Tag: Physics

Unveiling Scientific Misnomers: A Cross-Cultural Exploration | January 14 2026, 04:46

Today I was surprised to learn that the Coriolis force is pronounced as CoriolIs force, not coriOlis force as we were taught in school. I started to investigate what else was wrong, and discovered something amazing.

It turns out what we called Gay-Lussac’s law is known as Charles’s Law in the rest of the world, and what we called Charles’s Law is known throughout the world as Gay-Lussac’s Law.

The Cartesian coordinate system here is Carthesian. Cartesius is just the Latinized name of René Descartes.

In our textbooks, the law of conservation of mass is called the Lomonosov-Lavoisier Law (what enters the chemical reaction = mass of the substances formed). In the rest of the world, it is exclusively the Law of Lavoisier (Lavoisier’s Law). Lomonosov got included here only because “whatever is taken from one body is added to another”.

Also, it turns out that if you have to explain Pythagoras’ theorem to someone in English, without a hint, it’s absolutely impossible to guess that it’s Pythagoras. Greek names are generally a mess. Thales here is pronounced as Teelis.

For some reason, in physics Roentgen is called RentgEnom, although it’s Röntgen with the emphasis on ö.

In Russia, a trapezoid is a quadrilateral with two sides parallel and two not. In the USA, our trapezoid is known as Trapezoid, and the word Trapezium here refers to a quadrilateral with no parallel sides at all. In the UK, it’s the opposite. Our trapezoid is Trapezium, and the “skewed” quadrilateral is Trapezoid.

Comparing US and Russian Higher Education Systems through Credit Hours | December 10 2025, 17:35

Regarding education in the USA and the USSR/Russia. My degree in the USA is evaluated as a Master of Science degree in Computer Science. My younger colleagues say that a Russian university degree is rarely recognized as a Master’s these days, and often hardly qualifies even for a Bachelor’s. I decided to look at the numbers and was very surprised.

To earn a bachelor’s degree in the USA, you need to spend about 2000 hours in classrooms/laboratories. In terms of credits, this equals 120 credit hours. One credit usually equals 1 hour (50 minutes) of lectures per week for a semester (15 weeks). Laboratory work has a different coefficient (often 2–3 hours in the lab count as 1 credit), so the actual number of classroom hours is slightly higher (closer to 2000+).

So, my diploma states that I spent 7908 hours in classes over five years. That’s four times more than the typical student in the USA. Based on the numbers, it turns out that I spent about 2000 hours on math, physics, and English alone over five years, with a total of 42 subjects.

A colleague shared that in his Russian bachelor’s diploma there are 3140 academic hours, which is twice as less. And can you share how many hours are in your diploma?

Year of graduation, university, specialty, and the number of hours? I’m curious about the range of variation.

Navigating Complexity: The Challenge of Wikipedia’s Expert-Driven Content | November 26 2025, 01:06

Wikipedia has one big problem. Well, or we have it with Wikipedia. If you go to almost any Wikipedia page about a relatively complex mathematical or physical concept, you often suddenly don’t want to read it any further. Formally everything is correct there, but the explanation is given through concepts, often even more complex than the concept being explained. Besides, there is often a lot of unnecessary information — what is formally/academically/taxonomically part of the topic, but essentially “pollutes” the first impression.

This problem arises because the authors of Wikipedia (often mathematicians) prioritize rigor and completeness rather than didactics and comprehensibility.

In the English-speaking environment, this is sometimes called “Drift into pedantry”. Articles are often written by experts for experts, not for those who are trying to learn the subject from scratch.

Let’s take, for example, a “tensor”. Imagine a student who has heard that tensors are used in machine learning (Google TensorFlow) or physics and wants to understand the essence.

What the reader expects (intuition): “A tensor is a table of numbers (or some sort of data container) that describes the properties of an object and correctly changes if we rotate the coordinate system”

What Wikipedia provides: “A tensor (from Latin tensus, ‘strained,’ as per the classical layout of mechanical stress at the sides of a deformable cube, see illustration) — is a layout (arrangement in space) of numbers (components), used in mathematics and physics as a special type of multi-index object, possessing mathematical properties.” The article immediately starts listing ranks, covariance and contravariance of indices. This is formally correct but it “pollutes” the first impression.

The illustration at the very top is captioned like this: “Mechanical stress, deforming a cube with faces perpendicular to the coordinate axes, in classic elasticity theory is described by the Cauchy stress tensor, which links 2 indices: the normal vector to the face with the stress vector T (force per unit area); there are 3 directions of normals and 3 directions of stress components, which gives a 2nd rank tensor 3×3 — consisting of 9 components.”

Formally — not a single error. In fact — it’s a wall of text that requires knowledge of linear algebra just to read the definition.

It’s as if you asked “What is an apple?”, and you were responded with: “An apple is a fruit of plants from the subfamily Amygdaloideae or Spiraeoideae, featuring an epicarp, mesocarp, and endocarp, often participating in Newton’s gravitational experiments.”

On one hand, it seems like with the emergence of LLM, Wikipedia is no longer necessary. There are conditional LLMs like ChatGPT, which essentially paraphrase everything that is in Wikipedia in the required form. But they do it because they were trained on Wikipedia, and undoubtedly Wikipedia was given much more weight during training than other internet junk. If there was no Wikipedia in the training set, it would be much more difficult. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is constantly edited, and LLM and Google use it exactly when answering questions.

Therefore, on the one hand, it seems to me that it is high time for Wikipedia to transition to generating on the basis of expert-curated data and packaging knowledge in the required format, for example, in the form of questions and answers. On the other, the whole idea of encyclopedia master-data for LLM/RAG is lost.

The paradox is that LLM is, in essence, the only “interface” that was able to read these pedantic definitions of Wikipedia, “understand” them (through thousands of examples of code and articles) and translate them back into humane language. Wikipedia has become an excellent database for robots, but a poor textbook for people.

The Inner Mechanics of Old Rotary Phones | November 25 2025, 00:59

When I was little, I used to take apart old telephones many times, and only now, in my grey years, I realized that I never wondered how they worked. And they worked in a very interesting way.

Let’s start with the dial. The phone is connected to the network by two wires. The dial is a rotary one. When you wind up the disk, the contacts are blocked, and when you release it, the disk returns backward and delivers a series of interruptions/pulses to the line. But how was it made to return at a constant speed (which is 10 pulses per second)?

It operated based on a centrifugal friction governor. The mechanics (gearbox) accelerated the governor’s axle to thousands of revolutions per minute. Two weights with friction pads (consider them brakes) were seated on the axle. The centrifugal force pressed them against the stationary drum, creating a braking effort. This is a direct heir to Watt’s centrifugal governor, allowing the mechanism to work stably regardless of how sharply you released the disk.

Next. The Central Office connected you with a friend. You both speak at the same time, and sound is transmitted there and back through two wires—why two wires and not four, you understand? Well, okay, but why don’t you hear yourself too loudly, since the microphone sends the sound there, from where the “speaker” hears it?

I couldn’t answer quickly. Went googling. So, it turns out that a special differential transformer was responsible for this. There, the current from the microphone branches off: part goes into the line to the friend, and part goes into the “balance circuit” (a chain of a resistor and capacitor inside the phone), mimicking the line resistance. The transformer coils are wound in opposition: the magnetic flows from the current in the line and the current in the balance circuit mutually annihilate themselves in the coil that goes to the speaker. Engineers purposely adjusted the balance not perfectly, leaving a “local effect” – a quiet sound of one’s own voice, so the phone wouldn’t seem “dead.” But the incoming signal from the friend has nothing to unbalance it (silence on your side), so it freely passes to the speaker.

Now about the microphone. At that time there were no transistors in phones, but the signal was loud. The secret is in the design of the microphone, it’s carbon. Essentially, it is a box with carbon powder and a movable diaphragm. The sound from your mouth compresses and decompresses the powder, changing its resistance. The microphone does not generate current but modulates the powerful current coming from the Central Office. Essentially, it worked as an amplifier. Over time, the charcoal compacted, and the audibility dropped—hence the habit of tapping the handset to “shake up” the powder.

The speaker was normal, electromagnetic. Although not quite. If there were only an electromagnet inside (without a permanent magnet), the phone would horribly distort the voice. An electromagnet attracts iron regardless of the polarity of the current. If you supply a sine wave (voice), the diaphragm would be attracted during both the positive and the negative half-waves. Result: the frequency of the sound would have doubled, and you would hear not the voice of a friend, but an unintelligible high-frequency buzzing. The permanent magnet solves this problem: It creates “preload.” The diaphragm is always attracted to the magnet with medium force. When the “plus” of the signal arrives, the magnetic field strengthens and the diaphragm flexes more. When the “minus” arrives, the field weakens and the diaphragm springs back.

In modern speakers, the force strictly depends on the direction of the current. Plus pushes, minus pulls. Therefore, the frequency doubling, which old phone engineers feared, physically cannot occur here. The diaphragm doesn’t need “preload” by a magnet, it just needs to hang in peace.

Interestingly, the principle of old electromagnetic capsules (metal diaphragm + “anchor”) is used now in the most expensive in-ear headphones—google “balanced armature headphones” (prices around $500).

The voltage in the telephone network was negative – minus 48/60 volts. Plus was grounded, and the “live” wire was the minus. Why? It turns out, this is protection against electrochemical corrosion. The cables lie in moist earth. If there were a “plus” (anode) on the wire, upon insulation damage, copper would dissolve (electrolysis) and the cable would rot. With “minus” (cathode), metal ions, on the contrary, tend to settle on the conductor from the soil, which prolonged the cable’s life by decades.

Exploring the Fascinating Properties of Glass | November 21 2025, 23:58

I got carried away with the topic of glass and learned so many interesting things, so I’m sharing. It all started when I read about the supercritical state of matter – it turns out that the line separating liquid and gaseous states on a pressure and temperature graph at some point breaks off, and beyond that lies a state of matter that is neither here nor there. I started reading about states (phases) of matter and stumbled upon the fact that glass is essentially a state between liquid and solid. It flows, just very slowly. This myth is popular thanks to observations of medieval windows, where the glass is often thicker at the bottom, which was attributed to “flowing” under the influence of gravity, and it was even mentioned in school textbooks. In reality, glass is an amorphous solid with extremely high viscosity at room temperature, and it does not flow noticeably even over billions of years; the uneven thickness of old glass panes is explained by production technologies, when the thicker edge was installed at the bottom for stability.

I delved into the topic of glass further. It turned out that the reason why glass can be transparent is rooted in quantum mechanics, specifically in the electronic structure of the material, not because of the density of particles. The essence is that for an electron to absorb a photon, it must transition from one energy level to another, but in silicon dioxide, the width of the band gap is so large that the energy of visible light photons is physically insufficient to make this “jump.” As a result, light simply cannot interact with the electrons and goes straight through the material, while higher-energy ultraviolet radiation can overcome this barrier and is thus absorbed by glass.

It also turned out that melted glass conducts electricity. Moreover, the mechanism of conductivity fundamentally differs from how metals conduct electricity. In a copper wire, current is a flow of free electrons. In cold glass (an insulator), electrons are tightly bound, and ions are locked in the solid lattice. But when you heat glass to the molten state (usually above 1000 degrees for silicates), thermal energy breaks the rigid bonds of the lattice, and glass becomes a liquid, with ions gaining freedom of movement. The current in molten glass is the physical movement of charged atoms (ionic conductivity), not just “flowing” electrons.

The green tint you see on the edge of regular glass (as seen in the attached picture) turns out to be caused by iron ions, present as impurities (~0.1%). Sand is a natural material, and removing all the iron from it is difficult and costly. Low-iron glass, which has tens of times fewer iron ions, is used in solar panels, not just because it is more transparent. Iron greedily absorbs the infrared spectrum (thermal energy), reducing the efficiency of the panel. By removing iron, we allow maximum energy to reach the silicon cells.

And finally, the most “mind-blowing” (literally). There are these things called “Prince Rupert’s drops.” If you drop molten glass into icy water, the outer shell of the drop cools and hardens instantly, while the inner part remains liquid. As it cools, the core tries to contract, but the hardened shell doesn’t allow it. As a result, the inside of the drop preserves colossal mechanical stress (up to 700 MPa).

The physics of this process creates a paradox: the “head” of such a drop can withstand being struck by a hammer because the compression of the surface makes it incredibly strong (the same principle is used in tempered glass for smartphones). But just nick the thin tail, and the balance of forces is disrupted, and a wave of destruction moves through the drop at the speed of a bullet (about 1.5 km/s), turning it into glass dust right in your hands.

There’s also something in physics called “metallic glasses” (amorphous metals). If you cool the molten metal at a rate of a million degrees per second, atoms do not have time to arrange into a crystalline lattice and freeze in chaos. Such “glassy metal” possesses unique magnetic permeability and is stronger than titanium, because it lacks crystal lattice defects, which are usually the points of destruction. So glass is a much broader concept than just transparent substance in our windows 🙂

The only example of an object made from this material, amorphous metal, that I’ve encountered is, believe it or not, the iPhone clip.

By the way, that same amorphous structure of glass, which I mentioned earlier, gives it an unexpected advantage — supernatural sharpness. If you take a scalpel made of the best surgical steel and look at it under an electron microscope, its edge will look like a jagged saw. This is inevitable: steel is made up of crystalline grains, and it’s impossible to sharpen it any smoother than the grain size allows.

But obsidian (volcanic glass) when fractured provides an edge only about 3 nanometers thick (about 1/30000 the thickness of a human hair). There’s no magic here, just that glass lacks a crystalline lattice, which would otherwise prevent achieving a perfectly smooth fracture down to the molecular level. That’s why obsidian scalpels are still used in the most complex eye surgeries — the cut is so clean that tissue cells are minimally traumatized, and healing occurs faster.

And one more powerful engineering case — vitrification (glassification). Mankind has chosen glass as the most reliable “safe” for nuclear waste. Liquid radioactive waste is mixed with special additives, melted, and cooled into blocks. The trick is that dangerous isotopes are not just poured inside, they are chemically embedded into the atomic grid of the glass. Glass is chemically inert, it doesn’t rust like metal or decompose for thousands of years. This is perhaps the only material that engineers trust to store hazardous substances on a geological time scale. Yes, it takes about a million years for a discarded bottle to decompose.

And finally. Digging into history, it turns out that the Romans were engaged in nanotechnology 1600 years before we even invented the word. In the British Museum stands the “Lycurgus Cup” (4th century AD). If you look at it under normal lighting, it’s greenish and opaque. But if you place a light source inside the cup, the glass flashes bright rubin red.

Until the 1990s, scientists could not understand how this was achieved. An electron microscope showed: Roman craftsmen added gold and silver, ground to nanoparticles about 50 nanometers in size (about 1000-1800 times thinner than a hair). This size of particles triggers a quantum effect known as surface plasmon resonance: electrons in the metal begin to oscillate such that they absorb some wavelengths of light and let others pass depending on the angle of incidence. The funniest thing is that the Romans did this empirically, “by eye,” and we’ve only just learned to replicate this consciously in photonics. It’s crazy to think you could handle 50 nm gold dust by eye. This moment required additional googling.

It’s unlikely the Romans mechanically crushed the metal to 50 nanometers — they had no such mills.

More likely, they added gold and silver in the form of salts or foil to the molten glass mass. The nanoparticles formed not by crushing, but by crystallization and sedimentation from the melt under very precise temperature conditions (“glass prescription”). This is even more complex chemistry than simple grinding.

The most astonishing thing is not that they did it, but that the ratio of gold to silver was maintained perfectly. Changing the concentration of gold by just 1% would alter the color to something other than pure ruby red. This indicates that the craftsmen mastered the technology incredibly accurately, although they likely did not understand the mechanism. And that they had a heck of a lot of time for all kinds of nonsense;) probably many generations dedicated their lives to experimenting. Because it’s hard to see why all this was necessary.

There’s a beautiful hypothesis (unproven, but popular) that the cup could have been used as a detector. If you pour a different liquid into it (for example, alcohol with impurities or poison), the refractive index changes, and the color of the “flash” might vary.

Exploring the Chaos Game: Creating Fractals From Randomness | October 04 2025, 15:32

I read something interesting today. About fractals. If you take any three points that form a triangle, and then a fourth point anywhere, and subsequently throw a dice, the faces of which are assigned to the first three points. Next, you move from the current point towards the point corresponding to the result on the dice and place a new point halfway; this becomes the new current point. After many iterations, the points start to form the Sierpinski triangle – the one shown in the attached picture. Intuitively, you would think the triangle should be fully filled because it involves random movements in three directions from a randomly chosen point, but no. Moreover, it works even if the starting point is inside the future empty triangle (yes, a few points will disrupt the picture, but that’s it). If you start our experiment with five or six points instead of three, different shapes will form – see the attached picture. This graphical method is called the Chaos Game.

By the way, it may seem obvious, but in case you wondered — all the presented figures have zero area.

If you take two triangles and with a probability p move towards random vertices of the first, and with (1-p) towards random vertices of the second, you end up forming a Barnsley fern (picture №2).

I love such things because they seem like magic at first glance 🙂

(It’s a kind of problem from the same class as the synchronization of metronomes)

The Optical Illusion of the Changing Purple Dots | September 27 2025, 23:44

An interesting trick. To color the circle dark purple, you simply need to look at it and it will instantly change color. However, to revert it back, you just need to stop looking at it, and it will return to its original appearance (though you’re likely to look at another circle instead)

The Maunder Minimum’s Impact on Stradivari’s Unique Violins | September 18 2025, 21:20

I stumbled upon an interesting scientific hypothesis from 2003 regarding why Stradivari violins (and those of his contemporaries) are so unique. Traditional hypotheses—about the secrets of the varnish or the aging of the wood—prove insufficient. According to this hypothesis, the entire blame lies with the Maunder Minimum, a period of reduced solar activity occurring from 1645–1715, during which the tree growth rate slowed down due to the climate, meaning the wood was denser. The hypothesis suggests that amidst the perfect combination of altitude, humidity, and temperature, this environmental shift provided material with unique properties, ideal for resonant soundboards.

Stradivari was born a year before the Maunder Minimum began. His “Amati Period” (1666–1690), “Experimentation Period” (1690–1700), and “Golden Period” (1700–1720), during which he perfected and produced his best instruments (see Henley 1961), all coincided with the Maunder Minimum. Cremona’s craftsmen during this period used the only wood available to them, i.e., from trees growing during the Maunder Minimum. Neither before nor after this period was such wood available. And, probably, it is nowhere to be found in the world even now.

But really, modern violins are also quite something. Two-three hundred years ago, musicians extracted the maximum from an instrument through trial and error, whereas now it is done through meticulous calculation of sound. It is almost impossible to differentiate violins by their sound anymore, and the difference lies in the realm of individual preferences, rather than an undisputed objective worse-better.

Solar Simplicity: How Turkey’s Homes Heat Water with the Sun | September 11 2025, 06:44

I constantly see such panels on almost every house in Turkey. Of course, my first thought was that these were solar photovoltaic panels for generating electricity. But the second thought — they are expensive, there shouldn’t be so many of them, plus typically just two panels on a roof seems too few. I started googling.

It turned out, these are solar water heaters, more precisely, flat-plate solar collectors. The system is simple, reliable, and inexpensive — that’s why they are installed on every other house.

The principle of operation: the panels consist of an absorber (usually copper or aluminum plates with a black coating), a transparent cover (low-iron glass for greenhouse effect), and thermal insulation (glass wool or stone wool). A heat-carrying fluid circulates in the tubes — either water or antifreeze (glycol).

Solar rays heat the absorber up to 60-90°C, the heat transfers to the fluid, which by the principle of thermosiphon (natural convection, without a pump) rises to the tank, which is usually nearby. The tank is a thermos of 100-300 liters, with insulation, so the water stays hot for 2-3 days.

This too was a surprise. I actually thought the tanks were just metal and heated up in the sun by themselves. That’s how it was in Baku. It turns out, no, and so they are white here, not black.

In Turkey, with over 2000+ hours of sunshine a year, such a system covers 70-90% of the hot water needs for a home. The efficiency of the collector is 40-60% (depending on the model and angle of installation, optimally 30-45° to the horizon for the latitude of Antalya). For a family, this costs from 500-1500 euros, with a payback period of 3-5 years due to savings on gas/electricity. Electricity is expensive in Turkey. Plus, government subsidies and tax incentives encourage installation.

Probably, there are also electric panels, but I haven’t seen them yet.

Debunking Kelvin: The Dynamics of Wake Angles at Different Speeds | September 10 2025, 12:03

I look from the boat at the water and wonder whether the divergence angle of the waves depends on speed or not? Started Googling. Turns out, according to Kelvin, it’s constant at any speed, and amounts to 39 degrees (or 19.47 =arcsin(1/3) from the axis). But then I found a paper where the authors studied satellite images and disproved Kelvin, stating that with increasing speed, the wedge indeed narrows slightly (“Ship wakes: Kelvin or Mach angle?”, authors: Marc Rabaud and Frédéric Moisy)