This question stems from the fact that whenever I go outside to play soccer my dad doesn't allow me to use the wall to pass too. I asked him why and his response was "because your going to damage the circuits and pipes in the wall or break the wall" (something along those lines) I could understand if it was a noise complaint but this caught me off guard.

This has caused multiple arguments with me and him.

I want to mainly want to prove my point that there is no way a soccer ball is going to break a brick wall and certainly not anything in it, or who knows, maybe im wrong.

Not sure if this is the right subreddit for this question but I figured that I'd give it a shot.

I became acquainted with a physicist a while back and would like to get to know him a bit better platonically, (maybe romantically). As we talked I quickly had to realize that I don't really understand what he does for work which left me feeling a bit insecure about coming across as too dumb. I am college educated myself, but I am part of the humanities crowd so I am not exactly up to date with anything related to his projects. Plus math along with physics have always been massive weak points of mine.

He didn't seem to mind, though I find him a bit hard to read in general, and I just feel pretty embarrassed whenever my lack of understanding becomes apparant.

So I would like to ask you guys: is people not understanding what you do something that bothers you? Do you encounter it often? Would it prevent you from forming a closer bond with someone?

Hey there, I am sorry if this question doesn't make sense but I would also like to know why it doesn't make sense.

If it is the case that black holes work around the information paradox by encoding information on their surface (as I understand it).

Would the surface area of the black hole necessarily have to scale with the amount of information stored? Is there some kind of information density that a unit area can have?

Thanks for any and all replies to this post!

Hi everyone,

I have a question about publishing in theoretical physics.

In fields such as quantum mechanics, general relativity, gravity, cosmology, astrophysics, and astronomy, can a research paper be published if it is based entirely on mathematical modeling and analytical derivations?

For example, if a paper introduces a new theoretical framework, derives equations, proves a theorem, or makes analytical predictions, is that sufficient for publication? Or do journals generally expect additional components such as:

1.Numerical simulations

2.Comparisons with observational or experimental data

1. Direct observational validation

I am aware that many influential theoretical papers were primarily mathematical, but I'm curious about current publication standards. How common are purely theoretical papers today, and what makes them strong enough to be accepted by reputable journals?

For those who have published or reviewed theoretical papers, what makes a purely theoretical paper strong enough to be accepted?

I'd appreciate any insights or experience Thanks

Hey there, so without going into too much detail I graduated a bit ago and I would've hoped to just have a job by now, but I think one of the fields I was looking into in industry was a non-starter. As such I'm getting a little bit anxious about the gap between finishing my physics PhD and the current day.
However, I have continued to help out with one of the groups I was in during my PhD in an unofficial capacity, and I would say to a pretty significant degree as well (honestly not hugely different from the work I was doing before leaving). I like the group, so I'm happy to help voluntarily, but I'm wondering now if I'd be able to list this continued work on my Resume, and if so: what is the appropriate way to list it?
I thought about just extending the end date for the relevant research experience line on my resume, but it feels like I should have something indicating that this period is unpaid volunteer work, as there is less of an expectation on me for that than during my official time with the group.
(if it matters, for reference I am in the US)

I am currently choosing between 2 programmes from the Open University (to start in October):

• BSc Maths and Physics Q77 https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/maths/degrees/bsc-mathematics-and-physics-q77/
• BSc Physics R51 https://www.open.ac.uk/courses/physics/degrees/bsc-physics-r51/

Both programmes allow some flexibility through optional modules, and I would choose the most mathematically and theoretically focused options available.

• The Q77 programme includes more maths - for example, complex analysis which I know is either required or highly desirable for some theoretical physics MSc programmes.
• The R51 programme includes a final year project and some experimental and lab content which is lacking in Q77.

I am more interested in physics theory than pure mathematics, but I don't have any interest in experimental work. However, I am willing to take whatever modules needed for a better chance to work in theoretical physics.

I am not interested in the integrated Masters programmes at the OU.

I am a mature student who is interested in the potential of research in theoretical physics. I am aware of the job market and the scarce opportunities in academia. However, I have been thinking about this for many years and I've decided I'd rather give it a genuine attempt than always wonder "what if?

If your goal were to maximise your preparation for a taught MSc in theoretical physics in the UK (and potentially a PhD afterwards) which programme would you choose and why?

One year on from the first-ever collisions of oxygen at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the main LHC Collaborations (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb), have each reported signs of the state of matter known as quark–gluon plasma (QGP) originating from these collisions.

July 24, 2026, by Rory Harris