1,922 reputation
933
bio website
location United Kingdom
age
visits member for 4 years, 5 months
seen Jul 9 at 18:42

To whom it may concern:

Please, leave a certain user alone that used to regularly post on Physics Stack Exchange. Stop whining and crying about it, and act your chronological rather than your social age. The site is doing just fine without him, and new stars will always appear to replace the old ones. The site is meant for users of all levels from highschool to research level, so it's not being downgraded at all--unless you want it to be a physics equivalent of Math Over Flow.

If you find the place too painful and unhealthy then just leave. No one particularly cares about you, anymore than they do about me or anyone else. It's just a place where people can ask and answer physics questions.

OK? Good. May your time be filled with lashings of physics, topped with more physics delights. Have a nice day :)


Jul
7
comment What is the physical significance of dot & cross product of vectors? Why is division not defined for vectors?
cont... this looks so beautifully clear and consistent: the components of a three dimensional object are projected onto planes, the components of planes are projected onto lines etc.
Jul
7
comment What is the physical significance of dot & cross product of vectors? Why is division not defined for vectors?
There's a nice geometrical interpretation given by Sommerfield in his paper on Four-dimensional Vector Analysis. He interprets tensors as geometrical objects constructed from vectors, such as a cube. Relative to a standard cube of magnitude 1 pointing in some direction, another can have a different size, relative orientation, and rotated about its own axis representing its orientation in space.
Jul
6
comment Why is $F=-\nabla V$?
I thought that quote came from Zee
Jul
6
comment Why is $F=-\nabla V$?
Gotta laugh and cry at this: "a vector anything which transforms like a vector does under coordinate transformations." I prefer the definition as a quantity with a direction and magnitude that can be calculated from a set of numbers called its components. And the components transforming under rotations such that its direction and magnitude remains invariant.
Jun
29
comment How did Weyl's 1918 paper; Gravitation and Electricity, influence classical physics?
Could a moderator possibly migrate this question to History of Science SE please?
Jun
29
asked How did Weyl's 1918 paper; Gravitation and Electricity, influence classical physics?
May
9
accepted Is there a subtlety to the Lorentz transformations one needs to be aware of?
May
6
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
7
awarded  Altruist
Apr
6
comment Tensor Operators
A little OT: do you think it's worth learning about tensors from Tullio Levi-Civita's classic book? What book would you recommend for beginners?
Apr
4
answered Can we rigorously define force?
Apr
1
awarded  Investor
Mar
31
comment Quantum anharmonic ocscillator $E_0(\lambda)$ curve or table
Thanks to Vladimir and you for this interesting contribution! I'm surprised you didn't import the question to PO with your usual comment: "There's an answer here on PO" ;)
Mar
24
comment Can the Lorentz force expression be derived from Maxwell's equations?
@WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance I'm just judging Ben as harshly as he judged Steve B's answer( which I believe is clearly correct). The -1 remains although my original reason is not correct: $F_{total} = d\vec p/dt$ is where Ben implicity defines the electric part of the Lorentz force at $v=0$.
Mar
16
awarded  Popular Question
Feb
23
comment Magnetic force between two charged particles?
The magnetic force isn't mutually the same generally.
Feb
23
comment Magnetic force between two charged particles?
The Biot Savart law is for a closed circuit current, and extending this to an isolated moving charge isn't trivial.
Feb
21
awarded  Yearling
Feb
1
comment How much of General relativity follows from the invariance of $c$ and an escape velocity?
@Hypnosifl I'm under the impression that the speed of light is always $c$ in any coordinate system and over large regions for gravity. Perhaps that's where I'm wrong then; maybe you could write an answer stressing this point?
Feb
1
asked How much of General relativity follows from the invariance of $c$ and an escape velocity?