Much ado about scientific notation

[InfiniteNow]

Moderation note: These posts concerning MikeC’s use of scientific notation have been moved from the thread 8790, because they are about notational conventions, not Einstein or quantum physics.

 

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

Do you mean [math]3 \times 10^{-19}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]3^{-19}[/math] ?

 

 

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 [math]2.19 \times 10^{-15}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]2.19^{-15}[/math] ?

 

 

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

Third time... do you mean [math]1.4 \times 10^{-21}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]1.4^{-21}[/math]

 

 

 

 

 

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]

Do you mean [math]3 times 10^{-19}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]3^{-19}[/math] ?

 

 

 

Again, do you mean [math]2.19 times 10^{-15}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]2.19^{-15}[/math] ?

 

 

 

Third time... do you mean [math]1.4 times 10^{-21}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]1.4^{-21}[/math]

 

 

 

 

 

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]

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]

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 = [math]6.5*10^{-7}m[/math]

Red frequency is therefore = [math]\frac{1}{6.5*10^{-7}}=1.53846154*10^{6}Hz[/math] (Edit: oops i had a typo there)

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

 

secondly, things you get wrong:

somehow in your universe, you use 6.56^-7 for a red light frequency, which is [math]1.91281569*10^{-6}[/math], 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 [math]1.19481259*10^{-28}[/math] 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.

 

[math]E=(6.626068*10^{-34} J/s)*(1.53846154*10^{6}Hz)=1.01939508*10^{-27}J/mol[/math] (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]

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 = [math]6.5*10^{-7}m[/math]

Red frequency is therefore = [math]frac{1}{6.5*10^{-7}}=1.53846154*10^{-8}Hz[/math]

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

 

secondly, things you get wrong:

somehow in your universe, you use 6.56^-7 for a red light frequency, which is [math]1.91281569*10^{-6}[/math], 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 [math]1.19481259*10^{-28}[/math] 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.

 

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

 

 

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]

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 [math]3*10^8m/s[/math] according to what you stated:

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, [math]3^8 = 6,561 \cancel{=} 299,792,458[/math] which is the universally accepted value for the speed of light, what scientists refer to as the constant "c"

 

Planck Constant as 6.626^-34

Please reread

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

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

 

 

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

[math]E=\hbar w[/math]

where [math]\hbar=h/2\pi[/math] and w is angular frequency :shrug:

 

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 [math]E = h v = \hbar w[/math], so i guess that is why that book could be referring to it as a de Broglie's formula.

[Mike C]

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 [math]3*10^8m/s[/math] 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, [math]3^8 = 6,561 cancel{=} 299,792,458[/math] 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

[math]E=hbar w[/math]

where [math]hbar=h/2pi[/math] and w is angular frequency :shrug:

 

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 [math]E = h v = hbar w[/math], 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]

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

 

Really?

 

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

 

University of colorado link:

[img=http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2329&stc=1&d=1212778115]http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2329&stc=1&d=1212778115[/img]

 

Google link:

[img=http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2330&stc=1&d=1212778115]http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2330&stc=1&d=1212778115[/img]

 

Wikipedia link:

[img=http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2331&stc=1&d=1212778115]http://hypography.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2331&stc=1&d=1212778115[/img]

 

Notice a big difference from?

Planck Constant as 6.626^-34

 

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

[Mike C]

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]

Show me the math?

 

Mike C

 

Easy:

 

6.626^-34 = [math]\frac{1}{6.626^{34}}[/math]

 

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.

[CraigD]

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

Do you mean [math]3 times 10^{-19}[/math] or do you actually mean [math]3^{-19}[/math] ?

W ell yes, you can eliminate the 10.x because my calculator does no include it.

…

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

As InfiniteNow notes, Mike, we’ve seen this confusion from you before. Although many readers are able to infer that when you write “1.2^3” you actually mean [math]1.2 \times 10^3[/math], or 1200, not [math]1.2^3[/math], or 1.728, refusing to follow ordinary conventions is both discourteous, and gives the impression that you don’t understand elementary school-level arithmetic – not a good impression to give if you wish to convince people that you understand science. :)

 

Although “official” standards on mathematical notation, such as ISO 31-11, require exponentiation to be represented with superscripting (ie: [math]2^3[/math]) rather than with an operator (ie: 2^3 or 2**3), it’s commonly accepted, and documented is such publications as section B.2 of NIST Special Publication 811, that numbers such as [math]1.2 \times 10^3[/math] may be written more tersely as 1.2E+3. This is known as E notation. Most handheld calculators used this form. In common practice, the E is often allowed to be lower case and the + sign omitted for positive powers of 10, making 1.2e3 an acceptable form.

 

However, using the “^” character in place of E is confusing and, I believe nearly everyone in this forum agrees, a bad idea. Though I know of some old computer languages that use characters such as “\”, “[” and “,” in place of “E”, and some handheld calculators that display the power of ten in odd places, such as a separate display window, I’ve never seen an electronic device that used “^”. Using the “*” character is also a bad idea, as it’s widely understood to mean “multiplied by” (ie: 1.2 * 3 = 3.6).

 

My advice to you, Mike, if you wish to be perceived by readers in the most favorable light, is to use hypography’s LaTeX features within [math] tags, as described in several sticky threads in The Physics and Mathematics forum. Any questions about you are unable to answer for yourself in those threads, or in the many LaTeX references available on the internet, such as this wikimedia help page or this convenient tutorial site, you can ask in a thread.

 

If you’re unable or unwilling to use basic LaTeX in your posts, then just use recognizable E notation by using “E” where you currently use “^” (ie: 1.3E-21). You won’t awe anyone with your notational neatness that way, but you will avoid the periodic scoldings :naughty: and loss of esteem you receive for using common symbols in a confusing way.

[InfiniteNow]

As InfiniteNow notes, Mike, we’ve seen this confusion from you before.

Yep.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/6191-photons-have-no-time-14.html#post176540

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/6191-photons-have-no-time-15.html#post176634

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/6191-photons-have-no-time-15.html#post176726

[alexander]

Thank you , Infy and Craig, i was about to loose it, well not really, since i am somewhat of a person who likes to think about things first... i would have infracted him for being childish or something..? I mean i am in no way a scientist, but when someone ignores such simple things as scientiffic notation, i just don't know

 

Where did the beginning of the original thread go?

[nutronjon]

This is a test, sorry, I don't seem able to paste the picture, but since it is one posted my InfiniteNow, if he likes, surely he can post it to his own thread. It should be as helpful to this thread as it is to thread where he is enjoying posting his pictures.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Sorry, another picture. I'm just rude, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Rude, lewd, and misconstrued, Dude

__________________

 

And incase Infinite is having trouble understanding the relevence of this post, here is some more helpful information

What is poop made of?

About 3/4 of your average turd is made of water.

…

- “The Scoop on Poop” by Brenna E. Lorenz, 1998

 

A question, how do you like this game in your thread?

[InfiniteNow]

A question, how do you like this game in your thread?

 

It's fun. Do I get to throw poop back?

 

 

Also, not my thread. You ought to read the Mod note at the start added by Craig.

[Moontanman]

It's fun. Do I get to throw poop back?

 

 

Also, not my thread. You ought to read the Mod note at the start added by Craig.

 

So now we throw poop at each other? What is the reason:doh:

[InfiniteNow]

You know, nutronjon, on a more serious note...

 

I have posted reasonable and well thought out responses to you. You still have failed to address the criticisms. It was only after your disregard for intelligent discourse that I dismissed you.

 

Your post above? Well, you're just angry, and not even on topic.