Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 9th 2013, 04:43 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
muon321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 25
Question about simplifying physics equations!?

Let's say that we had some equation in physics that was v(m+c)/v, which isn't real I am just using it, would you be able to simplify it to m+c? You shouldn't be able to because v for velocity has a possibility of being 0, correct? You can't simplify if you would be cancelling out a variable that could be zero, is this true?
__________________
“Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
― Werner Heisenberg
muon321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9th 2013, 05:58 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by muon321 View Post
Let's say that we had some equation in physics that was v(m+c)/v, which isn't real I am just using it, would you be able to simplify it to m+c? You shouldn't be able to because v for velocity has a possibility of being 0, correct? You can't simplify if you would be cancelling out a variable that could be zero, is this true?
You are right on both counts. If you cancel v/v, you must specifically state that you are excluding the case v=0. Or you can take the limit as v-->0. The limit exists even if the function does not.

As a physicist, I tend to be a little careless about such cancellation - till a mathematical colleague corrects me!
__________________
DrPhil (not the TV guy)
If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't have to do it.
DrPhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th 2013, 07:26 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Bravo!!!

I believe the science of physics has become accustomed to modifying things to make theories work easily! The latest example is here...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...011/press.html

Why should this measured expansion have a threshold, or a shape other than a cone? Is it just to preserve the theory of the "Big Bang"? Perhaps we should take the initiative of re-examining the "Big Bang" instead of warping the whole universe! While we are at it, what about the strong and weak nuclear forces...
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th 2013, 08:55 AM   #4
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
I believe the science of physics has become accustomed to modifying things to make theories work easily! The latest example is here...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...011/press.html

Why should this measured expansion have a threshold, or a shape other than a cone? Is it just to preserve the theory of the "Big Bang"? Perhaps we should take the initiative of re-examining the "Big Bang" instead of warping the whole universe! While we are at it, what about the strong and weak nuclear forces...
(sighs)
...warping the whole Universe
What?

As to the nuclear forces they do not have any effect on the Universe at this point...the scales of the interactions are too small. If you are referring to these forces when the Universe was almost infinitesimally small then yes, we have to include these and we do. Look up GUTs. Even if a GUT seems too complicated to do anything with I can assure you that the geometries they represent are a major source of simplification.

And of course the BB is under scrutiny! But what you are probably objecting to is the "cobbling" up of several different theories working together to give us what we call the "Standard Model." (Of which the BB is included.) When we have a TOE we might be able to explain everything in one nice package, but we are far from having one. So we have to put several pieces together for now.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th 2013, 09:01 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
(sighs)

As to the nuclear forces they do not have any effect on the Universe at this point...

-Dan
That is rather odd isn't it? Every other force in nature has an influence on the universe that extends to infinity via the inverse square... so why are the nuclear forces so special?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th 2013, 09:04 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
(sighs)

When we have a TOE we might be able to explain everything in one nice package, but we are far from having one.
-Dan
My thinking is that TOE begins with an elementary "particle", perhaps this seems backwards, perhaps however we can work both ends towards the middle?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25th 2013, 10:02 AM   #7
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
That is rather odd isn't it? Every other force in nature has an influence on the universe that extends to infinity via the inverse square... so why are the nuclear forces so special?
It's simply their nature and the nature of the particles that carry them. The strong force has a limited radius because of something called "confinement." This comes in two parts: The first is that strong particles can only be "free particles" when they are close together. (The effective range here is 10^(-15) m or so...no surprises that this is about the size of a nucleus.) The second is that particles with a "non-zero" color charge cannot be detected. Both of these keep the strong force from dominating the Universe. (It's much stronger than EM and waaaay stronger than gravity.)

As for the weak nuclear force, I suppose it could span long distances, but the vector bosons have a lifetime on the order of 10^(-25) s, so we won't be seeing them interact on a 10 m scale.

The difference between these two forces and gravity and EM? The photon mediates EM and has an infinite lifetime. As do gravitons. So they are the only two of the forces that make up the macroscopic features of the Universe.

Originally Posted by Troll View Post
My thinking is that TOE begins with an elementary "particle", perhaps this seems backwards, perhaps however we can work both ends towards the middle?
A single particle? Dude. GUT's alone consist of 128 elementary particles (more depending on which GUT you are looking at.) I have no idea about a TOE except to say that it's going to be larger. I can't give you any simple reason why. It has to do with the symmetry group that the TOE is based on. So there isn't going to be any "master particle," with the possible exception of the singularity at 0 time. And that might not be a single particle either.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27th 2013, 12:35 PM   #8
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
The Elephant in the Room

There is a story about some blind men describing an elephant by touch alone,
one gets hold of the trunk and says the elephant is like a snake,
another gets hold of a leg and says the elephant is like a tree,
etc...

Physicists get hold of pieces of reality and make up particles to match the particular bit they have got hold of.
The full nature of reality however remains elusive.
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27th 2013, 02:17 PM   #9
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
The full nature of reality however remains elusive.
But of course! As to the full nature of reality is concerned there is a simple thought that I have when I'm solving equations, especially the ones I have to work out with great difficulties:

The Universe doesn't solve differential equations. It just does what it does. When we truly understand the Universe we won't have to either.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7th 2013, 07:34 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Bravo! I was beginning to think you were a bunch of stale old farts stuck to what you have learned! I would like to propose a primary entity that is toroidal and expanding. At a single point this entity compresses time/space infinitely, at an infinite distance time/space is expanded infinitely, and in between the relationship between time and space is exponential. The interference pattern between such entities is what we perceive as matter. Comments welcome and math desired!
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Tags
equations, physics, question, simplifying



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Use of equations in electromagnetism question Clyner82 Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 2 May 10th 2016 12:13 PM
Physics Project Question kuzeycem Energy and Work 1 Dec 9th 2013 07:42 AM
physics question greatestever889 Energy and Work 0 Jan 6th 2013 01:56 PM
Physics Question Nimmy Energy and Work 2 Oct 6th 2008 08:01 AM
Still More Common Equations - Optics and Modern Physics topsquark Physics Resources 0 Apr 24th 2008 10:53 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed