Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

I will show this with a simple $Na^+$ and $Cl^-$ atom configuration. $Na$ atom loses an $e^-$ to become +vely charged. And the $Cl$ atom gains an electron to become -vely charged. Hence the charge on an electron is transferred.


0

Richard Feynman has nice words about science. It is not bad to read chapter 3 of "Feynman Lectures on Physics". The main point of his lecture is that "there is no strict boundary between different fields of science", "nature doesn't concern what we call its parts!" So, we can't look for a line that divides celestial works into astronomical or astrophysical ...


0

Astronomy talks about celestial objects (such as stars, galaxies, nebulae etc) and celestial phenomena (such as gamma ray bursts etc), their position, motion, evolution, chemistry, physics. Astrophysics is a sub-branch of astronomy to deal with physics of celestial objects and phenomena. The first encounter: A guy put microscope in front of rainbow spectrum ...


3

An ADS search for "star formation" turns up about 142,000 articles with "star formation" in the title or abstract. The first article is a 43 page review paper of Star Formation in Galaxies in the Hubble Sequence, written by Robert Kennicutt, Jr, one of the leaders of the field. He never defines anything else to mean star formation and one of the "key words" ...


1

I believe it's the integral of intensity over time. $$\text{Lifetime intensity}=\int_0^\infty{I(t)dt}$$ "Intensity" in the instantaneous light output - the total light you get is that intensity from excitation until final decay. That said - it seems that the figure 2 in the paper you referenced in your link is using inconsistent labeling - because in the ...


2

The multi-dimensional analog of simple harmonic motion is an object subject only to a harmonic potential, $U = \frac 1 2 k ||\vec r - \vec r_0||^2$, where $k$ is a positive constant (oftentimes called the spring constant), $\vec r$ is the object's position, and $\vec r_0$ is the position of the center of the potential. By choosing the origin to be the center ...


6

In normal usage, a gauge is a particular choice, or specification, of vector and scalar potentials $\mathbf A$ and $\phi$ which will generate a given set of physical force fields $\mathbf E$ and $\mathbf B$. More specifically, a physical situation is specified by the electric and magnetic fields, $\mathbf E$ and $\mathbf B$. A set of potentials $\mathbf A$ ...


2

Continuous symmetries of the action of a system which are global, that is, do not depend on where they act, give rise through Noether's theorem to conserved quantities. For example, a translation in time $t \to t+\epsilon$ for $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ is a global transformation, and leads to energy conservation. On the other hand, if an action is invariant ...


0

A symplectic manifold is defined as a smooth manifold, $M$, which is equipped with a closed non-degenerate differential $2$-form, $\omega$, called the symplectic form. A multisymplectic manifold of degree $k$ is a manifold equipped with a closed nondegenerate $k$-form.


0

Circular motion is not a form of simple harmonic motion. Circular motion occurs when a particle in motion is subjected to a force acting perpendicular to the direction of motion at all times. SHM occurs when a particle is subjected to a force that is anti-parallel to the particle's motion. Thus, they are very different in nature.


4

Personally, I think the primary reason for thinking about interpretations is that they can lead to new predictions. They generally don't do this directly - almost by definition, an interpretation makes no new predictions by itself - but by changing the landscape within which new theories can be proposed. The best example I know of is the Lorentz equations ...


0

Simple and to the point (some people might refer to this as KISS principle). Assuming that theory refers to a mathematical theory, then the interpretation is that thing that tells when and where to apply the theory Simple as that, no more no less. UPDATE (after comment and downvote): "In a more general context, that would be a reasonable way to define ...


0

Yes, that is about it: coherent integration = voltages (currents) are added, noncoherent integration = powers are added. For example, say the transmitted radar pulse is $$p(t)cos(\omega t) \text{ where } p(t)=1, \text {when } |t|<T_p/2 \text { and } 0 \text { otherwise} $$. Now the radar receiver gets this pulse with some unknown phase and amplitude ...


6

In the sense of "Copenhagen Interpretation", what exactly is an interpretation? What purpose does an interpretation serve? I would describe interpretations of quantum mechanics as part of the philosophy of physics. Here is a well-known quote by Bertrand Russell: "As soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases ...


0

You are mistaking the mechanism by which part of the wavefront is used selectively for the phenomena in which the selected bits interfere with one one another and create a pattern. I have a (optical) teaching spectrometer that uses a reflective diffraction grating, but it is also common to use diffraction gratings in transmission mode. There are some nice ...


0

What really happens is scatter: electrons in individual atoms scatter the radiation. For certain directions, the scattered waves interfere constructively. Because this is explicitly an interference phenomenon it is called "diffraction" - but the construction of the wave fronts and their propagation is indistinguishable from what would happen if you ...


9

Below follows a handful of excerpts from the book Introduction to the Classical Theory of Particles and Fields (2007) by B. Kosyakov. Controversial/misleading/wrong statements are marked in $\color{Red}{\rm red}$. We agree with OP that the statements marked in $\color{Red}{\rm red}$ are opposite standard terminology/conventions. Some (not all) correct ...


1

Actually, they are one and the same thing. Before I delve into the question you asked, let me quickly describe a closely related analogy - the covariant derivative in GR. This is a quantity $\nabla_\mu$ that acts differently on different objects. In particular $$ \nabla_\mu \phi = \partial_\mu \phi,~~~ (\nabla_\mu V)_\nu = \partial_\mu V_\nu - ...


1

(I am dropping the bothersome factors of $\mathrm{i}$ in this answer, they contribute nothing to understanding what is going on) The gauge covariant derivative exists for all forms on the spacetime manifold $\mathcal{M}$ taking value in a representation of the gauge group. (Formally, these are sections of associated vector bundles to the gauge principal ...


1

I believe you are confused because you are mixing up related but slightly different quantities. Yes, a partial derivative is a vector and yes, a vector is an object with an upper index. The above statement may seem contradictory, but in fact it is not for the following reason. A vector is an abstract quantity that is an element of a "vector space". In ...


6

I took a quick look at pages 59 and 60 of "Gravitation", section 2.6 "Gradients and Directional Derivatives", to see if there's anything there we can use to clarify this issue. In this section, the gradient of $f$ is $\mathbf df$, the directional derivative along the vector $\mathbf v$ is $\partial_{\mathbf v}f$ and the following relationship holds: ...


5

I believe this is just imprecise use of language by the author - there is nothing mysterious happening, it is just not well stated: As stated in the question, for a hypersurface $\Sigma$ defined by $$ F(x) = c \in \mathbb{R}$$ we find that $$ \mathrm{d}F = 0$$ must hold on $\Sigma$. This is crucial - it means that the 1-form $\mathrm{d}F$ acting upon ...


-2

Rather, I pronounced it like $A$ bar dot $B$ bar. Or $A$ bar cross $B$ bar


5

The first bullet would be read "$A$ dot $B$" or "The dot product of $A$ and $B$" The second bullet would be read "$A$ cross $B$" or "The cross product of $A$ and $B$"


5

Usually there's a great deal of overlap between the definitions of the momenta you've listed, so your confusion is understandable, but nonetheless there are cases (that I know of at least) where the distinction is more clearly enunciated: Momentum as known in Newtonian mechanics: The momentum is a vector quantity (its vectorial superposition for many ...


0

Vorticity describes whether the flow is rotational - that is, if you follow a path along the flow and return to the same point, is the net velocity zero or finite. This is expressed awith the curl ($\nabla \times$) operator. This is a property of the flow. Viscosity is a property of the medium, not the flow. Most fluids have viscosity - that is, if there is ...



Top 50 recent answers are included