BobbyJoeCool

I don't see how that's possible. and, this doesn't seem to help me much at all... is there like a website or a book about schrodinger's cat that might help me understand this concept?

as I said, I guess it's above my head.

but even though you and I don't know what the state is, it still has one. We just don't know what it is. The probablility that it decayed is irrelevent to whether or not it actually has. It has a state, observed or not, it still has it's state. but what it sound like to me (and this is why I don't understand it I guess), is that he's saying that we don't know what it's state is until we know what it is. Just in fancy sciency terms...

opps.. I just realize what you were doing... d=m/v, so m=dv. But when you put the numbers in... d=1/0... you're multiplying both sides by 0 (moving the v over with the d) 0*d=0(1/0) 0=0

d=m/v. for any finite amount of mass, in a point with no dimentions the volume is 0. Lets say that the mass is 1kg. so, d=1kg/0. 1/0 is undefined. so, we say it has an infinite density (mass with no volume). Take the mass in 10 supergiant stars. put them all together in the space of the planet Earth. the gravetational forces created by that much mass in such a little volume will force the mass to compress. It will draw in more mass with will force it to compress more until, in theory, it has compressed to a single point in space with no height, width, or length, but it still has mass, so it has an infinite density.

law of conservation of mass: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The big crunch theory is basically the universe ending in a universal black hole (which is what many people say is how it started... many being a few). If "The Big Crunch," happens, all the matter and energy would be held in a singularity, and thus, the entire universe would have no energy except at the singuarity which would have infinite energy and infinite mass, and thus, have enough energy for a second "Big Bang." breaking the gravity of the universal black hole. has anyone ever thought about this though... What if, the universe has been through several "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches" and will go thorough them again.

Link... he's left handed, and he's hot with a sword...

but if the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, and you aren't fighting against it, aren't you moving faster than light? Or does a black hole not pull any stronger once past the event horizon because it would break the laws of physics by making things move faster than light. Of course... by this theory, you don't have to be under the EH in order to be moving faster than light... If you are moving directly at the singularity as a speed of .1c, it only needs to pull you at .9c in order to make you travel at c. Right? So, if it pulls you at .90000001c, you are traveling faster than light.

I guess this is just above my understanding then, because I just don't see what you're saying. I just see someone saying that until they observe something, it has and hasn't happened. whereas from our POV this is true, but it either has or hasn't happened. Right?

Sorry, but it's true. As much as you may want to deny it... Santa isn't real. But that doesn't stop people from believing in him... hmm... this reminds me of something else...

specifically what are you talking about.. I assume you mean the particle that, when it decays, kills the cat. But what does it interact with? Right now I just assume it's right in front of my nose, but I just can't see it.

Experts... feel free to be completly... free in expressing your disapointment in me for asking this question... But there's something I don't understand... The cat is potentially alive and dead at the same time until observed by an outside observer. What exactly does this prove? All it seems to prove to me is that Man is exerting his superiority over the universe, and that the cat is not dead until a Man observes it to be true. I mean, the cat is either dead or alive. Just because no one knows, only makes it unknown. Or is that the point.

But isn't is actually possible to travel faster than the speed of light, in theory? Black Hole? Once past the event horizon, gravety is exerting such a force on you that it pulls you to the singuarity at speeds faster than the speed of light. Of course, the sheering effects would tear you a new one before you got to the event horizon unless it was one REALLY BIG black hole. And escaping to tell anyone about it would prove impossible... unless of course you believe in the book Sphere. Because theoretically, traveling faster than light would send you back in time (but not across space) to a time where the black hole wasn't there... of course, being put close the the "surface" of a star would be a lot better than the inside of a black hole... Obviously because you'd get a tan before you burned into oblivion.

I tried to take the derivative of this equation and it proved very problematic (i did not have a calulator.) so that I could find the 0's at the derivative (turning points in the original equation). One of these is the maximum... the other is the minimum. and just... something about this equation looks wrong as to what I did...

first of all... you have to realize that for any radius of the original circle, the value of Ø*will be the same to maxamize... so we can assume a value for the radius (to make to easy, r=1). As for the hint, I'll show you how to get the volumes of the cones.... what is the equation for the volume of a cone... 1/3*B*h. B=2*?*r' (note, this is a different r) the new r is found by taking the circumfrance of the base (2?*1-Ø (in radians)) and with the new r (r'). the radius of the original circle is also the slant height of the cone. (if you actually cut out the circle, you'll see why this is true, and you have the radius the radius and slant height, and the height form a right triangle with the slant height as the hypotenuse. so r^2=r'^2+h^2 r=1 and r'=2?-Ø so: 1=2?-Ø+h^2 so: h^2=1-2?+Ø so h=?(1-2?+Ø) V1=1/3*(?*r'^2)*(?(1-(2?-Ø)^2)) V1=1/3*(?*(2?-Ø)^2)*(?(1-(2?-Ø)^2)) as for the other cone... "s" is the same, r'=Ø (in radians) so lets get h again.. h^2=r^2-r'^2 r=1, r'=Ø h^2=1^2-Ø^2 V2=1/3*(?*(Ø)^2)*(?(1-Ø^2)) V1+V2=1/3*(?*(2?-Ø)^2)*(?(1-(2?-Ø)^2))+1/3*(?*(Ø)^2)*(?(1-Ø^2)) Maximize this equation...

The idea is that, no matter what the radius of the circle, the angle Ø is the deciding factor in the volume of the cones (the bigger the radius, the bigger the volumes... but the angle of the sector cut out substancially changes the shape of the cones and that the volume for any given "r" can be maximized by finding the correct Ø. For every radius of the circle, the volume will be maximized by the same Ø. What is that Ø?) There comes a point that you can find the answer by graphing and finding the maximum on the graph. What I'm saying is, don't do that.

I don't know if you can take 5th roots manually... I know you can take square roots manually (all be it a VERY long computation). I least I thought you could. But irrational powers is something else. He asked about fraction exponants, and I said what I remember from my Advanced Algebra course.

I mean, the sum of the values of the two cones. "Maximize the total volume of the two cones." was the exact question if I remember correctly.

These two quotes came from a discussion on how much work in horsepower (HP) a boat at rest is doing (because it's sitting there and the current isn't taking it down the stream because it's anchored.) and I just love these two.

When you have a non-integer exponent, such as .4 (also experessed 4/10 or 2/5), you can just take the denominator of the fraction and take that root of the number... eg. x^(2/5), can be expressed the 5th root of x^2. Whereas I would find it hard to calulate this without a calculator, I think it's possible, and maybe that's what that gigantic math deal I skimed over (because I understand very little of it) is meant to explain. But, isn't this true and make it easier? Somthing along the lines of x^(2/5)=x^2*x^(1/5), and x^(1/5)=5th?(x), and therefor x^(2/5)=5th?(x)^2.

To a bunch of Math people, this question will be pretty easy... But do it completly alebraicly (no graphing). We did this question in high school calculus, but we were able to use a graph. I refused to "cheat" by graphing it, and tried it the algebraic way. It took me several pieces of paper, but I was able to do it, and was very proud of myself, but I was trying to show someone how to do this and I forgot how I did it (I keep comming up with a whole bunch of Ø's and 2?'s that I couldn't get rid of). You have a circle with radius "r." You cut out a sector of the circle at an angle of "Ø." You turn the two circle segments into cones by taking the two lines created by where the sector is pulled out, and put them together (if you can't visualize this, take a piece of paper, cut out a circle, then cut the radius of the circle at two points around the outside, thus cutting out a sector (like cutting a piece of pie). You fold the circle together so that the two lines of the radii you cut are touching and thus have created a cone). What value of Ø will maximize the volume of the two cones? I used to know the answer, but I'm more interested in the algebraic way of getting to the answer. Anyonw who knows how to do this, help is appreciated.. and those of you who what to try and figure it out just for fun, go right ahead. Thanks.