Recent content by vitruvianman

lol :biggrin: a nice point of view :wink:

mathphysicist u can also look at scholarpedia the gauge theories page, written by gerard 't hooft

You can have a look at Prof. Sidney Coleman's lectures. http://www.physics.harvard.edu/about/Phys253.html Here are his legendary lectures about QFT

lloll

see the papers of myron evans (alpha inst. for adv. lrn.)

I used to use opera (i'm a mac user) till I read this topic. Now, just because of that DownloadHelper add-on, I returned to Firefox :D

absolutely...

Seems correct. But I'd like to calculate it again to make sure :)

Seems correct. But I'd like to calculate it again to make sure :)

It's normal that you tend to think that way, it's still about a reference point that you don't show. Actually, you know what to do, but you just have to remember it:wink: (Plato's last theory) In SR and GR, there isn't any real velocity determination. Or rather, v doesn't mean anything real or...

No. I didn't mean that, so, sorry I think couldn't express myself well. But I'll try once again. But firstly, I should show that \gamma(x-vt) / (tc^2-vx)/c^2\gamma[/tex] isn't right. For v=\gamma(x-vt) / (tc^2-vx)/c^2\gamma, i.e.: v=\frac{c^2(x-vt)}{tc^2-vx} and-v^2x=c^2x, so finally...

See http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Yes it's much simpler but not that effective. I mean you can't calculate what you want without using the original forms of equations. For example the E^2=m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2 not only the famous E=mc^2 . Most of the time we "gotta" calculate momentum too... Simplifying doesn't work all the time. A...

An extra info: Let's say in the famous double-slit exp., a photon (when only one of the slits is opened) has a probability A(s,t) which is the complex "probability" number z, to come the the point t from the photon source s. And the probability A(t,p) which is the complex number w. These are...

But not everytime. Let v be 0, then m=m_0 so m\geq m_0