Official website

Livestream

IG NOBEL PHYSICS PRIZE 2026 [CANADA, USA, CHINA, SAUDI ARABIA] Randy Hurd, Zhao Pan, Tadd Truscott, Kaveeshan Thurairajah, for theoretical and experimental attempts to design a splash-free urinal.

REFERENCE: “Splash-free Urinals for Global Sustainability and Accessibility: Design Through Physics and Differential Equations,” Kaveeshan Thurairajah, Xianyu (Mabel) Song, J.D. Zhu, Mia Shi, Ethan A. Barlow, Randy C. Hurd, Zhao Pan, PNAS Nexus, vol. 4, no. 4, April 2025, pgaf087. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf087

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Randy Hurd, Zhao Pan, Tadd Truscott, Kaveeshan Thurairajah

Having posted the result to r/Physics 7 years in a row (2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025) I am finally at a ceremony!

Hi r/Physics,

I would like to share a personal project that has been part of my life for more than twenty years. I have started working on the first version in 2004 as a small collection of physics experiments and visualizations. Over the years with many rewrites and long pauses in between it gradually developed into what is now called Makarov Physics Suite. I finally released it last month. The project currently contains about 140 interactive simulations covering classical mechanics, oscillations and waves, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, optics, quantum physics, nuclear and particle physics, relativity, astrophysics, and several computational or complex-system models.

The simulations are interactive rather than prerecorded animations, parameters can be changed while they run and many modules include live measurements, graphs, particle trajectories, field lines, presets, and small experimental tasks. Some of the more computationally intensive models can also use GPU computation (CUDA and OpenCL dependent on your graphic card). y main goal was to make physical relationships easier to explore visually: change a parameter, observe what happens, and compare the result with the relevant equation or theoretical prediction. I should stress that this is intended as an educational sandbox not as research-grade simulation software or a replacement for textbooks. Simplifications are unavoidable and after working on the project for so long I am sure there are things I no longer notice myself.

I would therefore genuinely appreciate critical feedback, particularly from people who teach or work with physics:

- Do any of the visualizations appear physically misleading?

- Are the controls, units and graphs understandable?

- Which simulations communicate their underlying idea well, and which do not?

- Are there important assumptions or limitations that should be stated more clearly?

- Is there an experiment or phenomenon that would be especially valuable to add?

The attached screenshots show only a small selection of the modules. I would also be happy to discuss the equations, approximations and numerical methods used in particular simulations. Full disclosure: I am the developer and the project is now a commercial release. I am posting primarily because I would value informed criticism and suggestions from the physics community.

Thank you for taking a look.

Link to the project: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4861360/Makarov_Physics_Suite/

Some videos you can find on my youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN5-ebZba0g

Not new but super interesting paper by Laetitia Bettman and John Goold from Trinity.

There is relation between Fisher information rates - how fast probability distribution (sorta) is changing - and entropy production in far from equilibrium systems. Paper attempts to consider this in a quantum context, which is tricky because non-commutativity means you have multiple legitimate inequivalent generalizations of the Fisher metric.

They decompose rate of change of the density matrix to classicalish part (eigenvalues/populations) and a quantum part (coherences/rotated eigenbases. The contribution from the classicalish part is the same across the family of otherwise inequivalent quantum Fisher information metrics.

That part lets you talk about changes to the rate of change of entropy for GSKL systems that satisfy local detailed balance

They take all this machinery and tweak some bounds and limits, and explore the quantum thermodynamic Mpemba effect (unfortunately goes completely over my head but sounds very cool)

You can explore different orbitals and see how they look visually. I hope this helps with your studies! 

Try it in your browser: https://gleyn-debug.github.io/quantum_atom_simulation/quantum-atom-model/

Source code: https://github.com/Gleyn-debug/quantum_atom_simulation/tree/main/quantum-atom-model

So for SG o level, now students are taught to use “internal kinetic energy” across different schools. Is this the correct terminology? I checked the 6091 syllabus and no mention of internal KE. So why schools across sg are marking internal KE as a keyword. (No marks for KE, must use INTERNAL KE).

Help. Are we cooked? Teaching (wrong) keywords and memorization rather than concepts and understanding.

If there were truly a singularity, the angular momentum would have accelerated to approaching infinity, no?

In fact, can't we take the mass, the estimated mass and spin of the original star and compare that to the present angular momentum of the black hole to determine how 'big' the 'singularity' is? or at least put some bounds on it?

Just like how you can form an illusion of 3D image on a 2D paper. Can you apply the same concept of a 4D illusion on a 3D plane? (I can’t sleep)

After taking an intro to QM course you quickly realize simple one-body systems compose 99% of the content as 2+ body problems are computationally (and generally analytically) intractable.

This realization confuses me a bit since I know there is a lot of modern research and theory that utilizes (or entirely relies on) QM, but I’m confused how this actually looks as the complexity of these systems increases exponentially. Due to this, it seems impossible to use theory to make any inferences about complex systems as we are generally unable to actually solve such systems.

With most classically treatable problems we can just directly simulate them and compute whatever quantities we’re interested in and either use this to motivate the design of certain experiments, validate the theory, or whatever else. With topics that require a quantum treatment this doesn’t seem possible, leaving me confused on how exactly we use QM for complex systems.

I cannot find a paper simple enough to follow so I’m hoping someone may have some examples or an explanation they can throw at me.

Having recently completed my physics degree, I was wondering if there any were any apps or websites with structured exercises that I could implement into my weekdays (30 – 60 minutes per day). I’m not sure if I want to study a postgraduate qualification but I’d still like to retain most of what I’ve learned and keep my chops up with respect to calculus etc.

Apologies if I’m not entirely clear, I’m hungover to death 💀

Detailed and interesting autograph letter signed by physicist Erwin Schrodinger, one of the pioneers of quantum physics who won the Nobel Prize in 1933 for his Schrodinger Equation.

In the 1950s, Schrodinger also worked with Albert Einstein and physicist Behram Kursunoglu on creating a Unified Field Theory -- the attempt to reconcile quantum physics with the Theory of Relativity -- referred to in scientific literature as the Einstein-Schrodinger-Kursunoglu theory. In this letter to Kursunoglu, Schrodinger expresses his rather extreme displeasure with Kursunoglu's conclusions regarding the Unified Field Theory.

Dated 15 October 1951, letter reads in part, ''Dear Mr. Kursunoglu, I have no time to study your paper now. I am amazed to the extent of finding it difficult to believe, that the modification you suggest, should entail

a.) the equations of motion for a charged mass particle[?] to be about what is to be expected from older theories, and

b.) the electromagnetic field acting as a source of the gravitational potential in much the same way as one would expect from Einstein's theory & Maxwell's theory.''

He then writes a cutting but diplomatic note, ''I advise you to check upon this very carefully, to see whether your astonishingly brief reasoning is really valid.''

Schrodinger then comments upon work done by Max Born, noting that one of Born's conclusions was ''marred by a mistake that remained for a long time unnoticed.'' He then writes that a calculation mistake done by Kursunoglu is ''incorrect, fortunately! Stronger fields than 200,000 Gauss have been produced. Moreover, if Born's non-linearity would come into play at the order of, say 50,000 Gauss, this would have been noticed long ago. / Yours truly / E. Schrodinger.''

Unified Field Theory was a dream never realized by either Schrodinger or Einstein, with the elusive reconciliation of all physics disciplines still waiting for the next Nobel Prize winner to crack.

Two page letter on a single sheet of stationery from the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, School of Theoretical Physics measures 8.25'' x 10.5''. Tape repair at edge of center fold, else near fine condition. Accompanied by Kursunoglu's original letter to Schrodinger dated 13 October 1951, where he writes in part, ''I have now completed a detailed account of the new version of the unified field theory.''

This item sold on Aug. 27 at Nate D. Sanders Auctions $6,875.

Due to popular request after my last posting (https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1w2n2i0/illustrating_the_butterfly_effect_with_a_laser/), I created an analysis of how computational precision affects the results of my laser simulation.

It turns out that standard float64 with around 16 decimal places are not precise enough for this simulation. As the simulation shows, there is not a uniform precision level that is sufficient. It is sometimes necessary to use hundreds of decimal places to achieve convergence. Going forward, I should use higher precision levels to achieve robust simulation results. The qualitative story of the last posting that tiny changes in the laser angle affect the trajectory (number of bounces and escape vector) is not touched by the precision issue, though.

As a plus for Reddit, here is a plot showing the distribution of escape vectors and the distribution of convergence decimal places: https://imgur.com/a/Tnp4wOj

Rendered in manim and using mpmath to create objects with arbitrary precision.

Let me know what else you would be interested to see explored.

I am attempting to replicate some results done in VASP with Quantum Espresso. One thing I notice about both packages is that VASP appears to converge much sooner than Quantum Espresso, with a slightly smaller k point grid size and much lower plane wave cutoff.

For people who have had experience with both, generally speaking what other parameters should I be mindful of that don't map to each other? I'm using LDA pseudopotentials and not working with hybrids.

Hi! In four months, I’m starting a bachelor’s degree program in physics. I’d love to get some advice from people who have already graduated in physics—or anyone willing to share a recommendation. Science has always really appealed to me, and I dedicate a lot of time to my studies, but it always helps to hear good advice from others, since I’ve realized there are so many wise and intelligent people here 😅😅. Thanks a lot for your comments!

Hello, Im doing a marble roller coaster for my MESA project and I was wondering if anyone could figure out and explain this feature.
It’s an elevator that uses counterweight to pull the marble up, I tried to recreate it without much success.

https://www.instructables.com/Paper-Roller-Coasters-/

I have taken admission in BSc Hons Physics at Jadavpur University. I want to get a job in the future. How should I approach this, and what steps should I take to make getting a job possible? Any physics senior, please help me.

Hey everyone,

I just recently learned about the Quantum Twisting Microscope and the concept is pretty interesting. Since it's been about 3 years since that first Weizmann paper, I’m curious where the field is actually heading and what the real bottlenecks are today.

I saw that Efetov’s group at LMU Munich recently used hBN as a tunneling dielectric to get better measurements on graphene. Are finding the right tip or the right dielectric combinations for other vdW materials (like TMDs or magnetic 2D materials) the current major hurdle?

If a grad student joins a lab with a QTM right now, what does their day actually look like? Are they mostly fighting the machine and trying to fabricate tips, or are they actually getting to take measurements and do physics?

What is the actual difficult part of building one of these right now? Are groups still just fighting to get the mechanical alignment perfect, or is the main struggle trying to get the whole setup working inside a dilution fridge?

Basically, are these groups still just trying to get the tool to work, or are they consistently pulling new physics out of it?

Hello,

I am preparing for my advanced Quantum mechanics course. I am not a beginner. I already had a QM course teaching basics and bit more. I need like a good YouTube tutorial playlist going through all the important concepts. Rather quickly like 10-20 min pro topic. Also it should also cover advanced topics. I don't need a lecture playlist.

There are so many but what would you recommend?

Yeah, I know it's relatively simple, but it's been way too long since college, and none of my kids have gotten anywhere near that level of math yet for me to learn it with them again.

Working on personal engineering project with the kids. We're trying make a roughly 15kg projectile reach a minimum of 30m/s inside of roughly half a meter using only mechanical mean if possible. I keep looking for calculators online, but it keeps giving me stuff for distance traveled by the projectile, not the acceleration I need to achieve to reach that velocity.

I know it's going to be simpler than I'll ever want to admit, but I'd really appreciate a refresher. Thanks!

Edit: 30/s not 100!🤦

I use CASTEP code as a beginner. To calculate effective mass, I convert the reciprocal lattice into the real lattice, then calculate curvature and run a 2nd order differential calculation. My question is, to calculate effective mass do I need to convert the reciprocal lattice into a real lattice? Am i on the right track?

Hi everyone! I was a humanities major in college and focused a lot on philosophy. I’m interested in theory that encourages looking at the world in a different way. I know that physics has a lot of intersection with this, but frankly I am AWFUL at science and math. I just don’t have the brain for it. Would anyone have any book/media/concepts recs that would suit this interest in some kind of explain-it-like-I’m-five way? Thanks!

Hello Hive-Mind,

We are planning on making an animation about some aspects in physics/science in general, like 3blue1brown in mathematics

Any advice which topics u would love 2 see?

The idea:

Like a summary or/and explanation if a topic that most have 2 work through or revisit

Feedback welcome

Ciao

Hi,

I’m someone who chose Physics (initially Astrophysics) when I was in 5th grade. Like a lot of kids, I loved space and astronomy, but I never really let go of that love for space and science in general.

I’m now in my junior year of college pursuing Physics. I have good grades, do research, and go to conferences. However, I’ve slowly been losing interest in the more “hardcore” side of physics. There is obviously a lot of math involved, and just looking at how other people around me approach physics, I feel like I see myself differently. I’m not that keen on nose-diving into 15 different math concepts just to understand one particular physics problem. That said, I do love research and enjoy trying new things out. I especially enjoy experimental work, while computational work has been much harder for me.

I still want to work in science, space, and physics in some capacity. I lead different student clubs and really enjoy public-facing roles, leadership, speaking, and being heard. Leadership and management are areas where I think I fit much better.

Because of that, I’ve been looking into careers like science consulting, science advising, policy advising, or similar roles. I haven’t really found many positions advertised in those terms, though, and I’m wondering if it’s even possible to get into that arena with just a BS in Physics.

I’ve also been looking at finance firms and tech companies to see if there are roles where being the “science guy” or having a physics background is useful without necessarily doing hardcore physics every day.

Basically, how do I work for science without necessarily being the person doing theoretical physics or heavy math all day? What kinds of careers should I be looking at? Where do people in these roles usually work, and are they generally well-paid?

I’d really appreciate any guidance, especially from people who had similar feelings during their physics degree or ended up in science-adjacent careers.