King E

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Ok. I think it's what MigL was trying to tell you. It doesn't come to rest. It is not at rest. It goes through rest for an instant, so to speak. I'm still looking for a graph. Maybe Studiot can help with the graph, which is after all something you were asking for.

Here:

 

Yeah a graph could help!

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If you define “at rest” to mean v=0. So why not just say v=0? It avoids the ambiguity of language.

What kind of diagram do you need? It’s a ball that is momentarily not moving. There’s a downward force on it.

by figure, I mean graph

3 hours ago, joigus said:

At maximum height 

 

v=0

 

but

 

a≠0

 

Is that what's confusing you?

Yes. How is it at rest if a force is acting on it?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The video depicts a finite number of elements of a finite height. It says that a dimension is small, “almost zero small” which is wrong

I don’t see why “infinte” should be mentioned at all.

Don’t subject yourself to this video any further. Someone else on youtube must have done a better job.

 

Can you suggest a video or an article on dimensions(geometry) ?

Just now, swansont said:

The video depicts a finite number of elements of a finite height. It says that a dimension is small, “almost zero small” which is wrong

I don’t see why “infinte” should be mentioned at all.

Don’t subject yourself to this video any further. Someone else on youtube must have done a better job.

 

Thanks for guidance. 🙂

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Yes, the use of the phrase there is bogus. It’s not a very good video, in many ways.

So can I say ''infinite pieces'' of vertical lines instead of ''almost infinite pieces''?

Just now, swansont said:

Where in the video, or alternatively, provide a transcript.

 

From the first ten seconds, though, I was not impressed, so it may be that there’s just no real credibility here.

1:23

I remember hearing someone say "almost infinite" in this video. As someone who hasn't studied very much math, "almost infinite" sounds like nonsense. Either something ends or it doesn't, there really isn't a spectrum of unending-ness. In this video he says that ''almost infinite'' pieces of verticle lines are placed along X length. Why not infinit?

14 hours ago, MigL said:

Perimeter is a one dimensional attribute, while area is  two dimensional.
IOW, you need one piece of information for one and two for the other.

That allows for considerable ( infinite ) variation.

what do you mean by considerable (infinite) variation?

For example, Consider two shapes; a circle and rectangle.

Both these shapes have same area but the perimeter of circle is less than that of rectangle. Why?

The quantum entanglement and delayed choice quantum eraser variation to the double slit experiment has given very strange results. So if a particle is detected then the pattern is changed. Does the detected particle communicate with its entangled pair in the past? or there is another explanation to it?

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

Here's a simplified scheme:

Gauge bosons (spin 1 or 2) --> photon, graviton, electroweak bosons, gluons

Fermions: Leptons (electric charge) and quarks (spin 1/2) (fractional electric charge plus chromodynamic charge)

Fermions are weird in that they distinguish left and right also

and quarks (nuclear particles) are weird in that they can't escape to long distances because of confinement due to chromodynamic charge, similar to electric charge but far more complicated

There are more peculiarities...

Fermions are weird in that they distinguish left and right also. What do you mean by that?

Just now, joigus said:

Here's a simplified scheme:

Gauge bosons (spin 1 or 2)

Fermions: Leptons (electric charge) and quarks (spin 1/2) (fractional electric charge plus chromodynamic charge)

Fermions are weird in that they distinguish left and right also

and quarks (nuclear particles) are weird in that they can't escape to long distances because of confinement due to chromodynamic charge, similar to electric charge but far more complicated

There are more peculiarities...

Therefore I can say that, ''Quantum Particles are weird. They only work in one way, 'their way'. 

Just now, joigus said:

No, electrons are peculiar in an entirely different way: their spin.

So each quantum particle has a unique set of characteristics?

1 minute ago, joigus said:

I guess you could say that.

Does the same happen for electron?

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

An individual photon have zero invariant mass and is referred to as massless.
 

How do we know that?

Just now, joigus said:

Not for photons.

So photon only works one way, 'Its way'. 

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Nope.
But they do have momentum.

Doesn't momentum depend on velocity and mass?

Do photons have mass?

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Send a particle through a double slit, and it will interfere. Through a single slit it will diffract.

Quantum particles are not little spherical balls. They are just localized waves. At all times, their behaviour is described by a wave function. If quantum particles are sent through double slit, we obtain an interference pattern which tells that they are waves. If the particles are sent through single slit, a non interference pattern is obtained. But the non interference pattern does not tell the opposite of what interference pattern tells. The non interference pattern does not mean particle. It just means we are inconclusive about waviness. So quantum particles are waves but their tininess can give them some semblance of location. In general double slit experiment is not a wave test or particle test. Its a 'which way' test. The point is to test which way something went. For example, did a photon went through slit A, slit B or both slits simultaneously.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Many have mass, sure, but quantized energy and localized interaction do not require mass. Photons exhibit these behaviors as well.

OK. what is the difference between particle and wave?

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are two wave behaviors to consider: the wave function, from Schrödinger’s equation, and the matter-wave behavior from deBroglie’s equation. The two are not identical. The “collapsed state” issue applies to the former, not the latter. IOW, you will still have wave behavior even in a single quantum state 

No, I disagree. Quantum particles have quantized energy and a localized interaction region, which are not wave behaviors.

So you mean they have mass?

22 minutes ago, Halc said:

No, they're not. If measured in the right way, they share some properties with waves, but they also behave in ways that waves definitely do not.

 

This doesn't follow.  Just because I'm made up of cells doesn't imply that I am a cell.

Give an example that quantum particles behave in ways that waves definitely do not. Quantum particles always behave in the way waves do

Quantum particles are waves. We are made up of them. So does that makes us waves?

Sorry for such a stupid childish question.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you still interested in this?

It was late last night and my explanation was rather short.

Yes. Please explain it more.