# Klaynos

Moderators

8591

1. ## Schroedinger's cat

I belive the taken form of death is radioactive isotope, as radiation is random the time is unknown, so placing the cat in the box and closing the box the cat could be dead from the radiation and is dead in some universes (if you belive in multiple universes that is) whereas in other universes the cat is still alive as the radiation is yet to kill it due to it's randomness. We do not know whether the cat is dead or alive untill we open the box. QM is absurded it has been commented on many times that if you think you understand QM then you are just fooling yourself.
2. ## Time travel using lasers

We're all moving into the future by very small amount every very small amount of time... One of the biggest problems I see with time travel is you have to add/remove mass-energy from one of the time periods and at that time period the universe which we all know can't be done, except I realise over very very small periods of time...
3. ## Mass of a photon

E=hf=mc^2 <--- the mass in that is NOT REST MASS E=mc^2 is not the full equation, it is actually the relativistic mass, so you can work out the amount of mass theoretically associated with the energy of a photon using that I belive. So a rough bit or rearangement... E=hf=hc/w=mc^2 <-- note w = wavelength m=h/(wc) (E=(mc^2)/squart(1-(v^2/c^2)) <-- total energy of a particle using the rest mass, the more correct form of the equation) Everything I've said here might be completely wrong. E^2 = p^2c^2 for a photon, but p = mv so E=mvc, m=E/(c^2)=hf/(c^2)=hc/(c^2w)=h/(cw) OK well I've just got the same equation twice in a row doing it slightly differnt ways, it's at this point I give up and go to the pub saying something like "I might be right but who really knows..."
4. ## Why C?

I happened to come accross this equation today. It goes something like, I can't remember it exactly. permittivity of a vacuum=permeability of a vacuum^-1 * c^-2 The permittivity of a vacuum relates to electronic perittivity, and permeability of a vacuum relates to magnetic. These values are differnt for different substances which makes c change. This is try due to the fact that photons are bootstrapping electromagnetic waves... or something like that. It is possible to experimentally prove this using the michelson-morley experiment which proves that light doesn't travel through an ether, and does this my measuring the speed of light in multiple directions, which always results to the same showing that it isn't effected by the earths motion through the ether.
5. ## Creating matter

I know quite a few physicists, spending all my days in a school of physics at a university, and I can happily say none of them belive star trek/watch it on a regular basis, that I know of and I'm sure it would have come up in conversation at some point... Well it has but only sniggering at some of the ideas... Although there where "scientists" that where consulted about the original star trek series...
6. ## Creating matter

it is creating matter as the amount of mass afterwards is greater than the mass of the sum of it's parts...
7. ## forces and motion question

if you put a box on a table the force the box is exerting on the table will be it's weight due to gravity, and the force the table exerting on the box is exactly equal to this but upwards instead of downwards. In the same way the table is pushing down on the floor, and the floor is pushing up against the table with exactly the same force.
8. ## Creating matter

If this was impossible then there would be no heavier elements than iron as this has the highest binding energy/nucleon. It is belived it happens in supernova's
9. ## Problem of the day Archimede's pricipal (Buoyancy force)

Boyant force = the weight of the volume of water displaced by the marble Gravitational force = 9.81*mass of marbel Net force = Gravitaional - boyant

I think but am not entirely sure that this phenomena is caused by our eyesight not being fast enough to follow the motion, although I'm not very sure about this at all...

12. ## Bhp

It's not but it's the best I could do and still be fundementally lazy bhp is not a commonly used physical description of a power source, and it is therefore quite hard to find a technical resource which will refer to it with a definition :s
13. ## Bhp

"Brake horse power, the net effective power of a prime mover, as a steam engine, water wheel, etc., in horse powers, as shown by a friction brake" See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brake%20horse%20power Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhp#bhp (Note: indication of reality, but worth reading) Seems to be a measure of power which is actually measure instead of calculated and therefore takes resistance inside the engine into account... Therefore the break is refering to the internal resistance of the engin, it seems.

15. ## Smashing atoms

It is VERY VERY difficult to convert all of an atoms mass energy to other forms of energy, the best we can do is fusion reactions which is a few tens of MeV, which is obiviousey 10000000 times stronger than a chemical reaction but still not earth destruction power. Anyone can work out the total energy of a stationary atom using: E=m0c^2 For a moving particle you have to take relativistic effects into account E=(gamma) m0 c^2 Where gamma is 1/(1-(v/c)^2) Mass (m0) in kilograms, c = 3*10^8ms^-1, and v in ms^-1 Work it out with an electron moving at 0.9c ms^-1...

I read alot but only post very infrequently, I tend to only post when I actually have something constructive to say and actually think through what I've written before actually hitting post. That way I end up writeing alot of posts and then deleteing them, hence I'm NOT addicted
17. ## Science Project Help

I'm afraid I don't know any normal magnet formulae for repulcive forces, never even come accross any, if noone get's back to you I'll try and have a look about and quiz my friends tomorrow afternoon, sorry I can't investigate now got an exam in the morning
18. ## Science Project Help

As 5614 said about the violentness of stoping suddenly I thought I'd just quantify that a bit. Impulse = new momentul - original momentum = Force * change in time (Force=rate of change of momentum) This can also be written as Impulse = intergral between t1 and t2 of the sum of F dt Although that is superfluse for your understanging of it. So going back to Impulse = new momentul - original momentum = Force * change in time, the momentul change is constant due to the conservation of momentum, so if the time is decreased to maintain this conservation law the force has to get considerably bigger. This is why cars have crumple zones.
19. ## graphcalc

Has anyone ever used graphcalc, or any other open source graphical calculator for windows or linux, if so what did you think of it? Cheers
20. ## i know everything

my opinion is pretty much "if you predict enought stuff to happen over enough time, and you're quite vague about it, you have to be right sometimes"
22. ## Can Heisenberg's principle ever be overuled

of course their is always the option we are completely wrong and that everything which has been said before is completely incorrect then the uncertainty priciple can be ignorened, but as stated above as far as we know, uncertainty in momentum * uncertainty in position = planks const / (4 pi) Is the BEST we can ever achieve...
23. ## Is this an error?

My understanding of this is that it is meant to say positron, and I would read it as such, else there is not conservation of mass-energy.
24. ## The Official "Introduce Yourself" Thread

Hello, I'm Klaynos or Ed, I'm a physics student from the UK, you'll probably see me on IRC...

×