1. Originally Posted by slacker123
by the theorems of Max Planck

E = hf + c

C is a constant that is sometimes introduced to account for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At the same time, we must keep in mind that such an equation is very very simple. It is a fouding theorem for quantum mechanics that still works in some cases. At yet, most scientist, physicist, mathematicians and astronomers prefer to apply the Schrodeinger Equations to aid in accuracy in the calculation of minute sub atomic particles.

Therefore, your conjecture should be along the line of

E = (hf + c)/C^2

2. Originally Posted by nickmak
Fun? =P

3. Originally Posted by ipaquser
Fun? =P

Don't make me cry!!!!

I was just thinking, if you plot E=hf+c, you'd get a linear graph because, well, its a linear function. The 'c' part is the thing i'm uncertain about. If 'c' is positive, then the y-intercept on the graph is positive (Duh!), which means that a f=0, there will still be energy present. But wouldn't no frequency be no wave function? Same goes for when c = -ve...

Can someone give me an explanation?

Thanks!

4. At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters how the graph turns out. Lets just say that f will somehow be able to overcome C and make the graph realstic in the positive sense.

NickMak. You take beautiful pictures. Its been a pleasure viewing them, although I am unable to give any form of constructive criticism. I can say that they all look fine and unique in their own way.

Truly, to each his own, each photographer leaves a unique imprint onto the picture in which he composes and shoots. Indeed, no two photographers shoot the same thing the same way.

5. Wow......what's next ??.......the definitive guide for "DO-IT-YOURSELF" Nuclear fussion reactor, in a form factor that will power your DSLR or "what-have-you" for the next 3 million years ??

I can't wait.......

6. Originally Posted by slacker123
At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters how the graph turns out. Lets just say that f will somehow be able to overcome C and make the graph realstic in the positive sense.

NickMak. You take beautiful pictures. Its been a pleasure viewing them, although I am unable to give any form of constructive criticism. I can say that they all look fine and unique in their own way.

Truly, to each his own, each photographer leaves a unique imprint onto the picture in which he composes and shoots. Indeed, no two photographers shoot the same thing the same way.
Thanks slacker123 for your comments on my pictures... (Although I thought it was different that you commented here... hehe... )

7. Originally Posted by microsmic
Wow......what's next ??.......the definitive guide for "DO-IT-YOURSELF" Nuclear fussion reactor, in a form factor that will power your DSLR or "what-have-you" for the next 3 million years ??

I can't wait.......
Do-it-yourself nuclear fission reactor? Nah! Too dangerous... We'll work out a way how to run our cameras with cold fusion reactors!

8. Originally Posted by nickmak
Do-it-yourself nuclear fission reactor? Nah! Too dangerous... We'll work out a way how to run our cameras with cold fusion reactors!
Now that's a good one !!

Page 2 of 2 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•