typothrowaway

4 ms·

1.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
That still does not make any sense. I'm sorry to be so direct, but I'm really worried laypeople here are going to think that this is correct.
2.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
At least wikipedia seems to partially agree (on the cow part), with citations I couldn't verify: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccinia#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
3.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
No, as far as I know, there is no limit to a photon's wavelength, so it will just keep on stretching.
4.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
Sort of, yes. It's hard to put reasons and interpretations behind all this, because in the end we just use formulas and numbers and check them in experiments. It's usually simpler that way. Be aware that a longer wavelength means
5.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
> (I tried, but the wikipedia chapter is too complicated for me => trying to simplify here) I can imagine. That stuff on the wiki is not even in every physics bachelor. It's definitely not for a general audience, but I thought it
6.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
Yes, using its momentum and energy. Here you can read the relations between a photon's momentum and things like wavelength. Without any mass :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_momentum#Physical_prope... (You
7.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
1) A photon's momentum is related to its wavelength, not it's speed. They all have the same speed in a vacuum. 2) Sure. > So, a remix of the original question, haha: if we say that a photon has no mass, but at the same time we
8.
by typothrowaway 7y ago
> For perfect reflection, no. That's not true, it wouldn't conserve energy. The kinetic energy of the object that's hit changes, so the light must lose or gain energy. I think for a reflection this must be because of a red
9.
by typothrowaway 8y ago
Very nice. I think there are some typos though, below "Here were some of them, along with their continued fractions." Two of the shorthand notations for the continued fractions and the last decimal expansion are wrong. Or I'