Physics Test Question Match The Velocity With The Realm

What is the difference between classical physics and quantum physics?

Classical physics is causal; complete knowledge of the past allows computation of the future.  Likewise, complete knowledge of the future allows precise computation of the past. (Chaos theory is irrelevant to this statement; it talks about how well you can do with incomplete knowledge.)Not so in quantum physics.  Objects in quantum physics are neither particles nor waves; they are a strange combination of both. Given complete knowledge of the past, we can make only probabilistic predictions of the future.In classical physics, two bombs with identical fuses would explode at the same time.  In quantum physics, two absolutely identical radioactive atoms can and generally will explode at very different times.  Two identical atoms of uranium-238 will, on average, undergo radioactive decay separated by billions of years, despite the fact that they are identical.There is a rule that physicist often use to separate classical physics from quantum.  If Planck's constant appears in the equations, it is quantum physics. If it doesn't, it is classical physics.Most physicists believe that quantum physics is the right theory, even though many details are yet to be worked out.  Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics in the limit that the quantum properties are hidden. That fact is called the "correspondence principle." The complete answer to this question could occupy a book.

If a person travels faster than the speed of light, what will happen?

According to Special theory of relativity, matter or object or simply particle cannot travel faster than speed of light other than light itself. It’s forbidden by the postulates in STR, to keep a frame of reference attach to something that travels faster or equal to speed of light. Why?, because when we postulated STR and drawn out the consequences, it turned out to be experimentally verified.But if have some Idea regarding Hubble’s Expansion law, then you probably have heard that the universe itself is expanding and the space can expand in a rate/velocity faster than speed of light without violating the law of Physics.Its exactly like we all are standing on an conveyor belt/escalator and the speed of the belt is faster than speed of light, but in local space around us the speed of the matter can never exceed speed of light. So, I can say in some way that w.r.t to some distant galaxy we are travelling faster than speed of light as the space between us is expanding. Now you can answer you self, do you fell some difference?

The radius of a planet is half the respective value of the Earth with the same mass. What is the value of acceleration due to the gravity of the planet?

Well, in a classic Newtonian sense, none. But acceleration is the second derivative of position, and first derivative of velocity, so the Earth isn’t accelerating in a linear fashion. It has rotational velocity and momentum, but no acceleration per se, in terms of how fast it’s whizzing along. Although as its angular momentum shifts, there is a technical acceleration, not in the speed it’s traveling through space, but in the relative speed it is traveling in any given direction.Secondly, something with half the radius would have one eighth the volume. So the same mass in one eighth as much space would be one heavy butt-nugget. Still, by standard Newtonian equations, so long as the mass was constant, the acceleration and angular momentum equations would be unchanged.But at the margins, given its new size, and its new relationship with the moon and sun in terms of distance (a 4000 mile shift, from an 8000 mile radius to a 4000 mile radius), there would be small shifts in the gravitational effects, due to distance rather than mass. These would be evident at the outset, in terms of a genuine acceleration to reflect a new orbit, and then reach an equilibrium, where the only acceleration was rotational.And we’d all be dead.