Recent content by enter

Yeah, I misstated the gamma ray part. I don't understand, how is quantum gravity related to this?

Title says it all. Also, if the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is limited, why? My guess is the wavelength is limited to the Planck length, and when I plug those numbers into the calculator, I get 1.855 * 10^43 Hz. The maximum (Edit: observed) frequency of a gamma ray is 3 * 10^20 Hz...

Ohh, so there could be more elements, but they would certainly not be stable. Thanks!

There are 118 elements known to man, and some scientists like Feynman think that element 137 might be the end of the Periodic Table. Isn't that oddly specific? To me, it feels like it is completely random and of no significance. What is going on here? Is there a constant that relates to this...

But from a frame of reference where the box is still, would there be any work applied?

Sounds like something right out of Black Mirror. Or the sun is in pain.

Well, an atomic mass unit is a unit of mass, so you can use it to represent anything. You could even say "My car weighs <insert large number here> atomic mass units". It was designed for atoms though, e.g. hydrogen has a mass of ~1 u, carbon has a mass of ~12 u, etc. If you combine those, you...

Well, since carbon's atomic mass is 12.0107 u ± 0.0008 u, and hydrogen's atomic mass is 1.00794 u ± 0.00001 u, the math gives us 16,04246 u ± 0.00084 u for methane, so you are correct. P.S. I don't know how to use latex, that's why I'm writing in plaintext. Edit: To elaborate on @.Scott 's...

Oh, so he was talking about the pieces fitting together and not powerful emotions. Now it clicked. Thanks!

I don't get it.

In everyday language, beauty is an emotional concept. How would you mix that with quantum physics and the mathematics behind it? Or is what he refers to as "beauty" is more like simplicity? I mean, I agree with the man, the Standard Model feels redundantly complex, but I feel like there is...

The reason that I asked this was that I got 4-5 wrong answers while practicing 1D kinematics, all of them about negative velocities. Should I worry about negativity in velocities while practicing/applying 2D/3D kinematics? From what I understood from your reply is that I shouldn't (except for...

Ohh, now it clicked! Thanks! I got confused by what Ibix said and understood it as sign and not direction. By the way, when would we say that a velocity is negative in _2D space_?

So, in 2D kinematics, velocities must have two signs, one for each component. (Translation: I still don't understand.)

So, velocity is a vector, right? And vectors can't have negative magnitudes, right? Then why is leftward velocity considered negative in 1D kinematics? It just seems off to me. Same with acceleration, and pretty much _every vector in all of physics._