Ask a physicist anything. (5)

[pgp_protector]

Well for a 2 X 5 vs 1 X 10 the % break down

Value 2X5 1X10
1 0.00% 10.00%
2 4.00% 10.00%
3 8.00% 10.00%
4 12.00% 10.00%
5 16.00% 10.00%
6 20.00% 10.00%
7 16.00% 10.00%
8 12.00% 10.00%
9 8.00% 10.00%
10 4.00% 10.00%

 

[Blayz]

Well for a 2 X 5 vs 1 X 10 the % break down

Value 2X5 1X10
1 0.00% 10.00%
2 4.00% 10.00%
3 8.00% 10.00%
4 12.00% 10.00%
5 16.00% 10.00%
6 20.00% 10.00%
7 16.00% 10.00%
8 12.00% 10.00%
9 8.00% 10.00%
10 4.00% 10.00%

So the chance of the 2d5 winning is
2d5 rolls 2 (0.04) x 1d10 rolls less than 2 (0.1) = 0.004
+ 2d5 rolls 3 (0.08) x 1d10 rolls less than 3 (0.2) = 0.016
+ 2d5 rolls 4 (0.12) x 1d10 rolls less than 4 (0.3) = 0.036
+ 2d5 rolls 5 (0.16) x 1d10 rolls less than 5 (0.4) = 0.072
+ 2d5 rolls 6 (0.2) x 1d10 rolls less than 6 (0.5) = 0.1
0.16 x 0.6 = 0.096
0.12 x 0.7 = 0.084
0.08 x 0.8 = 0.064
0.04 x 0.9 = 0.036

Combined chance is 0.508, or 50.8%

You can do the same for the first example, it's just alot more numbers.

 

[1611AV]

Can something be cut in half so many times that it becomes nothing? Or does it just continue to get smaller?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can something be cut in half so many times that it becomes nothing? Or does it just continue to get smaller?

You'd eventually get to its foundational building blocks. A plastic block is just a collection of a type of molecule, and cutting it in half would eventually give you one of those molecules. You could split that in half, eventually giving a single atom, and then a single subatomic particle (a proton, say), and then an individual quark or gluon.

As far as we know, quarks, gluons, and other particles that make up the Standard Model are point-particles that aren't made up of anything else.

Unless, of course, they are

 

[Chesterton]

nm

 

[1611AV]

You'd eventually get to its foundational building blocks. A plastic block is just a collection of a type of molecule, and cutting it in half would eventually give you one of those molecules. You could split that in half, eventually giving a single atom, and then a single subatomic particle (a proton, say), and then an individual quark or gluon.

As far as we know, quarks, gluons, and other particles that make up the Standard Model are point-particles that aren't made up of anything else.

Unless, of course, they are

I Always thought that it was interesting . It seems impossible cut something in half until you have nothing because what then can you rebuild it with? It seems it would just keep going on for ever. Just a thought.

Sorry I cant include all the Zy=2(0.8_)X stuff

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I Always thought that it was interesting . It seems impossible cut something in half until you have nothing because what then can you rebuild it with? It seems it would just keep going on for ever. Just a thought.

It's the same idea that lead an ancient Greek philosopher (I can't remember his name) to posit the existence of the atmos, the indivisible unit that everything is made of. Millennia later, we found such an indivisible unit, and gave it the same name: the atom.

'Course, turns out it was divisible. But still.

Sorry I cant include all the Zy=2(0.8_)X stuff

The who what stuff??

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's the same idea that lead an ancient Greek philosopher (I can't remember his name) to posit the existence of the atmos, the indivisible unit that everything is made of.

Democritus, 5th Century BC.

 

[1611AV]

A star is say 1,000,000,000 light years away. Do we see the light that is 1,000,000,000 light years old?

If the above is true then, have there been any new lights popping up in our sky that say are 1,000,000,010 light years away?

I always see the same pattern of stars. Why?

 

[Drathnor]

Do quark nutrinos favor being matter over antimatter?

(Somthing i went to a lecture on )

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Bear with me while I do the sums...

Not to rush you or anything but if working the sums out is giving that much issues I would settle for the formula that would need to be used to arrive at the answer.

 

[TerranceL]

A star is say 1,000,000,000 light years away. Do we see the light that is 1,000,000,000 light years old?

Yes.

If the above is true then, have there been any new lights popping up in our sky that say are 1,000,000,010 light years away?

I don't see why not.

I always see the same pattern of stars. Why?

Er, why wouldn't you? Stars move very slowly, I once saw a drawn example of what the constellation orion looked like to the greeks, if you compare it to the constellation today it's obvious that some of the stars have moved.

 

[Blayz]

Not to rush you or anything but if working the sums out is giving that much issues I would settle for the formula that would need to be used to arrive at the answer.

There is no formula, you have to run a dynamic programming algorithm to build a look-up table that is different for each dice combination. I wrote one once, but have no idea where it got to.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

There is no formula, you have to run a dynamic programming algorithm to build a look-up table that is different for each dice combination. I wrote one once, but have no idea where it got to.

I see.
Thanks for the info.
Hm I suppose its even more complicated then I thought.

 

[mzungu]

Can something be cut in half so many times that it becomes nothing? Or does it just continue to get smaller?

Everything is made up of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy transforms to matter and matter transforms back to energy. Thus one can conclude that eventually one will be left with nothing more than pure energy.

It is extremely difficult to visualise anything that is not bound by 3 spatial dimensions as we are literally enslaved in our 3 spatial dimensions. At the quantum level this is not so. Please watch the video as it may help you understand how limited our perceptions are and how science can and has been able to widen our field of view through mathematical and experimental deductions.

Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment - What The Bleep Movie

 

[AV1611VET]

As I understand it, you eventually reach what is called the Planck length -- (1.6162 × 10[sup]-35[/sup] m) -- where you can no longer halve something.

 

[Naraoia]

I see.
Thanks for the info.
Hm I suppose its even more complicated then I thought.

It's not so much "complicated" as "long and tedious without computer muscle"

 

[mzungu]

As I understand it, you eventually reach what is called the Planck length -- (1.6162 × 10[sup]-35[/sup] m) -- where you can no longer halve something.

Please watch the video again and you will see that at some point at the quantum level; divisions have no meaning! As for the Planck level? Well let's put it this way: CHAOS REIGNS!

 

[TerranceL]

What's the coolest thing you've ever seen in physics?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the coolest thing you've ever seen in physics?