I all my searches, I could never find an understandable answer explaining what magnetic particles are. Or perhaps I should ask, "Is the magnetic field composed of an actual stream of particles"? It cannot be the same as light because light doesn't bend around something the size of a bar magnet. Nor are they electrons or other atomic or subatomic particles I have heard of. I'd love to know this! - Thank You

According to Einstein's famous equation E = MC2, or Energy = Mass times the speed of light times the speed of light. This tells us that anything that has mass, such as matter, is comprised entirely of energy. Any physical object with mass is therefore simply a lump of energy existing in some stable form.

As I understand it, all forms of energy, including chemical energy, kinetic energy and potential energy are covered by Einstein's equation, meaning that fundamentally all forms of energy are the same basic 'stuff' (for want of a better word). My question is, therefore, what exactly is energy? I want to get to a fundamental understanding of energy, because it seems that such an understanding would help to explain much of reality.

I'm not asking for explanations about work done etc, I'm asking at the fundamental level what is energy?

i have seen that when a sine wave is applied to a shear-thickening non-newtonian fluid, a standing wave is created that looks quite cool. Are there any songs that could produce the same effect, and if not, why not?

I always assumed they were pinhole lenses, but then I realized I really don't know (and don't want to break apart a perfectly good phone).

An electron is both a particle and a wave, and we cannot define exactly where a subatomic particle/wave is because it is spread out across time and space - we can only define it through probabilities. Wouldn't there need to be infinite precision and no uncertainty in nature for nature to be deterministic? Considering that infinite precision and certainty don't appear to exist - because experiments show randomness and uncertainty exists at the heart of nature, then would it be correct to assume that both atomic and subatomic particles/waves do not always interact with one another with infinite precision and if so then is it correct to conclude that nature cannot be deterministic - i.e. by having exact knowledge of the starting conditions of the universe and infinite computing power it would still be impossible to calculate exactly how the universe would evolve?

Tsunamis move fast, and tow-in surfers use various vehicles to catch large waves. A friend has a son who wants to ride a 100-foot wave. Is this possible? How big of a wave could an unassisted surfer catch?

It's claimed by some that eyes are diffraction limited at the small end. Are there any upper limits on the size of animal eyes?

Giant squid aside, how do eyes scale with body size?

As a correction to this question, some argue that the (non-compound) eye might have originally evolved as a "camera obscura" with a pinhole lens; more complex lenses may have then followed. Is there any physical limit on a pinhole lens that might have (historically) limited the size of an eye?

I've heard (from a South African rugby player, surfer, and physicist) that some countries have TV aerials with different polarizations. Are there physical reasons for preferring one orientation over another (e.g., reflection or absorbtion properties of the environment, etc.), or is this simply a matter of taste?