Cap'n Refsmmat

Yes, I know. I have calculated wavefunctions. My point still stands.

Saying "the wave oscillation is opposite" does not make sense. A particle's wavefunction depends on the surroundings and boundary conditions, and can change as a result of interactions with other particles. Also, every wavefunction calculation I've done so far has nothing to do with whether the particle in question is a particle or antiparticle. The math doesn't care. Perhaps I haven't learned enough QM yet, though. Perhaps you should consider holding off on the speculation until you understand the subject more. I don't know why annihilation works and I'm midway through a course that covers basic quantum physics, and I'm not going to speculate.

It isn't. Antiparticles have opposite charges. Protons are positive, antiprotons are negative. That's it, though. Not really.

Antimatter don't have some type of opposite wave oscillation. You'll have to show me these graphs if you want me to know what you're talking about, because it makes no sense.

Mass is a property of matter. When you convert that mass into energy, I suppose you can't call it "matter" any more, because it has no mass. Because you need energy to make mass. You need mass to create energy. And so on. One way or another, something has to be created. No. Wavefunctions don't behave that way. A better way of thinking of wavefunctions is that they merely represent the probability that a particle exists in a certain place. They do not represent the particle itself. Destructive interference can occur with wavefunctions, as in the double-slit experiment, but it does not annihilate the particle or release energy; destructive interference just makes it less likely to find the particle in that location.

In general relativity, gravity is a consequence of warped spacetime, so photons do not need mass to be affected by gravity. Everything that moves through spacetime is. I don't know if photons exert gravitational attraction, but I don't think they do.

Just in class today we were discussing an experiment in which two protons with a large kinetic energy were smashed together. Their kinetic energies were converted into a proton-antiproton pair, which has significant mass.

No, it doesn't. The conservation law that does exist is energy, and one can interpret mass as being equivalent to energy through [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] and other well-known equations. Mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass just fine, and relativity gives you the tools to calculate how much mass gives how much energy. Physics does not say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, because that is a false statement. Mass can be turned into energy. That's what atomic bombs do.

Undergraduate research doesn't necessarily mean working a research project on your own; generally freshman research people work with a group on a pre-existing project. The professors arrange for projects that can be completed by the undergraduate students with the help of the other grad students in the lab. For honors thesis projects, the general procedure is to find a professor doing interesting work and send them an email saying "hey, your work is interesting. Have anything for an undergraduate?" They often have a list of projects they don't have time for but that an undergraduate may be able to work on.

My university explicitly sponsors freshman research programs through professors who sign up to mentor undergraduates in their labs. You may wish to check around and see if undergraduate research programs exist at your school.

Why?

[imath]\frac{1}{3}[/imath] is not intended to describe the physical state of the system and its locations. If I define an arbitrary boundary, exactly [imath]\frac{1}{3}[/imath] of the apples are on one side of it. The universe doesn't need to "account for it"; my number is merely a way of describing the universe.

Incidentally, as per SFN rules 1.a and 1.b, we will not tolerate abusive and vulgar behavior. If you wish to remain a member, I suggest you stop abusing the rest of our members. ydoaPs is entirely correct.

It's strange, but required. If I have nine apples and I take away three, I have taken away exactly [imath]\frac{1}{3}[/imath] of the apples, but in decimal that's 33.3333333333...%. Thirds certainly exist in nature, but in decimal form they're infinitely wrong. There's nothing wrong with an infinitely long number having a role in nature (see also [math]\pi[/math] and e).

The fact that floating-point errors can occur does not make something like 1 + 1 + 1 = 2.99999 mathematically true. It just means they made errors.

That's what you get for using a site that uses variables that aren't big enough to fit so many decimal places. Also, that's not Googling it, that's Yahoo. Google it and you get the right answer: http://www.google.com/search?q=9.10938*10^-31

No, because it's impossible.

No.

2.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 doesn't equal 1 + 1 + 1, but 2.999... with infinitely repeating 9s does. [math]x = 2.999\ldots[/math] [math]x-2=0.999\ldots[/math] [math]10(x-2) = 9.999\ldots[/math] [math]10(x-2)-(x-2)= 9[/math] [math]9(x-2) = 9[/math] [math]x-2 = 1[/math] [math]x = 3[/math] Hence [math]2.999\ldots = 3[/math], but only if the nines repeat infinitely.

Is the United States' duty to democracy indeed to take police action in other nations? I think some may disagree. Also, what kind of economic pressure do you refer to?

And your evidence is? There have been numerous advances in cancer treatment in the past decade or two. Targeted therapy, for example, only became feasible in the late 90s, and it's now shown advances with numerous cancer types. Regardless, my point still stands; you are quoting a few exceptional cases as the model the rest of science should follow, despite its successes in many other cases.

I'm not sure how you can quote a few exceptional discoveries and claim their method is more successful than the method that has led to the vast majority of other scientific discoveries. Your example is also faulty, as there have been a number of interesting discoveries in the past few years, precipitating decreased mortality rates.

I think you've misunderstood. Ringer was referring to what you were doing: quoting the Bible to make a point, and then discounting the Bible as fairy tales when it was used to refute your point. You can't have it both ways.

The distinction between two groups of armed men in military vehicles is much more difficult than the distinction between civilians and military forces. So you're proposing that the intended interpretation of the UN resolution is such that no intervention is possible, because any military strike to protect civilians might possibly harm them? Then what purpose does the UN resolution have? Your interpretation can't be reconciled with the intentions of the authors of the resolution, and I suggest you're intentionally choosing an unrealistically narrow interpretation to ridicule them. Are you suggesting that news agencies such as the New York Times and NGOs like Human Rights Watch are intentionally fabricating evidence to support the US government? Incidentally, the NATO operation is not "morphing". NATO is as yet reluctant to make the changes Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama have suggested. Save your anger for later. http://en.wikipedia....artin_Sniper_XR Given that the cluster munitions have been photographed and examined by Human Rights Watch and the New York Times, the only plausible version of this hypothesis is that the rebels got their hands on cluster bombs from a Gaddafi ammunition dump and used them on themselves. As for the advisability of the operation, I disagree, but largely on the grounds that charging in without a plan is potentially a grave mistake. Intervention to protect civilians will not solve the rebellion; governments should have either announced their intention to oust Gaddafi from the outset (and face opposition), set up a diplomatic method of resolution (which likely wouldn't work), or not attacked at all.

How is it not accelerating, if there's an attractive force?