fuhrerkeebs

What are A-Level results? Is it like your report card?

(Can anyone see where I fudged slightly...)

You didn't include the negative sign on the momentum operator.

Extra credit for anyone who can write down the relativistic version!

Wouldn't that just be dirac's equation?

But, back to the topic at hand...Doron Shadmi, if your theories are so correct then why don't you get them published in a reputable mathematics journal? Your previous posts have implied that you have had these ideas for 4 years--possible longer, and if these ideas of your are truely brilliant and correct, the what are you doing still posting on message boards?

Hahahahahahahahahaha...that must be on the best things I've read in my life...

We just can't tell what shape the electron is...

The measured magnetic moment of a free electron yeilds a radius 3.86607 x 10^-13 meters. This also leads to the correct magnitude of the electron spin and the measured compton wavelength. A point particle electron doesn't.

Amol...what was the solution you found? Oh, and the stone cannot be treated as a particle because a particle is a microscopic object and a stone is a macroscopic one.

Thanks guys! I found Mandrakes solution but I didn't think it was right because it was not square-integrable...until I remember that a free particle has equal probability of being anywhere. Aeschylus, I remembered the classical equation, but I was just having fun try to see what the answer would be...

But you have to remember that this won't work with a stone anyways, Schrodingers equation describes electron movement...

Your equation should have been:

[math]-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d\psi^2}{dx^2} + mgx\psi = i\hbar \frac{d\psi}{dt}[/math]

I'm not gonna try and solve that right now...

No no no...you must not have done it right...your not going to get a complex valued normalization constant, nor are there supposed to be infinities in the solution.

When Schrodinger derived his famous equation, he derived it with the electron in mind, as is obvious with his use of E=p²/2m+V. This is fine if you want to work with electrons, but I wanted to see what the equation would be like if you derived it for the photon, using E=pc. I worked through it and got the equation:

[math]\frac{d\psi}{dt} = -c \frac{d\psi}{dx}[/math]

Does anyone know how to find a square-integrable solution to this equation?

You can prove whether the multiverse exists or not. Deutsch originally proposed that if you had an intelligent q-computer, it would be able to distinguish between a multiverse and a universe. The problem is that we have no idea how to create intelligence.

The electron has a small mass of 5.486 x 10 -4 amu.

The only reason an electrons size would be arbitrary is because of the wave-particle duality of the electron. But the electron particle has a definite size.

It definitely has size...if an electron was a point particle but had mass, it would create a singularity at the position of the electron, and the massive gravitational field of the singularity would make the mass of the electron shoot up to infinity, contradicting the fact that an electron has a finite mass.

We can measure the size and mass of electrons in labs...

Electrons are not point particles. Electrons are leptons, and leptons are considered to be fundamental in the standard model, yet they have definite size and mass.

Couldn't you also estimate the mass by measuring how much light curves around the black hole?

But, even though Newtonian gravity has all those flaws, for MOST PRACTICAL purposes, it gives a good answer.

But as far as tapping into gravity as a DIRECT energy source... I think that may be a long way off... or maybe not ( gravity beam )

However, if you read the original article by Podkletnov and Modanese (the guys who created the gravity beam), it resembles a gravitational impulse, they don't know if it truly is or not, however.

Yeah, but a vacuum doesn't have mass or anything...

there's a theory that says that our universe may only be a black hole. if this is so' date=' we have black holes in our universe, then would that mean that black holes can exist in other black holes?

 

another enquiry about this, is how would the black hole even get into a different black hole in the first place? would it be possible for a black hole with strong gravity (this is by black hole standards) to suck in another black hole with lighter gravity?[/quote']

 

Your just misinterpreting the theory. It was Hawking who came up with it. He came up with it because a black hole eats up matter and energy, but it also radiates matter and energy (not the same stuff it eats though). So, black holes disintegrate themselves. The problem comes when you realize that all of the matter and energy it ate didn't radiate from the black hole, but it's not there when the black hole eventually disintegrates itself either. So Hawking asked, where did all of the eaten matter and energy go? He said that when a black hole forms, it creates a "baby universe", and that's where all of the lost information goes. The baby universe isn't inside the black hole, but you can think of it more as "on the other side of the black hole." But Hawking has apparently taken this theory back recently.

Your included and excluded middle logic does make some sense, but you don't even know how to use it right. You say the dual nature of the photon is included-middle, because the wave nature and the particle nature of the photon prevent/define each other, when they don't. They actually prevent each other and define the photon.