timo

Talking to a physics teacher is pobably sufficient, at first. @Severian: At least you can name specifics what your theory explains. Is there any chance to rewrite it so that the tea-thing also works in an office and with coffee? Because it could well be one of the most important theories in modern physics, then.

At least within this forum coming around and telling "I have an idea which is great because I have such a high IQ" is an almost certain way not to get any respect. For several reasons. That is, in fact, absolutely not a good sign. That website has become a synonym for crap within these forums. Your repetitive mentioning of terms like "everything becomes clear" without even giving a single precise example always reminds me how long it is that I haven´t smoked weed.

"{" = "\{" in TeX. I don´t understand your equations. What is "1"? A unit vector?

No, but that´s because you made a typo. EDIT: Two typos, actually.

10s^-1 = 10/s, in words: 10 per second.

Only if its direction is in x-direction. But ok, it´s "your" photon. Actually, it gets worse. Within relativity, there is no valid frame of reference in which a photon was at rest. That is due to the "pseudo" in the pseudometric used in relativity. Being in the frame of rest of a particle means that you take its movement direction as time direction. The base vector in time direction would have zero length in case of a photon which arises several problems, e.g. that you cannot normalize it and that it´s self-perpendicular. The breakdown of the Lorentz Transformation is just a symptom of this which is caused by that Lorentz Transformations leave the lengths of vectors the same.

No, there are also other relevant Quantum Numbers. Spin, for example. The most common naming for the coordinates of spacetime are {time, x, y, z}. I suppose that´s a "yes" to your question. Energy is the time-component of (4-)momentum, yes. I do not understand that question. But if a photon has a velocity vx > 0, then px>0, too.

As this topic arises so frequently, perhaps we should have a list of projects proposes somewhere on this board. I´m sure the list could grow quite quickly even if every user only brings in the projects he did him- or herself.

I computer sciences, there is this thing called "Shannon entrophy" which gives a measure on the amount of information say in a file. But it´s a few years since I last encountered this so I don´t know many details about it anymore.

I´m not sure what this law would be, actually. How do you define "information"? Is a particle decaying into two particles a gain of information?

Recoil is transfer of momentum. Photons do have momentum and they are also able to "transfer" it to other particles. You could say, the momentum transfer is as if a mass of vvv kg hit with a speed of lll m/s. Did you marry lately or is there another reason why your avatar changed?

You´d better ask them, not us. I could bet they won´t know that themselves. A possible explanation would be something like: The pressure exerted by the light that hits earth everyday is the same as if a mass of xxx pounds was constantly pushing against it. But then, I´ve never heard someone saying this so I don´t even know the context.

You should take a few minutes more before you make a reply. No, it´s not correct for several reasons, most of them probably being caused by the fact that you typed that in so fast. - the units at the interval ends are missing. - h*2lb/ft is a weight. So you are integrating over weight squared (800lb * a weight). That certainly contradicts what you already found out yourself, namely that you have to integrate over a force.

You seem to be missing my point that the weight of the cable (to be more correct: The weight of the part of the cable that you still have to pull up) does not remain constant. It is 1000 pounds (assuming "lb" is pounds) when you start to pull but it gets less with the distance you pulled. Therefore, your integrand cannot be constant. You attempt is ok in general, you are just missing the two points that 1) The force you need decreases over the distance pulled 2) You are calling out loud for errors if you don´t plug in the units - especially if there are some non-SI units involved.

I do not have the slightest clue what 1800 is. I can only guess what 9.8 is. But the solution you presented is definitely -and regardless of what the numbers stand for- wrong. The pull is not constant. Depending on your current height there is more or less weight of the cable that pulls down. You should really do yourself the favor of plugging the units in.

You forgot the {} around the 500. This is how it probably should look like: [math] \int_{0}^{500} [(800+1000)(9.8) ]x dx [/math] Actually, this isn´t correct. The total work you have to do is the length-integral over the applied force. The nessecary force F for a remaining cable-length h is given by the weight of the coal (800lb) and the weight of the cable ( h*2lb/ft ). Integrate the force over the whole distance and you have your answer. As a sidenote: At the level of physics that you seem to be you are absolutely not doing yourself a favor by ommiting the units. Keeping track of the units might well be the very best way of finding out that a certain result simply can´t be right. EDIT: You are really working with units of foot and ... well, whatever "lb" is ?

I read a very interesting and quite easy article about pathfinding using neural nets on http://www.gamedev.net some time (might be a year or two) ago which might be interesting for you. Let´s see if I find it ... EDIT: It´s not exactly the one I was looking for but a similar one: http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1988.asp

It makes sense but you are thinking too science fictional, I´m afraid. Yes, it is possible to manipulate the probabilities where a particle is. It´s absolutely easy: In front of me, there´s a cup of coffee. The possibility that the molecules of the coffee are in the cup is almost 100%. But if I drink the coffee they will most probably be in my stomach. I altered the probability of the coffee´s molecules position. In fact, I even transported matter. But all I´ll possibly win with it is a sleepless night because I shouldn´t drink coffee this late in the evening.

Martin, I´m afraid I have to disapoint you at least once (maybe twice, dunno if you were just making fun or if you really don´t know what the Schwarzschild radius is named after): Nr.1) No. "Schild" means either "shield" ("der Schild") od "sign" ("das Schild"). "Forehead" is "Stirn" in german. You point about "Schwarz" is correct but it´s rather a coincidence because: Possible Nr.2) The whole thing is named after this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild

Ok, in this case: There is probably a lot of medical research going on that focusses on depositing lots of energy in a small target area within the human body. One I know of is a collaboration between the GSI (german abreviation for "company for heavy ion research") and the medical faculty of the university of Heidelberg (google for "gsi heavy ion research cancer treatment"). Another method which afaik has an even better potential for targetting small areas is using neutrons. But they do have the disadvantage that they are not as easy to control as charged ions. If I remember correctly, electromagnetic radiation -which currently is most common in cancer treatment- has a very bad profile of energy distribution/distance travelled which makes it a bad choice in terms of that. On the advantageous side, EM radiation is much easier to create. Sry, but your initial post really didn´t sound as if you were interested in helping people (actually, I´m still not convinced).

I have heard that satelites are hacked and that one can see this in an increased eye-blinking of the people on television. I could even provide the link. No, honestly: Photons do have zero mass unless one equates mass with energy. This is sometimes done but not the common understanding of the term "mass" because this new mass ("relativistic mass") is not a property of the particle class anymore, but a property of each individual particle.

I´d be interested in a practical use of such a device that would be even remotely moral.

There are many possibilities of doing error-calculations. The (mathematically) easiest would be errorangle = max{ arctan(2.55+0.467)-arctan(2.55), arctan(2.55)-arctan(2.55-0.467) }. The same can be applied for getting the 0.467. Just take the max and min that the fraction can become and take the maximum deviation from 1.28/0.514. For the error it´s usually more important to have it in the correct order of magnitude than having an exact result. If it´s your measurement then you should know youself how to get a sensible error-approximation. If it´s someone else´s there´s usually not much to bother about how someone derived his/her error approximation (unless the number is extraordinarily large or small).

That´s funny, isn´t it?

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm