Whats these fine coin professionals think

[muswell65]

How about this one:


E=Mc2

LOL! I appreciated Earle's analogy in this case, didn't mean to muddy the waters! Back to his point, it was a good one :)

[DSCoins]

How about this one:


E=Mc2

That one is easy E=Energy, M=Mass, C=speed of light squared. That is basically all equations when it comes to energy. E=I2 /R
Energy (Power)= inductance Squared over Resistance. Spent 20 years using all that math that everyone said you would neve use

[Funky Strike]

This conversation is WAY too smart for me! (But I did enjoy the "Funky" reference!)

[muswell65]

LOL! The board members here never cease to crack me up, on top of sharing their coin expertise. I repeat - what a great forum!

[Paul]

I know everybody knows these:

V(x,p) = v(x)w(p)

N(t) = N0e-λt

(cα ⋅ p̂ + Βmc2) ψ = iℏ δψ/δt

Δ λ/ λ = v/c

K = 2NuP K = u

Daniel, I know this doesn't have to do with numismatics but I couldn't resist.

[DSCoins]

V(x,p) = v(x)w(p) I do not recognize this one

N(t) = N0e-λt Radioactive decay

(cα ⋅ p̂ + Βmc2) ψ = iℏ δψ/δt Not sure what this one is for, but it appears to have some thing to do with Quantum Mechanics because of ψ which if I remember my training has to do with Electron Function

Δ λ/ λ = v/c This one is about figuring the Doppler shift.

K = 2NuP K = u Do not know this one

I only know N(t) = N0e-λt and Δ λ/ λ = v/c because I used them working on satellite related equipment and cesium clocks (originally used the half life of Cesium to keep time, now it is cesium-133 gas passing through a microwave chamber. (accurate to within 1 sec over darn can't remember but is is somewhere between 40-60 million years). Of course we had cheat sheets (scientific calculator with the formula pre-programed) with fill in the blanks to get the right answer.

[MarcoAmara]

I know everybody knows these:

V(x,p) = v(x)w(p)

N(t) = N0e-λt

(cα ⋅ p̂ + Βmc2) ψ = iℏ δψ/δt

Δ λ/ λ = v/c

K = 2NuP K = u

Daniel, I know this doesn't have to do with numismatics but I couldn't resist.

Been used to this.

[Earle42]

(cα ⋅ p̂ + Βmc2) ψ = iℏ δψ/δt

Actually...yes. In fact, though you might think I am making it up for the forum, I am not. I was reading about the quantum mechanics variant of this equation the other day (one of Stephen Hawking's books) known as the Schroedinger equation. Your equation is the relativistic version which I had forgotten the name of so I cheated and looked it up: the Dirac Equation. Man...its been 1983 since I was in Dr. Roach's nuclear physics class! That's a long time ago.

Admittedly, I have seen and used some of the other equations in the past as well, but I could not have told you what they were without looking them up. After DS explained what they were, some rang a distant bell in my memory, but I would not have known them otherwise. I do remember using the radioactive decay rate formula and Doppler shift...but its been way too long!

The problem is I went into teaching high school texts which never get this deep so all that egghead stuff was put too deep into storage and leaked out while I was not thinking about it.

And...BTW...I will be one who stands up and says the emperor has no new clothes when it comes to some of Dr. Hawkings ideas. Yikes!

[DSCoins]

Schrodinger equation has another theorem is Schrodinger box which is if you place a cat in a box, once inside the box it lives in two states. 1: The cat is dead 2: the cat is alive. It lives within these two states until someone opens the box.

[Earle42]

This is the problem with theoretical "sciences." Shcrodinger knew the cat was not both at the same time. But the idea concerns the mathematical probabilities being unknown due to quantum physics and relativity. Its about when quantum mechanics let's go and allows reality do what it wants.

The even worse part is we talk of these two theories as if they are scientific fact as well (weird - been reading this lately!). The two theories are mutually exclusive but both have to be true the way we "understand" the subject. So we keep expounding on them and going deeper!

Unfortunately now things like this have led to "scientific FACT" can now be discerned allegedly by probability and not reality in observation. The search was on for the "Higg's boson," and I got tired of seeing reports of "we found it!" and people saying they had when all they really had was a chance they did calculated to be within acceptable limits.

Oh well.. I wonder what the probability an invalid test would lead the forum to talking over quantum mechanics is ,and whether or not its alive or dead when we are online?