1,806 reputation
414
bio website mathandcode.com/portfolio
location
age 20
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen 10 hours ago

Sep
11
answered How to reconcile these two approximations?
Sep
11
asked How to reconcile these two approximations?
Sep
8
awarded  Yearling
Aug
21
answered Kinematic sign convention
Aug
5
awarded  Good Answer
Jul
27
comment How was Newton able to guess that gravitational force is inversely proportional to distance squared?
@BrandonEnright which basic assumptions are you talking about?
Jul
27
revised How was Newton able to guess that gravitational force is inversely proportional to distance squared?
added 602 characters in body
Jul
27
answered How was Newton able to guess that gravitational force is inversely proportional to distance squared?
Jul
22
comment Is a falling, perfect sheet of fluid possible to create?
@M.Herzkamp, I've only seen/heard of liquids in a vacuum on this: youtube.com/watch?v=8F4i9M3y0ew
Jul
19
answered Relativity of Simultaniety
Jul
18
comment How to solve the Laplace Equation in the hollow square region?
There are a lot of examples in, for example, Griffiths intro to electrodynamics ch. 3, where there's a discontinuity in the potential at the corners but a convergent solution exists.
Jul
18
comment Do Electromagnetic Waves really propagate through continuous Induction?
I think this is false, in the concrete sense that if you put a stationary electron in the path of an EM-wave, it would accelerate.
Jul
15
comment Can we measure rates in real time?
@BrysonS. But the two measurements can guarantee an exact velocity at some point in time within an interval. That's pretty good, and is contrary to the second sentence of your third paragraph.
Jul
15
comment Can we measure rates in real time?
Can I state the obvious? Every measurement must occur over a period of time. So we could never measure velocity at an exact point in time any more than we could measure position at an exact point in time. But you can get an instantaneous velocity by measuring it at two points in time! Apply the mean value theorem and say, "at some time between t=0.000 and t=0.001, the car was moving at exactly 20 meters per second".
Jul
14
comment Divergence of a field and its interpretation
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Jul
14
comment Divergence of a field and its interpretation
@Subhra The energy density of the electric field is $\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon E\cdot E$. The energy density of the magnetic field is $\frac{1}{2\mu}B\cdot B$. With zero current density, they are related by $\nabla \times B=\mu \varepsilon \frac{\partial E}{\partial t}$ through the maxwell-ampere equation (assuming J=0). Differentiating the first eq over time gives $\varepsilon E\cdot \frac{\partial E}{\partial t}$. Substituting the third equation gives that the rate of change of energy density of $E$ is $\frac{1}{\mu} E\cdot (\nabla \times B)$. This is being done by the magnetic field.
Jul
14
comment Divergence of a field and its interpretation
@Subhra and the magnetic field does have a source of energy. In the same way that a block resting on a table has a "source of energy" - someone lifted it up there in the first place. Some current density or changing electric field lifted the magnetic field up, and to do that it took energy. This is an important principle of the inductor.
Jul
14
comment Divergence of a field and its interpretation
@Subhra There are further ambiguities in what you're writing. For example, a constant magnetic field does no work on a moving charge, that much is true. But "B does no work" is less true. Through Ampere/Maxwells's equation linked, $\nabla \times B$ is proportional to $dE/dt$ (when there is zero current density). Since $E$ stores energy, $B$ must be doing work! It isn't doing work on a charged particle, however. It is doing work on a field.
Jul
14
comment Divergence of a field and its interpretation
@Subhra You are using terminology too informally. This, I think, is masking some deeper misunderstanding. How can you say "B does no work" and then start a sentence with "work done by B"?! I know what you mean, "a direction changing force caused by B", but still. You should also stop using the word "source" if you don't mean it! If you ask someone to name a source of a magnetic field, they might answer a wire with a current going down it. In some sense, the wire is a source of the magnetic field. We still have $\nabla \cdot B=0$, I just mean to demonstrate that "source" is ambiguous.
Jul
13
answered Divergence of a field and its interpretation