/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3276098
The number 1.5 was just an example by analogy. That value may be allowed, it may not, it really depends on the actual system and property you are working with.

I think you are grasping the "concept" though. Yes, there will be no "inbetweens". You will have a discreet set of allowed values only. This is the only set of numbers that your values can take.

These are all values you will be measuring, and you will never measure an "inbetween" value, no matter how much fucking measurement you do.

>>2686831
Gravity interacts with mometum (not just mass). It is basic general relativity.

>>2372628
>very basic terms, explain to me electron pair production? Or electron-positron annihilation?

Basic Terms? What do you mean by basic? Like basic physics? Or basic for the common man?

>Does this happen all the time in nature

Yes

>are there any consequences or any major effects?

These are fundemental processes, they are happeening all the time, everywhere. Without them you would not have chemistry, and all the shit chemisty imples (including biology).

>>2337967
Yes, we use "dual spaces" alot.
Field Theory comes to mind.
They are part of the mathematical framework....but you alreay knew that.

Ok, well I'm gonna go. Thanks for the great questions /sci/. It is nice to talk about shit that interests you, as well as to educate/debate others.

I am pretty impressed by the lack of trolls. I never really seem to get them in these threads.
Thanks for behaving yourself.

I will leave you in the hands of the nobel "Nuclear engineering guy" >>2265735, or whoever else want to try an answer questions.

Happy new years!!!!

>>2210064
It is great to have ambition, It will get you far....
but still.

Advanced mech?
What do you mean by adavanced mech? Lagragian / Hamiltonian dynamics? Qunatum Mech? Classical Field theory (CFT)? Quantum Field theory (QFT)? Group Theory/ Calculus of variations?

There are different levels of "advanced", but that all draws on previous knowledge. Ie, you won't get QFT unless you know CFT, and you wont get CFT unless you know Lagragian/Ham Mech.
Makes sense?

It would like be trying to Learn Cal 1, when you don't even know basic fucking algebra. It just won't work. Make sense?

>>2101668
>Critique me, bro!

You are a little bitch

>>1732122
>isnt the consciousness that matter

STOPPED READING

WTF would you bring such shitty concepts to physics? Consciousness is not a concept at all in physics. Consciousness is pretty much qualitative bullshit. Please take your bullshit ouuta /sci/ and back to /lit/

>>938106
Classical Grav theory is actually a carbon copy of the EM theory. Its what we call "classical field theory". In fact pretty much all equations for EM has an equivalent equation for grav. We just replace the charge for the mass, and some "strength" constants. That is Classical Grav theory.

Modern grav theory is General relativity. It talks about a mass curving space, and creating somthing analogous to a "well". Objects attract eachother because they get stuck in each others "wells". This theory is pretty much complete, and has been extensivly tested.
It is only applicable for macroscopic things though. Hence we have no "quantum theory of gravity".

A "quantum theory of gravity" would naturally superceed GR, and should approximate to GR from macroscopic bodies. No one has been able to come up with such a theory yet.