Ragib

Just to expand a bit on the ball analogy. Imagine there are two, or even more balls. You haven't seen them yet. You dont know their color, neither do they. In fact, it doesn't until its observed. You know though, these balls can only take a certain value. If you have two balls, with 2 colors, you observe one, it doesn't matter if the other ball is a million light years away, you know its color. You observation doesn't suddenly transmit this information of color to someone else, unless they see the ball as well, which in that case, no information was really transmitted. If you have More than 2 balls, say, 3, they can have 3 colors, each ball its own different color. If you observe one, you still dont know the exact color of the others, you just eliminate one. In Real physical systems, there are alot more than 3 "balls" lol. Sorry, i know i just restated what other people said..

And it also says, See also, planck mass, area, length, and on all those web pages, it says, if you use hbar instead of h.

In fact, it even says on the webpage, If h-bar is used instead of plain h, the corresponding time is...blah blah, you can choose which you use.

Lol, you actually gave me a good example 5614. No, they arent the same equations, they are two exactly the same equations, except one is hbar and one is h. Once again, you choose which one you use in your calculations and then stick by that choice when using h or hbar again. If you change your choice in the middle of your calculations, you will get a wrong answer.

Personally, i dont think there is negative mass, but you never know, less than even 600 years ago Negative numbers were being debated to exist. How could you have less than nothing!?!?! And though negative numbers aren't physically possible, eg You cant have -5 of anything, its still been really useful in calculations. Same for the imaginary unit.

Relatavistic effects would be quite small, even at 1/137 C. The Lorentz factor, denoted by gamma, , is extremely small. Infact, its 0.99997336. An electron, about 9.109 3826(16) × 10^−31 kg is mass, going at 1/137 C, would have a relatavistic mass of 9.109625281 x 10^-31. Thats a difference of 2.4268066 x 10^-35, Which is extremely small.

The reason a negative mass would just be squared out by this equation is due to the fact that when Eienstein came up with this' date=' he never intended there to be a negative mass. Otherwise [math']E = mc^2 [/math] would have been different, because, say you set your negative massed particle to rest, one equation gives negative energy, the other gives a positive one. You can't just simply square then square root to get a positive answer, thats cheating . And you can't just say, [math]E^2 = (mc^2 )^2 + (pc)^2 [/math] is the more correct version and [math]E = mc^2 [/math] simplified version because Eienstein Assumed there wasnt negative mass. [math]E^2 = (mc^2 )^2 + (pc)^2 [/math] includes kinetic energy as well, but that doesn't make [math]E = mc^2 [/math] wrong when a particle is at rest.

yea, it depends on which equations you choose to go by. h and hbar are not different numbers derived differently, hbar is just h divided by 2pi. They do this so other equations are simpler.

I understoof that you knew, just elaborating with the bit about inertia..

o ok thanks for clearing that up.

either way, dusnt matter, -500000 bricks still won't get you a house, maybe a negative house, but not a house. The building blocks of matter must have a positive mass, a building block with 0 mass is non existant matter, mass with a negative value is like..is more not there then not there!!

Ok fine..this isnt my area of science anyway lol

It is impossible to have negative mass, or negative energy. Maybe possible to have an antigravity which can repel as well as attracts but that remains to be seen. You have to think what mass and energy actually are. They are what Makes everything! they are the building blocks of things. You cant build a house with -500 bricks.

These meanings are ambiguous... The length of a metre is the length light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds. Light travels 299,792,458 metres a second. A second is 9 192 631 770 periods of a cs 133 atom at ground state. But a period is the amount of pulses passed per SECOND. The definition of a second, involves a second!!

Sorry s pepperchin, just an analogy, not a complete mathematical theory...Imagine the elastic is like space, giving any mass velocity and it will continue at that speed due to inertia. This is of course only until a force acts upon the mass.

I wish i was born when Star Trek was running... Anyway, O, the question is fundamentally wrong, Sure the speed of light barriar was formulated then, without including warped spacetime, but later General Relativity was formulated which incorporated it. Anyway, an outside observer wouldn't see you if you were travelling faster than light. To them you dont exist.

The Frame of reference doesnt affect the Plank Length, because its c/plank time. Time always goes at the same rate in your own frame of refernce, and c is also constant.

Theres no way of transmitting any information faster than the speed of light. Faster than C light will not transmit information. Quantum Entanglement, when the Wavefunction Collapse of one particle affects one instantaneously somewhere, even further than C metres away, can not be used to transfer information either.

Umm...forgive me, are u insulting me? i cant tell...well lets pretend u arent. Nuclear reactions do not occur with only heat, you require a certain amount of force, not given in this case. The filament almost immediately turned into plasma, then slowly cooled. I guess when i said 14 nanoseconds, i meant how long it sustained that heat. But, if you mean, how long it was solid before turning into plasma, very little i can only presume...

Btw, dont worry if you don't like the idea of Quantum mechanics in general, with the probabilities and no determinism..Eienstein didnt like it either, He and I and many others think theres a more fundamental theory that will replace QM and explain this effect.

There is no evidence of a minimal portion of time, but there is a minimal portion of measurable time, that is, what we can physically measure to an accuracy to, even theoretically. abskebabs, is space is quantizes, so is time, also though have no proof to prove right or wrong. Only measurable limits. YT2095, the smallest unit of time, The Plank Time, 5.391 × 10^−44 seconds. It is C/THe plank Length, which is 1.61624 × 10^-35 m. Originally Posted by Transdecimal Nope, the smallest unit of time is the Planck unit. Anything shorter than that and it's not possible to tell (of two events) which happened first. The smallest unit of time MEASURABLE is the Plank time, according to Quantum Mechanics. By Quantum Mechanics its not possible to determine which event happened first. However, maybe string theory will shed some light on the matter. Its not known if time is truly quantized. Atheist, when Transdecimal Said it is due to Quantum Uncertainty, hes talking about Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. One of the equations - . It is impossible to know the Energy of something precisely, with prefect accuracy of time as well. The Delta Triangles means uncertainty in measurment in this case. If you dont know the energy transfers, you dont know the event happened. So you can only tell an event happened assigned to a time, with a limited amount of accuracy. That is what quantum mechanics says. There are many different interpretations of this effect, some say this inaccuracy is due to the fact measuring it involves observing it, collapsing its wavefunction and therefore affecting the outcome. Some others say its a fundamental inaccuracy in nature. If you have any more questions please ask.

note though, F=ma isn't fully accurate, just accurate for everyday scales. High forces, speeds or masses, you require relatavistic equations.

I think it is quite good what bharatiyedu is doing. Maybe the topic of a metre is when comment inducing, but other facts may be. Good work, but maybe make your posts on more surprising facts bharatiyedu.

TimaLand, I was just thinking if you didnt understand swansont comment about "stress-energy tensor inherent in the mass which causes the gravitational attraction. " If you wanted i propose a simpler, but to may knowledge still accurate with General Relativity, here is it. The Fabric of Spacetime, you could imagine it like a long streched peice of rectangular elastic. If you were to put a mass on it, it would "sink", and place another object close enough, it will slide down. This is the gravataional attraction. The mass bends spacetime. When something else wants to pass near the mass, it falls into the curved spacetime, and will get attracted to it.

Unless I Specifiy, i talk about base 10 numbers, like most other people... And about the number of atoms thingo, fine, Your right, its only irrational quantitys that are impossible in physical systems. All rational numbers can exist. I made a mistake and im sorry. And, the reason high energy particle physics uses a continuum of energy is due to the fact the measuring tools used have a measuring error more than the value of h, and its pointless to have that much accuracy for high energy transfers, im 99% of cases. Also, the value of h is so small, and high energy physics is quite, well, high.., making it unfeasable to use such small quanta. Just because humans cant be bothered, and really shouldn't be cause it makes almost no difference, it is still there.