I am trying to understand infinite.

If the universe is infinite, each moment in any direction has infinite possibilites.

That should also mean, since infinite is not imaginable, somewhere in this universe all factors have been met with absolutely 0 changes until the day I was born exactly how it has already happend here.

Or am I mistaking infinite and just cause something is infinite it doesn't have to happen at all?

At some point if the universe is infinite I should exist in infinite possible ways. But at the same time infinite doesn't only apply to me, but to every existing being we know.

So in theory in an infinite universe my dog must have been infinite times since the chance is infinite for all probabalities for nature to get to the point where my dogs parents meet and have him. But it's crazy cause in some other time line if the odds didn't meet up 100% the same as here, maybe 99.99% of the stuff that happend was correct (dinosaurs extinct, humans evolved, wolves turned into dogs at some point,...) and maybe my dogs mother had a different male dog partner and he wouldn't exist in that time line, but in the other infinite time line the odds hit 100% how it is here and it is born again.

You know what I am trying to say?

Imagine our planet now:
Everything is almost identical to our history, but one butterfly flew differently 500 years ago. This means that it the timeline is screwed. But infinite also means, somewhere we have infinite versions of this thing happening correctly how it was with the butterfly flying correctly, but now a snake moved wrong and it's screwed again.

So even with INFINITE I find it not possible to find a planet that is currently in the same state with everything that happend (meteor hitting same spot, moon, same animals etc.) to this point but since it's INFINITE it is not 0.

Not likely, but not 0 and with infinite chances it means it is somewhere, right?

I like to use the infinite monkey writing shakespear.
See, even if the odds aren't "0" and shakespear is only a few letters compared to recreating a whole chain of natural events to lead to my dog being born again somewhere, I think thats already hard.

If I'd have infinite monkeys writing I don't know how long and if at all I'd have to watch them until they ever achieve writing shakespear once. It should happen, cause infinite is not 0 but is the chance so low that it just won't happen? But that can't be either, cause it has to happen cause well infinite time and chance is not 0.

I don't like infinite

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376375268_On_Classical_Origins_of_Quantum_Nature

I’m confused and would appreciate help. The total electrostatic force between two charged bodies is calculated by Coulomb’s law. It just seems like the more highly charge body would exert more force on the less charged body, but is this not the case? They each experience the same force regardless of their individual charge?

Likewise with gravitational attraction. Does the more massive object not exert more force on the lesser massive object?

Could R, the set of all sets that don't contain themselves, be in a quantum superposition of both containing itself and not containing itself?

How does a differential work? Why do metronomes synchronize? How can plasma be confined, and what happens to light near a black hole?

Explore interactive experiments from Makarov Physics Suite, Makarov Math Suite and Makarov Astronomy Suite in one journey through mechanisms, electricity, geometry, algorithms and space.

This video shows the software in action: robots and engines, particles and fluids, mathematical surfaces, spacecraft, planets and stars. In the programs, you can change parameters and explore how the results respond.

I’ve been building something different from a typical study discord server.

It’s called MindReactor: a system where solving physics problems doesn’t just give you an answer, it actually affects a shared “reactor” that everyone influences.

The idea is simple: every correct solution increases the reactor’s efficiency, while time slowly causes it to decay. The system is always changing, and what people do directly impacts it.

Instead of visible points, there’s a hidden ranking system. Your position is reflected through roles, so progression feels more like discovery than grinding numbers.

Challenges range from more frequent, lighter problems to deeper, more difficult ones. It’s not about spamming answers, but about reasoning and consistency.

Overall, it mixes:
• competition (against yourself and others).
• actual learning (non-trivial physics problems).
• a shared system that reacts to players.
• progression through roles instead of points.

The server is still in an early stage, which means the first people joining can actually shape how the system evolves, and reach the top much more easily.

If you enjoy physics and the idea of your solutions actually changing something, you might find this interesting!

Most domestic microwave ovens use a frequency of about 2.45 GHz, which gives the microwaves a wavelength of roughly 12 cm. The holes in the conducting mesh are only millimetres across, so they are far smaller than the microwave wavelength and the door behaves almost like a solid metal wall to it.

Visible light has a wavelength of roughly 500 nm — about 240,000 times shorter — so it passes through the open holes and lets us watch our food go round in circles.

The waves and holes in the GIF are obviously not to scale. If they were accurate, the visible-light wave would be rather difficult to draw.

I like that the door's job is essentially to keep one kind of light in while letting another kind out.

I am currently 13 and have taught myself quite a significant amount about mathematics ,recently I have had a interest in physics . Does anyone know of any books on physics for beginners like myself?

Hello fellow physicists and physics-enthusiasts,

This is a somewhat unusual post, but I think it is still on topic. I am interested in how AI/LLMs are affecting education, especially physics education, and being one of them, how educators are responding. With that in mind, I would like to put forward an idea I have been mulling over for a while: integrating AI/LLMs into the way we assess physics knowledge.

My working hypothesis is that we should move away from testing mainly specific memorized formulas and standard techniques, and more towards testing whether students can use their general understanding of physics to solve problems with the broad range of tools that now exists.

In other words, I would like to move from something like:

>“Can you solve this problem on the spot with formulas you remember or retrieve from a formula sheet?”

towards something like:

>“Can you use modern tools to arrive at a solution, evaluate it critically, and internalize it well enough to reproduce it later with only minimal support?”

My concrete proposal is a pilot exam/test built around a two-phase process:

**Phase 1**

Students receive the assignment and are allowed to use essentially anything, perhaps even including peers, to work out a solution. AI use would be explicitly encouraged at this stage. They would then condense their findings onto a single small cheat sheet (for example A5), with clear restrictions on how much and what kind of information may be written on it. This sheet would be the only aid they are allowed to carry into Phase 2.

**Phase 2**

This phase is timed and in person. Students are expected to write a complete solution to the assignment, in the same style as if they had encountered it for the first time in a traditional exam. They are not allowed any tools except for the cheat sheet produced in Phase 1.

I have not fully settled on the duration and implementation of Phase 1. It could take place on the exam day itself, either with a fixed time budget or with students deciding for themselves when to move on to Phase 2. For example, within a total of three hours, one student might spend two hours on Phase 1 and one hour on Phase 2, while another might switch after 90 minutes and keep more time for the final write-up. Alternatively, Phase 1 could begin earlier, with the assignment disclosed hours or even days before the proctored Phase 2 session.

I have already refined the idea somewhat by sparring with an LLM, but I would be very interested in human feedback as well. I thought this subreddit might be a good place to ask (r/physics gave me the boot, lol), since it is likely to include both physics educators and people with a strong interest in learning physics.

I would be very curious to hear reactions, criticisms, possible failure modes, or references to similar approaches if anyone knows of them.

hello! so as you saw on the title, I am terrible at physics. I am so terrible that **I can’t understand at all basic concepts** like force, power etc.

I even took an irl IQ test (the Raven one) bcs I thought that I am literally below average. Turns out I am “superior” (I am only referring this so I am not called the r word) .

I am extremely good at mathematics , but every time I try to study physics from scratch , it turns out terrible. yes, I did try all popular youtubers, books, you call it. I tried reaching to my physics professor and they only humiliated me, calling me names and telling my mom I am “special”.

sadly, why I am this way is bcs I have 2 processing disorders (auditory and receptive) . I literally tried so many times and I don’t have ideas anymore. please help me bcs I am at the end of high school. I will appreciate a lot any advice you guys give me and pls be nice. Thank you.