Tom Mattson

Never mind, my mistake. My mind was stuck in the first approximation.

Heh. No need for apologies, I just couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. Hope you didn't take it as antagonistic.

3 of the links on the site I provided are complete textbooks, provided by their authors free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts.

That would be an absolute probability of 0.

Sorry, but it didn't. When you say: "I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules" (snip) I took the pronoun "this" to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, which was: "Wave interference in a pond" *shrug* I can only read what you write.

Yes. The obvious implication of this is that true education is now to be found at the hands of parasites. Now excuse me while I go matriculate at Tapeworm University.

Then why do you talk about molecular collisions in water waves? As for feedback on your musings, I think that for my part I'm going to stick to the question posed in the opening post.

OK, one more question. Is there a way to get inline typesetting?

Yes and yes. The visible spectrum ranges in wavelength from about 400nm (violet) to about 700nm (red). You can compute their energies via the formula: [math]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math] where hc=1240 ev-nm. That gives Ered=1.77eV and Eviolet=3.1eV. Now look at the hydrogen atom. In first approximation its energy levels are given by: [math]E_n=\frac{-13.6eV}{n^2}[/math] So the energy of a transition from E1 to E4 would require a photon whose energy is about 12.75eV, which is way more energetic than an optical photon. Now this atom can de-excite one energy level at a time. Here are the energies (to the nearest 0.01eV) of the transitions. Note that those below 1.77eV and above 3.1eV result in invisible photons. n=4 to n=3: |E4-->3|=0.66eV n=3 to n=2: |E3-->2|=1.89eV n=2 to n=1: |E2-->1|=10.2eV The second transition (and only the second transition) in the above list results in a visible photon.

Plenty of calculus stuff at the following link: http://www.physicsforums.com/local_links.php Just follow the path: Mathematics Resources-->Calculus and Analysis Check back frequently, because I am currently in the process of updating the Link Directory.

Here is the only online resource I know of on Fourier analysis: http://aurora.phys.utk.edu/~forrest/papers/fourier/index.html

EM fields are only said to have a phase when they are EM waves. But we aren't talking waves here. There are no collisions between water molecules in a water wave (excluding breaking waves' date=' of course). Each element of fluid moves up and down [i']only[/i]. Don't understand this part.

I wouldn't call a quantum mechanical potential an "object", in the sense that I have been using the term. My usage of it refers to material bodies. Right-O.

Parts of their surfaces sharing the same spacetime coordinates. 1. Objects that meet at the same spacetime point collide. 2. The collision is constrained by the law of conservation of momentum. 3. If the collision is elastic, the it is further constrained by the law of conservation of kinetic energy.

I'd be really careful about Wikipedia. There is a woman who has been going through it and rewriting vast sections of QM webpages simply because she is anti-QM. There is a warning header at the top of at least one of her articles' date=' but even so I wouldn't put too much stock in this. If you're hunting for info on the internet then I think it is best to stick with ".edu" websites (those are colleges and universities). That said, try this one: HyperPhysics On the bubble map, click on "Quantum Physics" and go nutty.

The next logical step would be to combine the two exponentials (e-(n+1)x) and integrate by parts twice.

It does exist. The appelation "imaginary" is a poor choice of terminology. Imaginary numbers aren't any more or less existant than the so-called "real" numbers.

i2=-1 by definition.

There are so many... OK' date=' here's a concrete example: He gets the mass of the omega minus correct, but it is far from being the most heaviest strange baryon. In fact, the omega(1672) isn't even the most massive omega resonance! Then there are the Xi baryons, which are also strange, and whose most massive resonance (2500 MeV) just barely edges out the most massive omega resonance (2470 MeV). You can see all the info for yourself at the following site: Particle Data Group: Baryons

Testing: [math]K=mc^2(\gamma-1)[/math]

Is there a way to write equations here? I tried using html codes such as: γ but I don't get the greek letter.

Swansont is right about this. The equation you wrote here is not valid in SR. In fact' date=' it does not make the point that you are trying to make. That is, it imposes no natural speed limit on massive bodies. The correct expression for KE is: [math']K=mc^2(\gamma-1)[/math], where [math]\gamma=\frac{1}{(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}}[/math]. which does indeed approach infinity as v approaches c. You'd work it out by simultaneously allowing v>c and an imaginary mass in the above expression.

Why is pseudoscience with metaphysics? I made the same point in the thread Spotting Pseudoscience, stuck to the top of this Forum.

No' date=' it isn't. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the deflection of light in the presence of a massive body, and it fails to predict the lifetime of a hydrogen atom. The former is a manifestation of the relativistic world, and the latter a manifestation of the quantum world. You're right about Newton working at high speeds though. But the definition of momentum has to change from p=mv to p=gmv in order for Newton's 2nd law to hold.