« first day (1061 days earlier)      last day (3859 days later) » 

1:58 AM
What if atoms are made up of photons, instead of the super-common protons, electrons and neutrons?
@CrazyBuddy hi
 
2:40 AM
@DavidZ If the first part is off-topic, how about the second part?
 
@Astrum First part of what?
 
my question....
you put it on hold
0
Q: Valid Integral? Magnet field from Magnetized Cylinder

AstrumReviewing Griffiths, I found a what [I]should[/I] be a straightforward problem. An infinity long circular cylinder carries a uniform magnetization $M$ parallel to its axis. Find the magnetic field. The discussion prior to this problem is about bound currents, so using the equations outlined, ...

I didn't think it was a bad question, but I'm not super familiar with the guidelines here
 
Ah, well only the first part was there when I saw it.
 
Yeah, I was editing it
want me to scrap it, and propose the question to you here in chat?
XD
 
I wouldn't tell you to do that, but it is an option
 
2:44 AM
Well, does the integral look right? maybe it was suppose to come out ugly
 
I don't know offhand, but it's possible
 
I think I set it up correctly
so, if I take out the first part, can you unlock it?
 
Well the second part is entirely subjective. Only Griffiths knows why he put that particular material in the book.
 
Eh, I suppose
 
Right now, there's nothing in your post that would be an appropriate question for this site.
But if you're confused about some physics concept, you could make the question about that, and it'd probably be better.
 
2:48 AM
alright, I guess I can post it somewhere else. No, I get the physics, I'm just confused as to why he would put something in the book that seems to always produce a super ugly integral
 
Ah...well that's the sort of thing that is good to discuss here in chat, but it's not appropriate for the main site.
My hunch is that there's some way to do it without getting a messy integral.
BTW which problem is this?
 
problem 6.7
and he does the same type of thing with 6.8, 6.9
he doesn't even bother using the equations that he derivied on the previous page
so, why even teach it? =p
I remember being confused with this the first time I had studied this chapter, and now the second time around, I'm just as confused
 
Because those equations are worth understanding in their own right. There's no rule that says any given problem must be done with the equations derived right before it. :-P
or that a given equation must be used in some problem.
 
true
but in general, the questions that follow a discussion are primarily focused on that particular section.
 
Right
you just can't always expect that a particular equation will be used, or that it will give a nice solution.
Although I did just notice something: seems like you integrated only from 0 to infinity.
 
2:57 AM
for \hat{z}, yes
if it's infinite, we need to go from 0-infty, unless I'm making a mistake somewhere, this gives an ugly ugly expression
 
um... not -infinity to +infinity?
 
does that really make a difference? 0 - infinity is the same "infinity" as -infty to + infty, right?
 
Nope
One is a half-infinite region, the other is a "full infinite" region
 
that's weird
 
Often the complicated part of the contribution from one half is canceled out by the corresponding part of the contribution from the other half
 
3:02 AM
if that happened, we would just be left with the surface current again
hm
maybe that's what went wrong
 
Think about it. It's very important to understand why it's different whether you go from 0 to infinity vs. -infinity to +infinity.
 
yeah
I see
I was thinking that, an infinite distance in the positive direction is just as "long" as an infintie distance in the negative
so it wouldn't matter what I did, but I certainly see where you're coming from
and you've got to be right, or else this would give an incorrect answer
I've gotta leave now, if I think of anything to reword the question, I'll do so
 
Sure
sounds good
 
if you come to any conclusion, let me know
see ya
 
about the problem? I suspect it's the integral
Or you could use Ampere's law ;-)
 
3:10 AM
yeah, it's gotta be
 
See you...
 
yes, he solves it using ampere's law
which is what confused me and all, since we could have done that from the begining of the chapter, pretty much
alright, bye!
 
 
1 hour later…
4:20 AM
@DavidZ Didn't even give me a chance to flag those when I was done editing!
 
 
2 hours later…
6:09 AM
@Astrum not without the definitions of volume and surface bound currents
@tpg2114 I guess we were looking at them at the same time
 
 
1 hour later…
7:13 AM
0
Q: Soliciting Selected Answers

shortstheoryIs it appropriate to ask the OP of a question to select your answer as the selected answer when you know that s/he has entirely understood your answer and that s/he is satisifed by it in the comments? For example: in this answer I completely explained the mechanics of the pulley sliding on the ...

 
 
5 hours later…
12:21 PM
Quick and silly question. For a point particle the field is infinite at the centre. The field is not simply connected. Does it mean Gauss law doesn't apply? Should we use the delta Dirac?
 
@jinawee Gauss law still applies, but the surface cannot pass through that point
dirac delta works
 
 
2 hours later…
2:02 PM
@DavidZ I think it would be helpful if you could update the homework policy](meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/715/7433), by providing a brief explanation of why the homework tag was created: so people can check that questions aren't graded assignments/course-work etc
@DavidZ and in the section "What kinds of questions are considered homework questions?", I would emphasise: A "homework question" is any question that could be assigned to a student by a teacher as part of their graded coursework.
 
2:57 PM
Hi y'all! Can I ask that people show this MSO question, meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/187372/…, which asks for better clickability on the close-vote dialog, some love?
 
Anonymous
3:32 PM
@EmilioPisanty makes sense. +1'd.
 
3:57 PM
@LarryHarson Sure, I'll take a look at that, but I would point out that what you've got there is not actually the definition of a homework question, just a good (not necessarily 100% accurate) rule of thumb for identifying them.
The actual definition is already in the homework policy, namely any question in which the value lies in learning the method rather than finding the answer.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:58 PM
0
Q: Buzzing/Vibration in body under power lines

Lindsay PosniakI am hoping someone can please give me an answer. I was at a dog park with my dog and son (hes 12), which is directly under high/loud voltage power lines. I went to brush some dirt of my sons neck when I felt his neck "buzzing". He didnt feel it. I felt all over him, and he was buzzing/vibrati...

I think this is off topic. Anyone care to offer a close vote?
 
6:35 PM
Why aren't good answers of a duplicate question merged? Example: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78624/…
 
The answers to the duplicate usually don't quite work for the original.
 
@jinawee If the questions are exactly the same, flag for merge
 
7:24 PM
@davidz I can only think of one use for the homework tag, and that's as an anti-cheating device. So I think this should largely influence the definition of the homework tag. Otherwise, people will end up tagging questions as "homework" in a way which is largely useless.
How else would people use the homework tag?
 
Perhaps we could crowd source a rewrite of "Lobachevsky" for MathOverflow. "And who deserves the credit? And who deserves the blame? Antonin Ivanovish Geraschenko is (not) his name!", as well as "The secret of my success? Hyperlink!" (Rhyme forthcoming.) — The Masked Avenger 2 days ago
Brilliant.
 
@LarryHarson Yes, that has influenced the definition of the tag. It's meant to designate questions where the value lies in the method rather than in the answer, which are exactly those questions where seeking a final answer in a way that bypasses understanding the method would count as cheating.
 

« first day (1061 days earlier)      last day (3859 days later) »