Much ado about scientific notation

InfiniteNow · 06-02-2008

Moderation note: These posts concerning MikeC’s use of scientific notation have been moved from the thread Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?, because they are about notational conventions, not Einstein or quantum physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

My calculation for the D-B formula for red light is 3^-19 J-s

Do you mean $3 \times 10^{-19}$ or do you actually mean $3^{-19}$ ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

My formula has reduced the frequency to a single 'elapsed' time for the frequency to 2.19^-15 seconds for a single photon.

Again, do you mean $2.19 \times 10^{-15}$ or do you actually mean $2.19^{-15}$ ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

My calculation for this red photon is 1.4^-21 J-s

Third time... do you mean $1.4 \times 10^{-21}$ or do you actually mean $1.4^{-21}$

For what it's worth, Mike, your ideas might be taken more seriously if you at least learned how to correctly use the scientific notation.

I know for a fact that we've taught you this before here at Hypography (the difference between 1.2^-21 versus 1.2 x 10^-21, for example).

It's a real shame that this knowledge has not been retained by you, and doesn't really bode well for your retention of the key facets of other important ideas and theories.

Mike C · 06-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Do you mean $3 times 10^{-19}$ or do you actually mean $3^{-19}$ ?

Again, do you mean $2.19 times 10^{-15}$ or do you actually mean $2.19^{-15}$ ?

Third time... do you mean $1.4 times 10^{-21}$ or do you actually mean $1.4^{-21}$

For what it's worth, Mike, your ideas might be taken more seriously if you at least learned how to correctly use the scientific notation.

I know for a fact that we've taught you this before here at Hypography (the difference between 1.2^-21 versus 1.2 x 10^-21, for example).

It's a real shame that this knowledge has not been retained by you, and doesn't really bode well for your retention of the key facets of other important ideas and theories.

W ell yes, you can eliminate the 10.x because my calculator does no include it. That added ten just adds a zero that does not belong there.

W ehen I use the 'double EE but on, it automatically installs the exp. factor .

Some methods I see are exp or an * for the omission of that 10x.

So I should use the direct method os ^-21.

Mike C

InfiniteNow · 06-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

W ell yes, you can eliminate the 10.x because my calculator does no include it. That added ten just adds a zero that does not belong there.

W ehen I use the 'double EE but on, it automatically installs the exp. factor .

Some methods I see are exp or an * for the omission of that 10x.

So I should use the direct method os ^-21.

Mike C

We've been down this road more than once in the past, Mike.

NO. It's NOT the same.

1.4^-21 = 0.000609794095788531
1.4 x 10^-21 = 0.00000000000000000000014

These are NOT the same.

Frankly, the entry format of your calculator means dick when trying to share your ideas with others. The format you are using suggests that the number itself should be taken to that power...

Scientific notation is NOT hard. They teach it to most 6th graders without a problem.

As I said, it's no wonder your ideas are not taken seriously if you struggle with such a basic concept, and then further, when you fail to recognize why you are being corrected.

alexander · 06-03-2008

dangit, i have to retype this again.

Mike, Listen to what Jay is saying and DONT blatantly ignore him. Your math is utterly wrong in the most simplest of terms!

firstly, lets define these:
Red wavelength = 650nm = $6.5*10^{-7}m$
Red frequency is therefore = $\frac{1}{6.5*10^{-7}}=1.53846154*10^{6}Hz$ (Edit: oops i had a typo there)
Planck's constant = $6.626068*10^{-34} m^2 kg/s$

secondly, things you get wrong:
somehow in your universe, you use 6.56^-7 for a red light frequency, which is $1.91281569*10^{-6}$ , and is the frequency of what, 1.9 micrometers, infra red spectrum in my universe, something like that...

also plancks constant you use is an order of magnitude larger, i though you agreed with his model, so why do you use $1.19481259*10^{-28}$ for his constant, is it some random number you get out of your head, or did you define a new constant, then lets call it the MikeC constant?

and from that point on, every calculation you make is wrong.

$E=(6.626068*10^{-34} J/s)*(1.53846154*10^{6}Hz)=1.01939508*10^{-27}J/mol$ (Edit: and obviously an implied typo there (thats what i get for having to retype this post....)

oh nice article, for jay and infy: Max Planck: the reluctant revolutionary - physicsworld.com

Mike C · 06-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexander

dangit, i have to retype this again.

Mike, Listen to what Jay is saying and DONT blatantly ignore him. Your math is utterly wrong in the most simplest of terms!

firstly, lets define these:
Red wavelength = 650nm = $6.5*10^{-7}m$
Red frequency is therefore = $frac{1}{6.5*10^{-7}}=1.53846154*10^{-8}Hz$
Planck's constant = $6.626068*10^{-34} m^2 kg/s$

secondly, things you get wrong:
somehow in your universe, you use 6.56^-7 for a red light frequency, which is $1.91281569*10^{-6}$ , and is the frequency of what, 1.9 micrometers, infra red spectrum in my universe, something like that...

also plancks constant you use is an order of magnitude larger, i though you agreed with his model, so why do you use $1.19481259*10^{-28}$ for his constant, is it some random number you get out of your head, or did you define a new constant, then lets call it the MikeC constant?

and from that point on, every calculation you make is wrong.

$E=(6.626068*10^{-34} J/s)*(1.53846154*10^{-8}Hz)=1.01939508*10^{-41}J/mol$

oh nice article, for jay and infy: Max Planck: the reluctant revolutionary - physicsworld.com

My formula is based on the constant 'c'.
This equals the distance travelled in one second that represents the velocity of light.
This is 3^8 meters. When I divide this distance by the red photon, I get
4.57^14 which is the proper frequency of this wave for that diatance that represents one second.

You saw my use of the Planck Constant as 6.626^-34. in the D-B formula.
I also used the frequency I derived from 'c'.

Your math is not compatible with the values I used.

Mike C

alexander · 06-05-2008

Mike, please reread my post, since i was in a rush to retype it, and had to get back to work, i had a typo in an exponent, though it still does not change the point of the post, its fixed figures are corrected, and you are still wrong...

Methinks some of your wrongness was rubbing off on me.... gotta go and clean myself by rereading "A Brief History of Time" or something...

constant speed c, as defined, measured, confirmed, confirmed yet again and listed here,here and here, is: 299,792,458 m/s or approximately $3*10^8m/s$ according to what you stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC

This equals the distance travelled in one second that represents the velocity of light.
This is 3^8 meters.

first of all, velocity is a vector quantity, and therefore needs a direction, and second of all, speed, or the value of the vector, you know, what "c" is, is measured in m/s, not meters

(i know you implied it in your explanation)
lastly the quantity, $3^8 = 6,561 \cancel{=} 299,792,458$ which is the universally accepted value for the speed of light, what scientists refer to as the constant "c"

Quote:

Planck Constant as 6.626^-34

Please reread

Quote:

Originally Posted by I

also plancks constant you use is an order of magnitude larger, ... so why do you use $1.19481259*10^{-28}$ for his constant

6.626^-34 = 1.19481259x10^-28 != Planck Constant as shown here, here and here

Quote:

Your math is not compatible with the values I used.

the values you used in your "Einstein is wrong" math are not consistent with our universe, that's all i'm saying, you math seems ok, but the values are not what we have measured, that's all i'm saying...

Jay, it seems odd to me that they refer to it as such, too. I thought that the de Broglie's formula looked like
$E=\hbar w$
where $\hbar=h/2\pi$ and w is angular frequency

but i mean, reading wiki now, according to Placks model, black body radiation, modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators, the quantized energy form looks like $E = h v = \hbar w$ , so i guess that is why that book could be referring to it as a de Broglie's formula.

Mike C · 06-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexander

Mike, please reread my post, since i was in a rush to retype it, and had to get back to work, i had a typo in an exponent, though it still does not change the point of the post, its fixed figures are corrected, and you are still wrong...

Methinks some of your wrongness was rubbing off on me.... gotta go and clean myself by rereading "A Brief History of Time" or something...

constant speed c, as defined, measured, confirmed, confirmed yet again and listed here,here and here, is: 299,792,458 m/s or approximately $3*10^8m/s$ according to what you stated:

first of all, velocity is a vector quantity, and therefore needs a direction, and second of all, speed, or the value of the vector, you know, what "c" is, is measured in m/s, not meters

(i know you implied it in your explanation)
lastly the quantity, $3^8 = 6,561 cancel{=} 299,792,458$ which is the universally accepted value for the speed of light, what scientists refer to as the constant "c"

Please reread

6.626^-34 = 1.19481259x10^-28 != Planck Constant as shown here, here and here

the values you used in your "Einstein is wrong" math are not consistent with our universe, that's all i'm saying, you math seems ok, but the values are not what we have measured, that's all i'm saying...

Jay, it seems odd to me that they refer to it as such, too. I thought that the de Broglie's formula looked like
$E=hbar w$
where $hbar=h/2pi$ and w is angular frequency

but i mean, reading wiki now, according to Placks model, black body radiation, modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators, the quantized energy form looks like $E = h v = hbar w$ , so i guess that is why that book could be referring to it as a de Broglie's formula.

Nowhere in those sites you posted, has the figures you give for Plancks Constant.

And the use if w to substitute for f applies to matter elements because w represents 'orbital' momentum. Light does not have OM but only 'linear' momentum.

Mike C

alexander · 06-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC

Nowhere in those sites you posted, has the figures you give for Plancks Constant.

Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Planck's constant = $6.626068*10^{-34} m^2 kg/s$

University of colorado link:

Google link:

Wikipedia link:

Notice a big difference from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC

Planck Constant as 6.626^-34

Your value of planck's constant equates to 1.19481259*10^-28

Mike C · 06-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexzander

Notice a big difference from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC
Planck Constant as 6.626^-34

Your value of planck's constant equates to 1.19481259*10^-28

Show me the math?

Mike C

InfiniteNow · 06-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Show me the math?

Mike C

Easy:

6.626^-34 = $\frac{1}{6.626^{34}}$

This means that you would take the number 6.626, multiply it by itself 33 times, then divide 1 by the product of that multiplication.

Still struggling to understand why we're saying this matters? Still wondering how people who have never ever seen your personal calculator and how you press the buttons on it to get your answers just MIGHT be confused by your math (which itself has been known to be wrong several times)?

Check it out:

Scientific Notation

In sum, it's that whole " x10" part that becomes rather important, yet is no where to be found in any of your posts.

Much ado about scientific notation

Hypography?

Share the love!

Sponsors

Friends