Physics Jokes

[josephpalazzo]

Do you know you can freeze yourself at -273.15⁰C and still be 0K?

[Solitary]

Please Mister Palazzo, explain how that can be!  Solitary

[DunkleSeele]

An atom says to another: "I think I lost an electron"
"Are you sure?"
"Yes, I'm positive!"

OK, I'll go to my corner now

[Solitary]

If there isn't a source it isn't true!   

[Jason78]

A police officer stops Heisenberg on the motorway and pulls him over.  The officer approaches the car and Heisenberg winds down the window.

"Do you know how fast you were going sir?" asks the police officer.

"No, but I know exactly where I am!" says Heisenberg.

The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!"

Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now I'm lost!"

[DunkleSeele]

If there isn't a source it isn't true!   

Here's the link

[aileron]

Why are quantum physicists so poor at sex?

Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

[Solitary]

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencejokes.html

Murphy's Ten Laws for String Theorists:

(1) If you fix a mistake in a mathematical superstring calculation, another one will show up somewhere else.
(2) If your results are based on the work of others, then one such work will turn out to be wrong. (3) The longer your article, the more likely your computer hard disk drive will fail while you are typing the references.
(4) The better your research result, the more likely it will be rejected by the referee of a journal; on the other hand, if your work is wrong but not obviously so, it will be accepted for publication right away.
(5) If a result seems to good to be true, it is unless you are one of the top ten string theorists in the world. (By the way, these theorists refer to their results as "string miracles".)
(6) Your most startling string-theoretic theorem will turn out to be valid in only two spatial dimensions or less.
(7) When giving a string seminar, nobody will follow anything you say after the first minute, but, if miraculously someone does, then that person will point out a flaw in your reasoning half-way through your talk and what will be worse is that your grant review officer will happen to be in the audience.
(8) For years, nobody will ever notice the fudge factors in your calculations, but when you come up for tenure they will surface like fish being tossed fresh breadcrumbs.
(9) If you are a graduate student working on string theory, then the field will be dead by the time you get your Ph.D.; Even worse, if you start over with a new thesis topic, the new field will also be dead by the time you get your Ph.D.
(10) If you discover an interesting string model, then it will predict at least one low-energy, observable particle not seen in Nature.

In summary, anything in string theory that theoretically can go wrong will go wrong, but if nothing does go theoretically wrong, then experimentally it is ruled out.

[josephpalazzo]

Was Albert Einstein Really the Smartest Man on Earth?

[spoiler]Relatively.[/spoiler]

[Solitary]

Was Albert Einstein Really the Smartest Man on Earth?

[spoiler]Relatively.[/spoiler]

There is, or was, a janitor that was smarter. Seriously!---------I personally think it is a toss up between  Tesla, Feynman, Steinmetz, and Newton, and just about every professional mathematician. Higher math is harder than any other subject to me. I see why so many have a nervous brake down. I would say professional chess players are pretty smart to. Actually anyone that uses higher math everyday. Solitary

[KUSA]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I guess that is one way some people like to interpret it. I have done quite a bit of research into quantum mechanics, as I did my dissertation in the philosophy of science of quantum mechanics and its quantum idealist interpretations wrt Eastern metaphysics. I have read a lot of the literature on quantum mechanics. One particular book that I really enjoyed was "Quantum Enigma" and there is one chapter that stands out, the chapter on the role of consciousness and the observer in quantum physics. He describes how controversial it was to discuss consciousness in a quantum physics class or seminar, that it would invite very hard and extremist reactions from atheists and materialists. He recounts one anecdote of a talk by a leading quantum physicist, who dared to mention the C word, and somebody in the audience reacted so violently and shouted and screamed at him. Fortunately, these attitudes are changing today with the new generation of quantum physicists who are more bold about the role of consciousness in quantum physics.

I do sympathize with quantum physicists though, there is a lot of misinformation out there about quantum physics pedelled by new agers and people tying to make a quick buck with all this "Law of attraction" Secret/What the bleep do we know nonsense. However, we should not confuse that with genuine quantum physicists such as with Wigner, who has formulated scientific theories like the consciousness-measurement collapse theory or Bohr's Cophenhagen interpretation or Bohm's holographic theory. These are genuine quantum physicists who understand quantum physics. Even Schrodinger, regarded the father of quantum mechanics though he disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, explained quantum physics through consciousness, invoking the concept of Brahman/Atman. He considered himself a Vedantin. Max Plank, the father of quantum theory said in his nobel prize speech "The only way to explain the findings of quantum theory, is it posit the existence of a divine matrix" Eddington also subscribed to quantum idealism.

Hence, quantum idealist paradigm is not put forward by ordinary lay people who do not understand quantum physicist, or even by some fringe group of quantum physicist, but by the pioneering physicists of quantum physics. So far, all the experimental data is strongly supporting the quantum idealist paradigm.

This is of course very hard for a materialist and realist to take. Even Karl Popper who a fierce opponent of the quantum idealist paradigm, not so much because there is absence of evidence for it, in fact the evidence was tremendous, because he did not like the implications of it because it contradicted realism.

[josephpalazzo]

A physicist sees a young man about to jump off the Empire State Building. He yells, "Don't do it! You have so much potential!"

[Solitary]

Another famous researcher is Richard Feynman, who invented Feynman diagrams, which are bunches of squiggly lines with greek letters next to them. The way they were discovered was, one day, Hans Bethe came in to Feynman's office to say that some of the guys down in particle research were having a jam session down by the cyclotron, and would Richard like to come over and bring his bongos? Feynman was out, at the time, cracking a safe or something, so Bethe tried to leave him a note. On the desk, he found one of Feynman's daugter's kindergarten drawings. Bethe couldn't make head or tail of it, and figured that if even he couldn't understand it, then it must be something Terribly Clever, and promptly called it a Feynman diagram.

[Hydra009]