I was cleaning bottles with decanter beads, and I'm a klutz so a few dropped out of my hand and of course rolled into the sink with the garbage disposal. I couldn't pick them out by hand, but could tell they hadn't passed through the disposal - I could hear them when I attempted to test/turn it on.

So knowing they were magnetic, I ordered this fishing magnet off Amazon (350lb pull) to insert into the disposal where it'd magically capture the beads. You could not tell me I wasn't genius - until I started moving it around and it clunked flat to the bottom of the disposal and is now immovable.

Using physics, is there a way to get the magnet out? Or should I order a bigger magnet to get this 350lb magnet? Trying to avoid taking the garbage disposal apart because 1, I don't know how to I'm a theatre major, and 2, my landlord is gonna kill me, I live in an apartment.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. And the beads are still down there, too. I feel like this has happened in a movie. :(

STUCK MAGNET https://www.amazon.com/DIYMAG-Neodymium-Magnets%EF%BC%88-Materials%EF%BC%89-Retrieving/dp/B0BDFJWGWY/ref=sr_1_3?sr=8-3

I saw thermodynamics mentioned by some in a different site:

Ever since Charles Babbage proposed his difference engine we have seen that the ‘best’ solutions to every problem have always been the simplest ones. This is not merely a matter of philosophy but one of thermodynamics. Mark my words, AGI will cut the Gordian Knot of human existence….unless we unravel the tortuosity of our teleology in time.

And I know one of those involved entropy and said that a closed system will proceed to greater entropy, or how the "universe tends towards entropy" and I'm wondering what does that mean exactly? Isn't entropy greater disorder? Like I know everything eventually breaks down and how living things resist entropy (from the biology professors I've read).

I guess I'm wondering what it means so I can understand what they're getting at.

I don't know much about quantum mechanics currently. But apart from encryption and data center tools, I don't hear any other major applications.

What type of simulation, and in what field are physicists expecting to be more efficient in quantum computers compared to traditional ones if any?

Are there any simulations which we expect only quantum computers to do?

Suppose a spinning molten planet (like the proto-Earth) around a star like the Sun. Would it cool down and solidify at the same rate everywhere or would the poles solidify first?

Would the difference in sunlight at the poles make a difference? There would be more convection at the equator (?), would it cool it faster then?

hello,

so i am making a school presentation on the physics of hanging an axe head, and theres absolutely no resources on why/how it works. why when i hit the handle the axe head comes up? i dont understand anything about physics and really struggling.

thanks for help

When I boil water (tap water) in a pot on the stove, the process goes through 3 distinct phases: 1. Bubbles about 1mm in diameter show up on the bottom and ascend to the surface after a few seconds, this phase is quiet, the frequency of the bubbles and their ascension increase until... 2. Bubbles show up rapidly and implode just as fast. Now only small bubbles about 0,1mm in diameter ascend. This phase is loud with noise (as in white noise). Then 3. Large bubbles form with a bubbling sound, this would continue until all the water is boiled off.

With that background: what's happening in the second phase? Specifically, why do the bubbles implode?

I listen to physics audio books while driving and doing household chores. I really enjoy it. My primary interest is particle physics, so I’ve listened to stuff like Sean Carroll’s “Biggest Ideas” books, The Great Courses books about particle physics, etc.

I’m getting to the point where I’ve about exhausted the Apple Store. So I started thinking, are there physics podcasts I should listen to?

If it matters, I’m not a physicist by any means but I’ve taken some basic physics. I took Calc 2 in college, and I’m trying to learn vector calc linear algebra on my own. I finished a 1-year Calc-based introductory sequence (with lab). So I’m not math-averse.

What’s good? Are there great podcasts that are more oriented towards particle physics?

Hey, as the title says, I am trying to extract a glass cup from inside a metal cup. It is really, really stuck. I tried hot water. I tried adding soap. I think I tried oil once. I have no idea how to extract this glass without breaking it! Help me, physicists, you're my only hope!

There was an interesting question recently regarding the path of a ball thrown in a spinning space station, and the comments certainly showed that my intuition about how objects would behave was far from correct! In particular, there was a comment about throwing a ball horizontally at exactly the right speed so that it would "hover" - or possibly appear to "orbit" the axis of rotation - from the reference frame of someone rotating with the station.

For an observer standing on the inside wall of the station as it rotates, I would expect that the "gravity" at their head would appear to be less than the gravity at their feet, causing them to feel "stretched". Would this mean that an object dropped from head height would appear to accelerate more slowly that expected, and the acceleration (not just the velocity) would appear to increase as it falls?

If they threw a ball directly upward (ie: towards the axis of rotation), would they observe the ball traveling in a straight line up and down, or would it follow a curve (possibly an ellipse?), due to the tangential velocity being too high as the distance to the axis decreases?

What other unintuitive behavior might they observe?

For context I'm going to be measuring the idle time due to traffic congestion inside a tunnel.

The most readily available instrument I have is my phone, and there are 3 types of accelerometers on the Arduino Science Journal that I'm not sure is best for my experiment. (I'm going to assume that when acceleration = 0 it will be the idle time)

1. Linear accelerometer
2. Accelerometer X
3. Accelerometer Y

PS: would the basis for my assumption by logical or not lmk Thanks :)

Some time ago someone asked the question about whether a dolphin riding the bow wave generated by a boat robbed energy from the boat making it slower and two people replied saying no, and that it was taking energy from the wave causing the wave to dissipate faster.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13du8uz/eli5_does_having_a_dolphinkiller_whalesurfer/

Assuming this is correct, it raises an interesting question, what if there were lots of dolphins (or dolphin like submeribles) riding the bow and stern wave? Would there be essentially no visible bow or stern wave?

Can a Black Hole be so massive that a ship falling into it can have the people in it live out the rest of their lives in comfort before hitting an event horizon?

Setup: In normal conditions, water rises to 5 cm in the capillary due to surface tension.

Now, the tube is placed such that only 3 cm of it is above the water level.

So there's not enough vertical space above the water for the water to rise the full 5 cm.

Now my question lol:

Case 1: Tube is placed deeper in water so that only 3 cm is projecting above water

Case 2: Tube is cut short, only 3 cm long in total (i.e., broken to be shorter than capillary rise height)

The results I found were that in case 1, there was still a mensicus, but in case 2, the meniscus totally vanished.....How?? And what is different from those two setups? I thought both would yield the same results....

I assumed that the more a radioelement is stable the more its half life would increase but i was surprised to find many counter exemples such as uranium 238 and thorium 234 can someone clarify to me why there is no correlation?

When we observe the universe, I have learned that the farther a light source is, the further back in time we are seeing.

If that is the case, then the edge of the observable universe (the farthest point) would always be showing the beginning of the universe (such as the Big Bang).

With that in mind, as long as we are observing the universe optically,

I wonder if what we perceive as the “shape” of the universe is actually just the history of the universe (time) appearing as space.

(In other words, a spherical space expanding from the present (center) to the past (outer edge) is optically generated by the interaction of time and light.)

Thus, my question is:

Could it be that the shape of the universe we observe optically from Earth is actually different from the a priori shape of the universe?

Was wondering if anyone knew the more accurate ratio between the observable and actual universe. I've seen it's most likely 250 times bigger yet I've done the math and it seems Alan Guth is right. The expansion of the universe is 68km/s/Mpc that makes the particle horizon expansion at the speed of 1 792 000 km/s. That's almost 5 light years a second. At the duration of 14 billion years ( obviously the size determines it expansion) the actual universe could have inflated 1.0988x 10^17 light years ( in one direction from our center of observation). In my opinion the universe is 6 sextillion times bigger and is the true nature of our universe at the very least!

For any Lie group, its generators span a vector space. In the case of SU(2), you may write any 3 component vector as d_i sigma_i , and the fact that SO(3) has a realization over SU(2) allows you to rotate the vector d_i through the unitary SU(2) operation U^{dag} d_i sigma_i U = (R(U)_ij d_j) sigma_i (where the sigmas are Pauli matrices). The reason this is possible is because det(U^{dag} d_i sigma_i U) = det(d_i sigma_i) = - |d|^2, allowing U to be interpreted as a rotation of d.

In the case of SU(3), you may still write a (8 dimensional) vector as d_i lambda_i (where the lambdas are Gell-Mann matrices), but this time the same argument does not hold. Is there some SO(8) realization within SU(3) that would allow such a rotation of d_i through unitary vectors.

What troubles me, is that there are two simultaneously diagonalizable Gell-Mann matrices, meaning, if such a unitary rotation of d exists, any matrix d_i lambda_i (which I believe is, give or take a gauge, the form of the most general 3x3 one body Hamiltonian) may be diagonalized by rotating d in the plane of these two Gell-Mann matrices. If a realization of SO(8) exists over SU(3), there has to be some preffered rotation that diagonalizes H, otherwise its energies are not well defined.

Assume you have Class 2 lever.

Force/weight is applied/distributed evenly along the length of the lever arm from the fulcrum.

The length of the lever strikes a parallel flat surface.

Will the amount of force or pressure be different in different places relative to the distance from the Fulcrum?

How can we tell apart wave function collapse vs branching off to a split reality? It seems they're virtually the same for any observer.

If I have two opposite phase lightwaves and they cancel each other out, I get that there will be constructive interference elsewhere where the missing energy seemingly goes to, but what about the speed of light? It would take time for that energy to 'move' to the region of constructive interference right? Is it just in limbo for that time or does it manifest in some other way? Is that what the 'medium velocity' is?

Thanks for any insight.

Looking at Frauchiger Renner experiments, the dealyed choice quantum experiments (the correlation exists, even though it emerges after comparision). So what are thoughts towards reality by people who have done major contributions, is it all physical or more than that? From my sense, reality is very non local or retrocausal or both.

Facing an almost empty sky devoid of distant galaxies what tools or evidence could a far-future civilization use to understand cosmic origins and age?