I am looking for exploring different theories from physics that may best explain the question like maybe matter & antimatter from quantum physics or whatever is suitable
126400
Some mystiques try to explain that spirits and those stuffs are composed of energy with frequencies or something. They prove this using a whole leaf and they get a "reading" of the leaf's "soul" or energy that is radiated[they got pictures of it]. They, then, cut a large part of the leaf and get another "reading" and they still get the same reading as the whole leaf [meaning the image of the energy radiated by the leaf is still the same]. This method, they also claim, can read poltergeists, ghosts, spirits and all those stuff.
63851
A graviton is the name. The existance of this particle has´n´t been confirmed yet but hopefully it will be soon.
602822
I am very interested in astrophysics especially the study of particles in the universe. I am also interested in the possibility of time-travel using black holes.
631983
Wow.  You're asking if the cosmos is producing reality.... Hmm... \n\nThere are two theories that are generally accepted as the most plausible; General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.  General Relativity deals with things on a large scale, like the movement of planets, asteroids, people, etc.  Quantum Mechanics deals with the actions of things on a much, much smaller scale, the building blocks of matter, particles much smaller than the particles that make up protons and neutrons.  The problem is rectifying these theories, because at the moment, they don't agree with each other, but they're the best we have.  A new emerging theory is String Theory, which blends them together reasonably well.  If you want to learn about them, a simple Google search will tell you all you need to know.
31808
This question is completely confused. I have attached a web site about the big bang you might find useful.
556783
Sure, it makes logical sense as an idea. But how helpful are these categories in reasoning? I dont imagine that they would be very helpful at all since it is very unlikely to ever find two things that are exactly alike. They might look alike but dont forget about the very subatomic particles which comprise them. Just food for thought.
393456
A very legitimate question - despite most of the answers posted here.\n\nThere is no way that this question can be answered.  Science will never figure it out.  This is in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.  Whether the answer is God or some other explanation there is no way that we can ever definitively know.  When it comes down to it, you can believe in God or some other explanation, but ultimately it becomes a matter of faith. \n\nQuantum physics postulates that particles can be created out of the void.  That really begs the question of "why"?
633486
Its matter. But what is matter. String theory suggest that all matter is made up of vibrating string and the different vibrations causes different characteristics in matter.
581279
Quantum Theory ----\n\n--- body of physical principles designed to account for subatomic phenomena. The theory also has found applications in other branches of physics. The theory arises from the attempt to combine the principles of quantum mechanics with those of relativity in an effort to describe processes such as high-energy collisions in which particles may be created or destroyed.\n\nThe prototype of quantum field theories is quantum electrodynamics (QED), which describes the interaction of electrically charged particles via electromagnetic fields. Here, electric and magnetic forces are regarded as arising from the emission and absorption of exchange particles or photons. These can be represented as disturbances of electromagnetic fields, much as ripples on a lake are disturbances of the water. Under suitable conditions, photons may become entirely free of charged particles; they are then detectable as light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Similarly, particles such as electrons are themselves regarded as disturbances of their own quantized fields. Numerical predictions based on QED agree with experimental data to within one part in 10,000,000 in some cases.\n\nThere is a widespread conviction among physicists that other forces in nature—the weak force responsible for radioactive beta-decay; the strong force, which binds together the constituents of atomic nuclei; and perhaps also gravitational forces—can be described by theories similar to QED. These theories are known collectively as gauge theories. Each of the forces is mediated by its own set of exchange particles, and differences between the forces are reflected in the properties of these particles. For example, electromagnetic and gravitational forces operate over long distances, and their exchange particles (the photon and the graviton) have no mass. The weak and strong forces operate only over distances shorter than the size of an atomic nucleus. They are mediated by massive particles, which can travel only short distances during the exchange process.\n\nIt is also hoped that all the forces can be encompassed in a single gauge field theory. In such a unified theory, all the forces would have a common origin and would be related by mathematical symmetries. The simplest result would be that all the forces had identical properties. A mechanism called spontaneous symmetry breaking is used to account for the observed differences.\n\nA unified theory of electromagnetic and weak forces already has considerable experimental support; it is likely that this theory can be extended to include the strong force. There also exist theories that include the gravitational force, but these are more speculative.\n\n\nNote: The answer is based on Encyclopedia Britannica DVD\n\n\nnico_guerrero1991@yahoo.com\nUSA
14153
i have to agree with absynthian.  if they are in fact "physicists" then that means they have doctoral degrees in physics and telling them about quantum entanglement or string theory is going to be like giving a bunch of senators a talk about legislative procedure.  \n\nchaos theory, quantum entanglement/teleportation, and string theory are all huge and hot topics these days in physics, and they'll all have read plenty about them in physics today, nature and science, even if they aren't active researchers in that area.  you are going to bore their socks off if you get up there and start telling them about how strings are 11-dimensional objects, unless you have some really seriously deep and intuitive observations on the subject that you can share.\n\nhere is some good advice:  physicists are always interested in the historical development of their field.  the work of the big-name scientists - newton, galileo, maxwell - is well-known.  but there are a lot of physicists from the annals of history who led interesting lives and who often worked on subjects ahead of their time.  if you can find a research topic and show how someone from the 18th century studied a related phenomenon, and give it a historical twist, i think THAT would be a hit talk.\n\nanother thing might be to discuss some weird little topic from the back waters of physics.  people do research on all kinds of crazy stuff that's fun and interesting, but doesn't get much press.  for instance, nasa does a buttload of research into weird little problems - an example is that nobody understood why ketchup flows so slow at first, and then comes pouring out, until nasa figured it out.  that's one of many examples from this great page that might help you get started:\nhttp://exploration.nasa.gov/articles/index.html#fris\n\nanother way to get into this stuff is to just start searching around the web and looking at the research pages of faculty at various universities.  many of them will be working on hot topics - high-temperature superconductors or quantum information theory or photonics or something.  but you'll probably find one or two old guys at every place who are working on some totally off-the-wall thing.  THAT kind of stuff will be much better than the talk that ends with "..but we still have no idea whether string theory is really correct or not."\n\ncheers
610241
The concept of universe is associated with matter expanding in space . The same space can be occupied by anti matter as well . So space and time quantum are across the boared on the universe and even far beyond that .
24244
Actually, the wiki on this one is unusually good (and right, for once):\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string\n\nCosmic strings are sometimes confused with the strings of string theory.  There's considerably more observational evidence for the former than the latter. \n\n(I say they're different things, but every time someone like me says something like that, some party-pooper like Bohr comes along and makes a liar out of us.  There's a chance, in my mind at least, that they could be closely related somehow since, supposing either of the things even exist, they're both topological defects in space.  But, that's pure conjecture on my part).\n\nMichio Kaku of the City College of New York has written on both.  If you're looking for something on string theory, and not cosmic string theory, Barton Zwiebach has written the only introductory book worth reading.  If you really did mean cosmic strings, there are several recent journal publications listed in that wikipedia article (and they're all, for once, actually referreed journals).\n\nAs an aside, I see a lot of people posting on both of these around here as though they were somehow proven fact.  There is almost no observational evidence for cosmic strings, and there is none at all for string theory.  There isn't anything wrong with thinking about things like this -- that's where new answers come from.  It's just that I'd like to see the certainty levels turned down a bit.  In the case of string theory, the theory is in much better shape than it was a few decades ago, but it still has no real central theme, it has no real sharp predictions (like the Higgs-Boson, for example, of the standard model of particle physics), and absolutely no experimental verification or support of any kind.\n\nIt just kind of torques me a little that so many people run around on these boards decrying the theory of evolution as unproven, wild-ass conjecture (when, in fact, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution has been more exhaustively catalogued than it has been for probably any other theory in history), while still others are lauding string theory as something as sure as Maxwell's equations.  String theory is a fun idea, and probably a necessary one, but it isn't a sound idea just yet.
293605
It sounds like you are talking about an area of science known as quantum mechanics, though you might be referencing subatomic particle theory.  Yes, the math can be a bit much and the conceptualizations a bit forced.  But not knowing you I am hestitant to say no way.  Maybe you could should start out with little thermodynamics.\n\nThe first site below is one called HyperPhysics.  The link will send you straight to the grid on thermodynmics.  Try tapping the buttons, read and little and see if it makes sense.  I suggest you start with kinetics.  If HyperPhysics doesn't do it for you, try Wikipedia.  If you want to leap in head first the last reference is about string theory, tachyons and all that good stuff.  Good luck and heppy learning.
156681
In scientific explanation\nThe basic particle of a matter is atom. Its also divisible but then the properties of that matter will not remain.\n\nThere can also be said every matter is from electron, protons and charge less neutrons. But then it will be devised into light.\n\nIf you look in the vacuum(absence of anything), it should be neither atom nor protons nor something...it should be "ZERO"(which is used to prove a decision "False" or absence of anything).\n\nSay "you have no answer".\nThat means you have zero answer.Think of it, keep trying and make another theory. :-D
272050
All a theory does is attempt to explain evidence.  If it does a good job explaining evidence, and if it stands up to being able to predict the results of future experiments, then it has a lot going for it.  Relativity theory does a good job of explaining a lot of experimental evidence that had 19th century physicists scratching their heads.  Special relativity helped explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is essentially the only thing on which any two inertial observers can agree; general relativity was able to predict the curving of light around the sun and explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, and a myriad of other phenomena since.  Unfortunately, general relativity and quantum mechanics don't play very well together.  Since quantum mechanics ALSO does a good job of explaining a lot of things, we start to look for ways of describing the universe which include both the relativistic and quantum viewpoints.  (One can loosely think of relativity describing "big" objects and distances, and quantum theory describing "small" objects and distances.)  There have been big inroads made in this effort (quantum field theory), but no firm answers yet.  What is needed to validate a theory is to take the theory's predictions and compare them to experimental results.  I'm not a physicist, and I don't know where the current state of research is as regards testing such predictions.  Just bear in mind that, even if some flavor of QFT becomes the "new" relativity theory so to speak, it doesn't completely invalidate relativity theory.  After all, we still use the techniques of Newtonian physics for many things (the first quarter of any freshman level physics class in college is largely thanks to Newton!), because even though Newtonian techniques don't provide the correct answer (as say, compared to the techniques of general relativity), the error produced is often so small that it would be darn near impossible to tell the difference.
39825
Personally I liked "Physics and Philosophy" and "Physics and Beyond" by Heisenberg.  The latter is Heisenberg's autobiography, but it has some interesting ideas in it.  I also like a multiple volume set of books called  "The World of Physics: A small library of the literature of physics from antiquity to the present" There are a lot of excerpts dealing with historically important discoveries in physics.  It tends to go somewhat easy on the math too.  More recent popular books are "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
549121
In theory, yes.  We already have a theory of and some say fact in a parallel universe and that is the concept of heaven and hell.  Both parallel universes, or perhaps one in the same.  Parallel existence in spiritual form.  Physicists are theorizing now that there may be far more than just two dimensions.  Prof. Stephen Hawking theorizes that here could be as many as 64.  M theory pertains to the basis of every particle is a little string of energy.  It is this little string of energy  and its behaviour in relation to gravity that have physicists intrigued.  \nIt is believed that gravity is an incomplete energy.  Being incomplete,  some of it spills out and is lost somewhere.   This relationship is established by magnetic energy being able to overcome gravity so easily.  It is where this lost gravity goes that has scientists so intrigued in parallel dimensions. \nFor instance,  Black Holes have such intense gravitational fields that they can bend and absorb light, yet magnetic fields can overcome gravity quite easily.  Where does the gravity or gravitons go?  The same goes for quantum physics,  where does the light go?  It isn't absorbed or cancelled out.  It is believed it may spill over into other dimensions.