Recent content by matteo16

1.05 x 10^-37 meters is lower than 1.6 x 10^-35(that is the limit) and so how this is possible? how can this value surpass the limit?

for each massive body is assigned a wave length by the De Broglie formula: lambda=h/mv but, for example, a stone which has a mass of 10 kg and which is moving with a speed of 100 m/s, is assigned a wave length that goes beyond the Planck length that is the limit. how is this possible? thus...

i'm sorry for the language problem(i'm italian) i mean that this person said that the gravity isn't a force caused by the space-time curvature but that it moves itself.

but we also have to see at reality and not only at the abstract math

could you answer? please

in another forum a person said that the gravity moves off as an object. i seid that is no true the dialog has been longer but i can't traslate it all what do you think? could it be? thank you for answers

sorry I'm not englesh

if we consider a segment of course it's composed by infinitive points i want to contract it and i know the avarage point M if i contract the segment cutting each time one point from the terminal points i will always have infinitive points and so i can't contract the segment until the avarage...

apologie me if this question isn't corret or is simple for you do solutions of an equation as quaternions or as the ather hypercomplex numbers exist? wath do they do in physics? for exemple ottonions or sedenions do ather hypercomplex numbers exist?

ops sorry i was wrong

i didn't understend very much but i understood that the photon's m0 is equal to 0 but why can't i think the mass connecting with the gravity in a relativistic spacetime? only because is relativistic?

for the equation m=m0/relativistic factor m is greater than m0 and about a photon which has a speed that is equal to light's one the mass would be inifinite and so the gravity would be infinity too. or maybe does that increase convert in energy? but if so in the sun as final effect(of nuclear...

ah ok thank you very much

thank you for the definitions but that i wanted to say is that in the video lesson of MIT that I've followed the teacher introduced vectors by a simple arrow i know that it could semplify everything but i thougth that he would introduce vectors by some of definitions that you gave me or by...

maybe I'm wrong but when i was following a lesson of mechanics by video lectures the teacher gave a very superficial definition of a vector as an arrow. can i find the complete definition of a vector? maybe in maths? otherwise I'm desappointed about this definition of a vector