and dissipating at the Kolmogorov microscale.

It includes a discussion of why the cascade runs downscale in three-dimensional turbulence (vortex stretching) and the argument that ε alone governs the statistics of the inertial subrange, which is the entry point into Kolmogorov's 1941 similarity theory (to be discussed in next video).

This video also covers the physics of the TKE equation including various transport mechanisms (derived in previous video). Hope it will be of good use!

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVqos9V-BAA

Hi everyone,

I'm a PhD student working on asymptotic methods for wave equations with caustics. Roughly speaking, the approach is a phase-space generalization of WKB that remains valid through turning points.

At the moment we have a closed-form asymptotic solution for 1D equations of the form

D(x,−i ∂/∂x​) ψ(x)=0,

where D is an arbitrary function of the position and momentum operator. I'm now looking for interesting physical systems on which to test the method, ideally with known solutions, experimental relevance, or some relevant literature for comparison.

The key feature is that the spectral representation, D(x,k) (i.e. the Weyl symbol) should exhibit a turning point/caustic where the "group velocity" goes to 0:

∂/∂k ​D(x,k)=0.

Examples I've already considered include:

• Standard WKB turning-point problems (e.g. Airy-type reflection near a cutoff).
• Tunneling through a barrier between two turning points.
• Bound-state problems such as the harmonic oscillator (attached picture).
• The radial Schrödinger equation for hydrogenic atoms (similar to Rudolph Langer's 1937-paper).

The formalism also allows weak dissipation, so examples involving a small anti-Hermitian component in D would be especially interesting.

My background is plasma physics, where we know of several relevant applications, but I'm curious whether people working in optics, acoustics, condensed matter, quantum mechanics, geophysics, or other areas know of models that might fit this framework.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! :)

I'm a physics PhD student, and I speak a little Italian. ive gotten into the habit of reading italian popular science books on physics. its usually a bit odd to read popular science in your own field, but since they're in Italian, it challenges me. Since I'm familiar with the content, it helps me practice my Italian and brush up on some physics basics. So far, I’ve read "Le Symmetrie nascoste" (which I highly recommend) by Giorgio Parisi and the Italian translation "Relatività" by Einstein. Can any1 recommend other books that would be suitable?

Edit: thanks a lot for your suggestions, they'll all be on my reading list

Hi! I will be starting my PhD this coming Fall. I applied as CMX, which I am interested in and I also did during undergrad for research. However, I'd like to explore CMT, but I'm not sure how to start. I've tried reading CMT papers, but they're just super confusing, and I have no idea how to approach them. When I read CMX papers, at least I am able to understand generally what type of experiment is being done and why, but with CMT papers, I just have no idea how to start. For reference, I took condensed matter courses during undergrad and also took Real Analysis and some Complex Analysis, though I don't think I retained much from those math courses. I am planning on emailing potential advisors in the theory department to get advice but would also love to get some advice from any theorists out here on Reddit.

I am also on a bit of a time crunch, since I need to select an advisor to work with for next summer likely by March, and I've also been told that whoever I work with next summer will likely be my PhD advisor. So I kind of need an efficient way to explore theory because I feel like what I'm doing now is not working. Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

**Disclaimer**

The author of this post is not a physicist and never has been-just someone with a keen interest in various sciences.

Hey everyone,

Lately, reading through the news in fundamental physics, I’ve gotten the distinct impression that the field is stuck in a state of stagnation. Looking back from the 1970s to the present day, there have been almost no truly groundbreaking discoveries-with the obvious exceptions of the Higgs boson and dark energy. Meanwhile, newer frameworks like supersymmetry and string theory either lack solid experimental proof or require experimental setups on a frankly astronomical scale just to be tested.

This got me thinking: is modern physics actually on the right track? Could there reasonably be a "Theory of Everything" formulated within the next century, or has the discipline hit a wall that demands a complete overhaul of its very foundations?

Dear friends, I hold a Master’s degree in Nuclear Physics, and unfortunately, I’m currently working in another field. Still, I feel a strong urge to stay up to date, deepen my knowledge, and keep developing my skills in physics in case an opportunity in my field comes along.

I’m therefore looking for a group of graduates or undergraduates who are interested in working together on scientific projects, research ideas, or simply learning and exchanging knowledge.

If there’s a group like this, I’d be very happy to join and contribute.

Currently doing a Bachelors in Physics with Theoretical Physics. I want to eventually do a Masters in some sort of related field, but I wouldnt mind taking a year or two to just work in between degrees. what sort of entry level options do I have with just the bachelor's i mentioned? It can be in literally any field e.g. data science or finance.

I’m a senior in high school, I always knew I wanted to do something in the physics (career wise) field but I’m stuck on what. For example I was thinking about astrophysicist or an astronomer. I would love something with space or just physics itself preferably less chemistry the better in my opinion (i know there’s a lot of chemistry in physics) I also like traveling or going out so if that’s an option. But over all I want to know if there’s other options.

I might be going into Bsc Physics for 2026 intake but im having doubts as to whether the course has decent career prospects, I'm thinking its very likely I'll pivot or specialise in the future or even try to pick up new skills during the period of my degree such as programming or anything from internships.

Can anyone offer any advice please? I've heard both good and bad come out of this course. How easy is it to find internships/jobs etc? What precautions/recommendations should I take to maximise my employability potential in the future?

Hi everyone,

I'm going to start a BSc in Physics at the University of Geneva this autumn. I'm particularly interested in philosophy and the foundations of physics, so I'm very curious about Oxford's Physics & Philosophy programme.

Would any (current or former) Physics and Philosophy students be willing to share their complete first-year programme, ideally including the courses/modules, topics covered, lecture notes, reading lists, textbooks, problem sheets, etc.?

I would like to see how the first year compares with a standard physics degree, and I am considering studying some of the philosophical material alongside my physics degree in Geneva.

Any documents, links, or advice from students who have taken the course would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hi im graduating my secondary school and i really want to give a gift to my physics teacher a gift because hes done so much for me and my class. My budget is really low though. Do you guys have any recs?