What would it be like if Plank's constant is smaller or larger than what it is?
446528
Plank's constant is relevant in quantum mechanics, particularly in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, which says that the uncertainty in position multiplied by the uncertainty in momentum must be equal or greater to 1/2 h-bar, where h-bar is Plank's constant divided by 2 pie.  Another way of saying it is that the uncertainty in energy multiplied by the uncertainty in time must be equal or greater to the same.  Since Plank's constant is already pretty damn small, I'll talk about if it were large enough to affect macroscopic objects directly.  Essentially, all of the laws of physics by which we live our everyday lives would be replaced with quantum mechanical laws.  You could never know where anything is exactly, you could only know it's probability of being at some location.  Large objects would barrier tunnel through other objects, going directly from point A to point B without ever having passed through the space between.  Your position and your energy would have to take discreet values.  For instance, say you were running down a football field.  You might be able to be at the 5 yard line and at the 10 yard line, but you could never be at the 6-9 yard line.  In other words, it would be weird.
611971
Mass is a constant; weight varies by gravitational pull.
1157531
H0: mu = 10 inches\nHA: mu < 10 inches\n\nThe null always has the equal sign in it.  The alternative has what you wish to show is true.
101463
that depends on the material's specific gravity\nweight in kg = specific gravity * volume in ltrs
251207
Don't have it handy,but it'sjust a little denser than water, from what I remember. Check www.nasa.gov. They have lots of planetary info!
415440
r decreases becuase the ellipse is becoming thinner i think that would happen\n\nhope u find out if my answer is wrong GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!
394207
Boson condensation why not Fermion condensation? \nPlank time, Plank length is there a Plank mass?
692251
A quick rule of thumb is; \nAs you go down and to the right on the Periodic Chart, you get a larger Atomic weight.  There is a direct correlation between Atomic Weight and Atom size.
1081450
yes, assuming the poles were damn near touching. as for the distance, magnetic force vs distance is an exponential curve so technically the force never diminishes. you have to set a lower threshold to say that the force has diminished once below that threshold, e.g <1lb.
250629
The easy answer is no, you would never get there.\n\nBut if you take quantum physics into effect, there is a point when the distance remaining between you and your destination is too small to measure and you might as well be there.\n\nThere is a length called a "Planck Length" which is equal to about 1.6160(12) E-35 meters, smaller than this, and your measurement doesn’t have any meaning.  This length is EXTREAMLY small, and when I say extremely, I mean EXTREMELY SMALL.  To give you a sense of this length....an atom has a diameter on the scale of Angstroms (E-10 meters), so a Plank Length would be on the order of 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 th of an atom's diameter. [I dont know why Yahoo answers cuts off my number and puts ... on it, but it should be a 1 with 25 zeros after it]\n\nAnother things, thanks to the Heisenberg uncertainly principle, the more accurately you know your position (i.e. the distance you are away from the destination), the less you know about your velocity.  So if you KNOW you are EXACTLY 1/2 the distance between your starting point and your destination, you have absolutely no idea how fast you’re traveling.\n\nI have severely over complicated the problem.
827543
The equations involved are:\na) freq*wavelength = velocity of wave\nb) energy of radiation E = h*freq, where h is Plank's constant.\nYou can work out from these that the choice should be a.
727746
Well we have\n\nwavelength = h/momentum = h/mv = h/m(.0131c)\n\nwhere h is plank's constant and c is speed of light.\nso substitute and calculate.
862136
Consider the torque of the system. The weight of the plank, acting at the centerof mass, is a distance d to one side of the pivot and produces a torque given by\n\nTp = d*Wp\n\nwhere Wp is the weight of the plank and d is given by \n\nd = L/2 - y\n\nwhere L is the length of the plank and y is the amount by which it overhangs the pivot. The walker, on the opposite side of the pivot, produces a torque\n\nTw = x*Ww\n\nwhere x is the distance from the pivot and Ww is the weight of the walker.\n\nWhen the torque of the plank is greater than the torque of the walker the plank will remain horizontal across both supports. However, when the torque of the walker exceeds the torque of the plank it will start to rise. The furthest the person can walk before the plank starts to tip can be found by equating the two opposite torques.\n\nTw = x*Ww = (L/2 - y)*Wp = Tp\n\nSolving for x\n\nx = (L/2 - y)*Wp/Ww
146781
mass = (side) x (side) x (side) or (height) x (depth) x (width)
49628
No it would be shallower. My approximation is that it would be 3 quadrillionths of an inch (3 x 10^-15 inches) shallower, with an (error of +/- 3 ) if all the sponges were removed.
1101114
It would get smaller as the pressure increased.
305755
Why not take a page from Archimedes' Eureka! moment?\n\nMeasure the density, then ask a jeweler.