goodbye_farewell Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 So I understand the concept of something beginning at c never being able to accelerate above it as it takes infinite energy to accelerate to c in the first place, what's the math behind the faster than light particles not being able to deccelerate below it? If I remember correctly, looking at the equation E = mc^2/sqrt(1-(v^2)/c^2)... if v>c, then the denominator is imaginary. Sooo resting mass must be imaginary to get a real energy... or something. I am afraid to use Google since I would probably lose the rest of day learning about these things Quote Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 So I understand the concept of something beginning at c never being able to accelerate above it as it takes infinite energy to accelerate to c in the first place, what's the math behind the faster than light particles not being able to deccelerate below it?Oh, and to actually answer your question, if your particle is traveling faster than c, then E would go to infinity as the particle SLOWS DOWN to c. Same reason why particles can't accelerate up to c. Weird right? 1 Quote Link to comment
insanity Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 wtf.... This is why I love this place... Also... I hate imaginary numbers... 1 Quote "Insanity - you make my world a better place man, you really do! That shit is awesome! :D" - Guzzi- My first challenge My battle Log: Insanity: Warrior Monk Honorary Ranger dubbed by DarK_RaideR, 1000 Pound club (875 of 1000) Link to comment
Gainsdalf the Whey Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Oh, and to actually answer your question, if your particle is traveling faster than c, then E would go to infinity as the particle SLOWS DOWN to c. Same reason why particles can't accelerate up to c. Weird right? That's really cool. So what happens when you speed up even faster beyond C, the particle gives off energy? 1 Quote Massrandir, Barkûn, Swolórin, The Whey Pilgrim 500 / 330 / 625 Challenges: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 36 39 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 Current Challenge "No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. What a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable. " ~ Socrates "Friends don't let friends squat high." ~ Chad Wesley Smith "It's a dangerous business, Brodo, squatting to the floor. You step into the rack, and if you don't keep your form, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to." ~ Gainsdalf Link to comment
Oramac Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 Oh, and to actually answer your question, if your particle is traveling faster than c, then E would go to infinity as the particle SLOWS DOWN to c. Same reason why particles can't accelerate up to c. Weird right? This is all well over my head, but what about a particle traveling exactly at c? Quote "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds Current Challenge Also, I Agree With Tank™ Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 8, 2015 Report Share Posted December 8, 2015 You'd divide by zero, in this case you'd need to have zero rest mass. (If I understand correctly) 2 Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 That's really cool. So what happens when you speed up even faster beyond C, the particle gives off energy?Yup! In theory [emoji14] Quote Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 This is all well over my head, but what about a particle traveling exactly at c?Yeah, not possible except for massless particles like photons 2 Quote Link to comment
Artinum Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 This topic is veering away from the pure delights of mathematics and into the dark and murky waters of physics. We'd best get back on track before we start attracting string theorists. Here's a fun one. All prime numbers beyond 2 and 3 can be expressed as either 6n+1 or 6n-1 (where n is a positive integer). It's a simple enough proof. We can express all numbers as one of 6n, 6n+1, 6n+2, 6n+3, 6n+4, 6n+5.Any number expressed as 6n, 6n+2 or 6n+4 can be divided by two, and is therefore not prime.Any number expressed as 6n or 6n+3 can be divided by three, and is therefore not prime.Therefore, only numbers expressed as 6n+1 or 6n+5 can be primes (though not all of them will be, obviously).And 6n+5 = 6(n'-1)+5 = 6n'-6+5 = 6n'-1. What use is this? It could be helpful if you're creating a prime number generator. Rather than checking every number can be divided by all your previous primes, you can simply check every sixth number, plus and minus one, thus checking only one third as many numbers as doing all of them. (Another good trick for generating prime numbers - you only need to check whether your number N divides by primes p up to the square root of that number. If you find p^2 > N, you don't need to check the later ones, because if a bigger number divides into it then it must be a multiple of a smaller number. And you've already checked those.) 1 Quote What happens when you play Final Fantasy VII with everyone called Cloud? It gets quite confusing... https://ff7crowdofclouds.wordpress.com/ Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 And this just reminded me the Collatz Conjecture. It's very simple to formulate yet has not been proved. Take any number and- If it is even then divide by 2 (so go from n to n/2)- If it is odd then multiply it by 3 and add 1 (so go from n to 3n+1). The conjecture states that, if you keep doing it, you will eventually end up to 1. If I were to write it in a formal mathematical way (as much as possible given I'm writing in simple text)...Consider the function f(n)= n/2 (for n even) andf(n)= 3n+1 (for n odd).For every positive integer n, there exists a positive integer k such that fk(n)=1. Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 This topic is veering away from the pure delights of mathematics and into the dark and murky waters of physics. We'd best get back on track before we start attracting string theorists.Easy now! 3 Quote Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Easy now! Jealous much? Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Jealous much? Haha not at all. My friends with Math degrees had to dual major to find jobs 1 Quote Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Haha not at all. My friends with Math degrees had to dual major to find jobs OK, I'll admit. My PhD may have had parts that slightly deviate to TCS, but they're still Combinatorics. Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
goodbye_farewell Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 OK, I'll admit. My PhD may have had parts that slightly deviate to TCS, but they're still Combinatorics.Lol or they stayed in school until they ran out of degrees Quote Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Lol or they stayed in school until they ran out of degrees And then found a job at a university, staying in school forever? 1 Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
Mark D Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 BS and MS in Computer Science here, do I qualify? Here's one I came up with a few years ago, before I trip to Italy (where of course they measure temperatures in Celsius). We probably all know that the formula to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit temperatures is F= (9/5)*C+32, but I've always found multiplying a two digit number by 9 then dividing by 5 in my head more trouble than it was worth, so I came up with this: Double C, subtract 10%, add 32. Much easier to do in your head, and it's exactly the same formula, because 2C - .1*2C = 1.8C = (9/5)C. One of the problems I ran into in college math was that I'm not a natural mathematician (except for Boolean algebra, which is how I got into computer science), and most math teachers were math majors who generally ARE natural mathematicians. So while they can DO it, they don't always know HOW they do it, so have a hard time teaching others HOW to do it. 2 Quote My character: https://www.nerdfitness.com/character/58572/ Current Challenge:http://rebellion.nerdfitness.com/index.php?/topic/83683-mark-d-walks-up-to-a-barbell/ Previous Challenges: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Link to comment
Artinum Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 Easy now! That's nothing. My partner studied philosophy, which would probably be even further to the right. 3 Quote What happens when you play Final Fantasy VII with everyone called Cloud? It gets quite confusing... https://ff7crowdofclouds.wordpress.com/ Link to comment
Estrix Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 That's really cool. So what happens when you speed up even faster beyond C, the particle gives off energy? I googled this...I've only just emerged back into the light from the Wikipedia hole I fell down. And I'm no closer to a good answer beyond "some kind of radiation" possibly Cherenkov radiation (but I think that needs a dielectric medium, but maybe not) and you'd also see two images of the particle...I think, a red arriving image and a blue departing image as the speed of the particle would allow Doppler shift to occur across the space of observation. My grasp and understanding of the various explanations I've tried to repeat here is tenuous at best and mostly illustrates the results of falling down said Wikipedia hole. 2 Quote The valiant never taste of death but once. Battle Log: 100 Day Bench Press Challenge (64 Days) Challenge: 1, 2 Estrix, level 1 Goblin Raider STR 3|DEX 2|STA 3|CON 3|WIS 3|CHA 2 Link to comment
AugustaAdaByron Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 3 Quote Level "I have no clue" Warrior Current challenge Battle log Link to comment
Oramac Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 I'm not 100% sure why that's wrong, but it seems that I've committed kitten genocide. Quote "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds Current Challenge Also, I Agree With Tank™ Link to comment
Sam Ashen Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 wtf.... This is why I love this place... Also... I hate imaginary numbers... Hmm. I am looking at....2615 Volts Line to Ground32.31 Amps7300 Watts(per phase) What's wrong with imaginary numbers? Quote Classless Human Male Warrior - Introduction Height: 1.77m Weight: 93 kg Spoiler Current Maxes: (repsxkg) Squat: 10x122.3, 5x138.2, 3x147; 1x170 Bench Press: 10x79, 5x93, 1x102 Deadlift: 10x152, 5x192, 3x210, 1x229 Overhead Press: 10x52, 5x61, 1x70.3 Current Battle Log: 1707 Sam Ashen Summer Swole Program 2017 Challenges: 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 Previous Challenges: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1609 1610 1611 1612 Daily Log:The Daily Grind Form Check: Stronglifts Olympic More FC's: Pistol Squats Want to play? MFPvP Link to comment
GoldLynx Posted December 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 You guyz...I can't keep up. I've created a monster.Or an angel.This place is awesome.Also, Augusta Ada Byron...I'm a math tutor, and that picture is painful. So many students kill so many kittens. I inwardly go into Hulk-mode when this happens.To the rest of you: I'm only in calc III and phys I, and I've almost no experiences with number systems in other bases. I feel very small. 1 Quote We do not show off, for we are the unseen. We are not motivated by aesthetics, but effectiveness. Our bodies are our weapons, not our trophies.They are the civilians.We are the warriors. Link to comment
Oramac Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 7300 Watts I don't know about imaginary, but that translates to about 9.8 horsepower. Quote "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds Current Challenge Also, I Agree With Tank™ Link to comment
Gainsdalf the Whey Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 This topic is veering away from the pure delights of mathematics and into the dark and murky waters of physics. We'd best get back on track before we start attracting string theorists. Easy now! I meant to say this yesterday but never responded. As an engineer, we lie right where chemistry is in being apply physics. Haha not at all. My friends with Math degrees had to dual major to find jobs And this is why I majored in mechanical engineering vs physics. That's nothing. My partner studied philosophy, which would probably be even further to the right. Wouldn't philosophy be further to the left, being applied sociology, the study of the ethics and morals that sociology/theology have developed? BS and MS in Computer Science here, do I qualify? Here's one I came up with a few years ago, before I trip to Italy (where of course they measure temperatures in Celsius). We probably all know that the formula to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit temperatures is F= (9/5)*C+32, but I've always found multiplying a two digit number by 9 then dividing by 5 in my head more trouble than it was worth, so I came up with this: Double C, subtract 10%, add 32. Much easier to do in your head, and it's exactly the same formula, because 2C - .1*2C = 1.8C = (9/5)C. One of the problems I ran into in college math was that I'm not a natural mathematician (except for Boolean algebra, which is how I got into computer science), and most math teachers were math majors who generally ARE natural mathematicians. So while they can DO it, they don't always know HOW they do it, so have a hard time teaching others HOW to do it. Never did it for temperature, but going full circle back to fitness, I do it to convert between lb and kg for lifting. lb=2.2*kg= (2*kg)(1.1)=(2*kg)(1+0.1)=(2*kg)(1)+(2*kg)(0.1)=2*kg+(2*kg)(10%) So yeah. If I have to go from kg to lb I double the kg then add 10%. Going the other way is slightly trickier as you have to subtract 9%, then halve it. I do THAT by subtracting 10%, then adding back 10% of whatever I took away, then halving the result of that. 100kg to lb is double 100kg (200) plus 10% of the doubled number, so 220 lb. 220lb to kg is minus 10% (22, giving 198), plus 10% of the subtracted number (2.2, so 200.2), then halved, so 100.1 kg. Close enough. I typically drop all decimal spots along the way and round to the nearest whole number each time, so there I'd have done (220-22+2)/2=100 edit: I've been doing stuff like this since I was a kid. In second grade when memorizing multiplication tables up to 12x12, I realized that for 5 I didn't need to memorize it because I could just cut the number in half and add a zero for even numbers, and for odd numbers, subtract 1, cut it in half, then add a 5 to the end. In third grade, a teacher actually us this rule, and when I said I had figured it out by myself the year before and had been doing it, none of the other kids believed me and thought I was trying to be a smart ass or just look smart. Looking back on it, I was instinctually doing algebra type calculations. Math has always been something that comes easy to me like that. 1 Quote Massrandir, Barkûn, Swolórin, The Whey Pilgrim 500 / 330 / 625 Challenges: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 36 39 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 Current Challenge "No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. What a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable. " ~ Socrates "Friends don't let friends squat high." ~ Chad Wesley Smith "It's a dangerous business, Brodo, squatting to the floor. You step into the rack, and if you don't keep your form, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to." ~ Gainsdalf Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.