#1
like i haven't really thought this through cause it's mostly beyond my level of understanding to be honest but surely from different inertial reference frames stuff's like gotta have different energy levels and that

so like can someone smart explain how this works
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 
#2
Quantum and classical mechanics are irreconcilable with each other and that's what string theory is trying to explain.

Physics on an atomic level and on a universal scale just works in different ways.
#8
Seattle Seahawks


Quote by chookiecookie
i feel like you have an obsession with aubrey plaza.


Quote by WCPhils
at least we can all agree SGstriker is the woooooooooooooooooooooorst
#9
Quote by ElMaco

see this is the trouble cause i have a very very basic understanding of what's involved in special relativity and i have a very basic understanding of mechanics more generally so i look at something like this and the big words i'm mostly like yeah i know what that is but the sentences mean pretty much fuck all to me
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 
#10
it's Einstein wasn't autistic would they still have called it special relativity
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#12
does smb stand for science, mah boy
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#14
Quote by smb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Equivalence_of_mass_and_energy This bit is a bit easier to follow.

The argument in that section is that mass-energy equivalence is a consequence of special relativity because you can choose a reference frame where the particle is at rest (since there is no absolute frame of reference)

okay i kinda follow that

is the total mass-energy the same regardless of reference frame tho?
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 
#15
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Quantum and classical mechanics are irreconcilable with each other and that's what string theory is trying to explain.


Not in fact true. Classical mechanics is totally consistent with Quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanic could not explain classical phenomena it would be useless. Classical is quantum for large size. Just as Quantum Field Theory is Quantum mechanics for large velocities and special relativity is classical mechanics for large velocities. Again if special relativity did not agree with classical at low speeds it would be useless General relativity is the combination of Newtonian gravity (ie classical) and special relativity. String theory is trying to reconcile quantum field theory and general relativity. If special relativity was not consistent with classical conservation of mass or energy it would be wrong and useless. What it brings to the table is the equivalence of mass and energy, and hence the A-bomb.
Last edited by whirlpool at Nov 22, 2015,
#17
Quote by K33nbl4d3
like i haven't really thought this through cause it's mostly beyond my level of understanding to be honest but surely from different inertial reference frames stuff's like gotta have different energy levels and that

so like can someone smart explain how this works

it's all what frame/perspective you pick brah
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#18
I might not have the answer you are looking for, but this is what came to mind.

In theory, radiation should happen at an infinite rate because there are an infinite amount of possible wavelengths just as there is an infinite amount of numbers, but obviously infinite radiation would require infinite energy thus requiring infinite mass. Mr. Planck learned that energy is not released at an arbitrary rate, but in packets called quanta. One quanta can only contain so much energy. The more energy light has the greater the frequency thus the smaller the wavelength. Thus in order to create light with an arbitrarily small wavelength you would need more energy than what is available in one quanta.
This gave rise to the uncertainty principle. Werner Heisenberg realized that because light can-not have an arbitrarily small wavelength, we can't make arbitrarily accurate depictions of reality. The only way to measure the position and or velocity of a particle is to shine light on it. Doing so affects both its position and velocity. Not only that, but to make an arbitrarily accurate measurement you would need an arbitrarily small wavelength of light. Thus the uncertainty in position times the uncertainty in velocity times the mass of a particle can never be smaller than Planck's constant.

edit: I hope that was what you were looking for, if your question was related to what keeps energy consistent on the quantum level. If that wasnt really what you were looking for then idk, heres a fun fact, particle spin can be 1/2, what does that mean? Imagine having to spin a ball twice, 720 degrees before it made a full circle. LOL
Last edited by jrcsgtpeppers at Nov 22, 2015,
#19
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
I might not have the answer you are looking for, but this is what came to mind.

In theory, radiation should happen at an infinite rate because there are an infinite amount of possible wavelengths just as there is an infinite amount of numbers, but obviously infinite radiation would require infinite energy thus requiring infinite mass. Mr. Planck learned that energy is not released at an arbitrary rate, but in packets called quanta. One quanta can only contain so much energy. The more energy light has the greater the frequency thus the smaller the wavelength. Thus in order to create light with an arbitrarily small wavelength you would need more energy than what is available in one quanta.
This gave rise to the uncertainty principle. Werner Heisenberg realized that because light can-not have an arbitrarily small wavelength, we can't make arbitrarily accurate depictions of reality. The only way to measure the position and or velocity of a particle is to shine light on it. Doing so affects both its position and velocity. Not only that, but to make an arbitrarily accurate measurement you would need an arbitrarily small wavelength of light. Thus the uncertainty in position times the uncertainty in velocity times the mass of a particle can never be smaller than Planck's constant.

edit: I hope that was what you were looking for, if your question was related to what keeps energy consistent on the quantum level. If that wasnt really what you were looking for then idk, heres a fun fact, particle spin can be 1/2, what does that mean? Imagine having to spin a ball twice, 720 degrees before it made a full circle. LOL

i read the first line and you completely missed the point

The bolded part is also a terrible analogy.

Source: I have a degree in physics.

Maybe if you word your question so it's more specific, someone can give a better answer. There's so much going on that I don't know where to start.
#20
Your mom's relatively constant on my mass
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#21
Quote by eGraham
Your mom's relatively constant on my mass

Wouldn't you want her oscillating?