min value for energy and mass

I remember reading that there was some minimum value for energy and a minimum value for mass (meaning that the range does not go from 0 to infinity without breaks), and there was no value lower than that except zero. Would anyone know these minimum values? Also, does this mean that there is also a maximum value for energy and mass?

a black hole can take in unlimted sums of light and enegy black holes are as they call "gate way to hell"

they are very powerful the mosted faired thing in the whole dimension

all that i know about auantim mechanics is that mass does bend a solid in motion

do you mean planck's constant? 6.626x10^-34 J�s

thats the min increment for energy, and, indirectly, the min increment for mass. energy is quantized, meaning it can only exist in whole number multiples of planck's constant. its jsut so unbelievably small that it plays out as smooth. there also a planck length (approx. 10^-35m) and a planck time (1.349x10^-43 s)

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
do you mean planck's constant? 6.626x10^-34 J�s

thats the min increment for energy, and, indirectly, the min increment for mass. energy is quantized, meaning it can only exist in whole number multiples of planck's constant. its jsut so unbelievably small that it plays out as smooth. there also a planck length (approx. 10^-35m) and a planck time (1.349x10^-43 s)

Amorymeltzer,
Sometimes I think your to smart for your own good! I started my first physics class three weeks ago, And it gives me a migrain every time I have class. LOTS of formulas to remember. I havent seen planks constant yet. One question, the last part of the formula is j*s. Is this a rectangular coordinate? If not, what do the variables equal?

wow...thanks.. That's two mysteries solved. I know what the values are, and I know what planck's constant on my calculater is . About the mass, by indirectly do you mean m=E/c^2 from the formula?
By J*s I am assuming you mean joules?

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
do you mean planck's constant? 6.626x10^-34 J�s

thats the min increment for energy, and, indirectly, the min increment for mass. energy is quantized, meaning it can only exist in whole number multiples of planck's constant. its jsut so unbelievably small that it plays out as smooth. there also a planck length (approx. 10^-35m) and a planck time (1.349x10^-43 s)

Amorymeltzer,
Sometimes I think your to smart for your own good!

I started my first physics class three weeks ago, And it gives me a migrain every time I have class. LOTS of formulas to remember. I havent seen planks constant yet. One question, the last part of the formula is j*s. Is this a rectangular coordinate? If not, what do the variables equal?

J*s are units. joules * seconds

There are nor forumlae to memorize in physics. Write them down on a big sheet, remember what they describe, and then try to understand the physics of the situation. The math simply describes what's going on. If you focus on remembering the forumlae, you won't understand the physics, and that's the part you're being marked on.

Ut,

Well, I actually have to know the formulas as they are required for my weekly test. Some of the questions on our test are like:

If you hit a golfball, and it has theta of 30 degrees, and max hieght is 23 meters, what are the formulas you will use to find flight time, and max distance. My school sucks.

why thank you! ive done my homework, yes.

yes, joules and seconds are units. joules is for energy, if you just started physics you'll derive them later, seconds im sure you know by now

planck time/length/constant you dont really need to know. the constant you will do, much later, when you get to quantized energy, but that is much much later. the other two are mostly irrelevent unless ur dealign with big bang astronomy.

the formulas you use ull use. planck has nothing to do with two dimensional motion. and yes, indirectly mean e=mc^2.

Ut is absolutely right. the important part is learning why thing shappen. if you understand that, the formulas (for the most part) are pretty intuitive, especially if youve seen em before.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Ut,

Well, I actually have to know the formulas as they are required for my weekly test. Some of the questions on our test are like:

If you hit a golfball, and it has theta of 30 degrees, and max hieght is 23 meters, what are the formulas you will use to find flight time, and max distance. My school sucks.

Is this high school? I'm guessing you haven't done calc yet.

When I was in high school, they gave us sheets with the equations on them. I admit that it's important to know the equations, but I've always found it better to learn them through use, not through memorization. That way you know WHY there's a negative sign here, or a positive sign there. But you've gotta do what you've gotta do.

Um, actually, Im 32, and Im going to ITT tech pursuing a bachlors in CEET. Ky high schools suck in the math department. In high school, I never had above algebra, and Im sure if compared to the rest of the nation, it would have been considered pre algebra. I didnt do very well in highschool, but I've got a 3.72 gpa in college. Its funny, I can build you a killer rig, or troubleshoot and fix about any computer I've ever come across, but my english and spelling is terrible!

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Um, actually, Im 32, and Im going to ITT tech pursuing a bachlors in CEET. Ky high schools suck in the math department. In high school, I never had above algebra, and Im sure if compared to the rest of the nation, it would have been considered pre algebra. I didnt do very well in highschool, but I've got a 3.72 gpa in college. Its funny, I can build you a killer rig, or troubleshoot and fix about any computer I've ever come across, but my english and spelling is terrible!

Well, I only asked because it's a high school level problem you've quoted.

Calc isn't necessary for introductory physics, but it really helps you understand where the formulae come from.

Starting with g, and realizing it's an acceleration...

g = a = y''(t)
v(t) = int (a dt) = at + v
y(t) = int ((at +v0) dt) = 0.5 at^2 + vt + y

A projectile isn't affected by any lateral forces, so x''(t) = a = 0

x(t) = vt + x

Usually, the initial position, (x,y), is set to (0,0), so the equations reduce to

y(t) = 0.5at^2 + vt
x(t) = vt

There you have projectile motion derrived from simply examining the forces on the object.

Damn, ATS is full of genuis! You guys are gonna be pesterd when I have a problem I cant figure out. Could I u2u you guys sometime if I need to? By the way, the peoblem I quoted is exactly as it appeared in my first test.

ps - you can get the other basic motion equation the exact same way

a=dv/dt

this is the clever part. multiply both sides by dx - that way you get dx/dt which is V
int (a dx) = int (dx dv/dt) = int (v dv)
ax+c = .5(v^2) (both constants have been consolodated)
if you look at it, here you can see that if a=0, V-final (which is what we have here) is the same as the initial velocity. thats what the constant is. hence.
2ax = Vfinal^2 - Vinitial^2

i like this one especially since it doesnt involve time.

physics gets much more fun with calculus. much.

pps - feel free to u2u

[edit on 10/2/2004 by Amorymeltzer]

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Damn, ATS is full of genuis! You guys are gonna be pesterd when I have a problem I cant figure out. Could I u2u you guys sometime if I need to?

By the way, the peoblem I quoted is exactly as it appeared in my first test.

Feel free. It's not like I have a social life anyway.

p.s., while remembering how to integrate things that aren't displayed as d/dx, I found:

t = (64/g)^1/2
x = 64*(3)^1/2

My professor uses what he calls gut formulas. So far, I have learned three of them that work with almost every problem Ive encountered.

Vfinal=Vinitial+AT

S=VinitialT+1/2AT^2

and last but not least

Vfinal^2=Vinitial^2+2AS

with these, you have final, initial, accelleration, distance and time. There is all the motion.

Ill try not to U2U you guys to much

yeah, same thing. hes just using S for position, we used x. no difference, really. ive always used x for physics problems, s for math problems (parametrics) its just convention. those three are essentially the same thing, but its good to know em all as different ones. those pretty much describe everything.

Sorry Babar,

Didnt mean to take your post so off topic.
I just went back and reread the thread, well, sorry.

Amorymeltzer,

There are 3 other formulas that are Identical to the first three I posted that you can use for vertical motion

Vfy=Viy-GT
y=ViyT-1/2GT^2
Vfy^2=Viy^2-2Gy

It gives me a headache, but I just cant get enough!

*edited to say I just realized you probably already know this.*

[edit on 10/2/04 by Kidfinger]

Vfy=Viy-GT
y=ViyT-1/2GT^2
Vfy^2=Viy^2-2Gy

take a look closely. you'll see these are all the exact same equations as the original three 'gut' equations. no need to memorize twice as many as you need. the beauty of these equations is that they work for all motion.

the original three were mainly concerned with motion along the ground, the x-axis. you can use those same equations, as you do here, just for vertical motion along the y-axis. if you notice, the only difference is that instead of a there is g. g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s/s). g really is acceleration, its just a special kind so we use another variable. also, the equations here also all say -g. thats because we usualyl treat 'up' as positive and 'down' as negative. since gravity pulls things down (i hope you knew this!) it acts as a negative acceleration. in truth, you can pick your axes any way you want, as long as you keep your signs right.

note: when ur writing gravity, use g. G is a fundamental constant of nature, 6.67x10^-11 N�m^2/kg^2. you dont need that until you find the gravitational force between two objects.

Yeah, using G as g will get confusing when you see:

F_g = mg = GMm/r^2

It's important to note that the above equations are only valid when you're dealing with constant accelerations, that is

da/dt = 0

which just says that the slope of the acceleration vs time graph is 0.

So basically, when you drive your car, the equations to describe it are similar, but the integration of a will be a crazy function of t.

Originally posted by Ut
It's important to note that the above equations are only valid when you're dealing with constant accelerations, that is

did we forget to mention that? oops! changing acceleration gets more complicated, i dont think theyre anywhere near that point.