Recent content by Tron3k

I've been trying to figure out this paper by W. Smilga: Spin foams, causal links, and geometry-induced interactions I don't have the knowledge and background to be able to determine whether his derivation of an estimate to the fine structure constant is interesting, or just a trick. I am...

Assume it, then. :smile: For god's sake, wait at least a couple of days before whining...

I think the answer is 73894.

Well, you must know about photons. Ever wonder what makes two charged pith balls repel or attract one another? A photon carries "light", and we know that light is an electromagnetic wave. Basically, the photon is the mediating particle of the electromagnetic force itself. Now does it seem...

Or they're both right. Something like that always seems to happen in physics. I heard they might be able to make it make sense by quantizing spacetime itself.

\vec{A} \cdot \vec{B} = A_x B_x + A_y B_y + A_z B_z So clearly, the units of the dot product is the product of the units of A and the units of B.

Whoops, I thought that sinh x = sin(ix) for some reason.

There should be an "i" after the 2, I believe.

If you guys really want to know why a box full of light has more mass than an empty one, read this paper: Light is Heavy It's an excellent analysis.

This might help: Correlation Coefficient -- from MathWorld

Isn't it interesting that a box filled with light is literally heavier than an empty box?

Yeah ... the universe sucks, doesn't it? We should redesign it.

Let d be the length of the trip (km). Let t be the time of the trip (hours). 70.9t = d 89.7(t - 21.5/60) = d 70.9t = 89.7t - 1928.55/60 18.8t = 1928.55/60 t = 1.71 d = 70.9t = 121 The trip was 121 km long and took 1.71 hours.

I see your glass is half empty. :smile:

And in the same vein, you can only prove something given some axioms. You can't just say "prove this" (unless the axiom system you are using is implicitly given).