Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: quick physics question

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote 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
    Oh man... speaking about Schrodeinger's Equation, just had to do it for chemistry about atomic orbitals!
    Last edited by nickmak; 22nd September 2004 at 10:32 PM.
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickmak
    Oh man... speaking about Schrodeinger's Equation, just had to do it for chemistry about atomic orbitals!
    Fun? =P


  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote 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!
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, Massachusetts
    Posts
    631

    Default

    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. #25

    Default

    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. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote 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... )
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote 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!
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote 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 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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