« first day (2190 days earlier)      last day (2740 days later) » 

10:01 AM
Hello!!
Does someone of you have an idea for my question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290334/calculate-the-velocity-of-the-particle ?
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar Use newton's laws of motion
 
Mew
@S007, the text editor now reads latex in real time
 
@MaryStar Hi Mary. Your question is off topic here as we specifically prohibit homework questions.
 
Mew
@MaryStar, please see physicsproblems.nfshost.com
 
Anonymous
10:05 AM
@Mew @Mew LOL...site promotion ;-P
 
@MaryStar in general for equations like this you use one of the SUVAT equations.
 
Mew
Her question is more on topic on the physics problems site
 
In this case you want the equation v^2 = u^2 + 2as
 
Mew
@MaryStar, if you post the question here, physicsproblems.nfshost.com I will provide a comprehensive solution. This site isn't the place though
 
@Obliv ??? I haven't ping you recently, so perhaps I should be the one to ask that question
 
10:06 AM
Where the acceleration is just the gravitational acceleration g
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar Sorry I meant equations of motion as John Rennie pointed out. Try that out.
 
@Mew you're going to be accepting questions that show no effort?
 
@JohnRennie We have that a=g=1, u is the initial velocity and s the final position, or not?
 
s is the distance travelled.
 
Mew
@JohnRennie, no she will have to set out what she's attempted so far
 
10:10 AM
which in this case is the distance travelled downwards when the object hits the ground.
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar s is the height fallen i.e. 10
 
Ah ok... So, we have that the initial velocity is 10, therefore,
v^2 = u^2 + 2as => v^2 = 10^2 + 2*10 => v^2=100+20 => v^2=120 => v=\sqrt{120}
Is this correct? @S007 @JohnRennie
 
@MaryStar the question is a little more complicated than that because the initial velocity is sideways not vertical.
The initial velocity is given as 10i so it's moving in the positive x direction.
 
Ah yes, since it is 10i.
Is the initial vertical velocity equal to 0?
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar take initial velocity in y direction as 0
 
user116211
10:16 AM
@JohnRennie halp.
 
user116211
I need help in MathJax.
 
The vertical component of the velocity is initially zero, so in the equation you set u=0 and the value of v calculated will be the vertical velocity when the object hits the ground.
 
v^2 = u^2 + 2as => v^2 = 2*10 => v^2=20 => v=\sqrt{20} => v=2sqrt{5} @S007
Is this correct?
 
If we are ingoring atmopheric drag then the horizontal velocity is unchanged.
@MaryStar That is the correct result for the vertical component of the velocity.
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar Seems correct. Now finally square the velocity in horizontal direction and add it to the square of velocity in vertical. After that take square root
 
10:18 AM
But I assume the question wants the total velocity so you need to combine the vertical and horizontal velocities.
 
When it hints the ground does it have also horizantal velocity?
For the horizontal do we have that a=0 and u=10 ?
@S007 @JohnRennie
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar yes
 
@MaryStar Yes. The horizontal velocity remains unchanged during the fall.
 
So, v=sqrt{10^2+20}=sqrt{120}, right? @S007 @JohnRennie
 
@MaryStar Yes
 
10:22 AM
I understand! Thank you very much!! :-)
@S007 @JohnRennie
 
Anonymous
@Mew does the direct message work on your site ? did you get my test message ?
 
Mew
Ah yes I did recieve it
the answer to your question is yes
 
Anonymous
oh all well then :)
 
@heather This is from an answer in meta by a user with only 15 points - not at all representative for users of the site against which you are ranting!
 
When we have that the motion of a particle in polar coordinates is givwn by the realtions $r=\cosh (t) \ \ \theta=t$, do we have that the acceleration is equal to $r''=\cosh (t)$ ?
 
10:53 AM
Ah no, it is $a_r=0$ and $a_{\theta}=2\sinh t$ and so $a=2\sinh t$, right? @S007 @JohnRennie
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar Sorry I don't know much about polar coordinates..maybe John can answer
 
Anonymous
@Mew Can you activate latex in comments ?
 
Mew
@S007, yes i will implement in time
not my number 1 priority though
wait
latex already is activiated in comments
or did you do something special
 
Anonymous
yes...now it is working
 
Anonymous
thanks
 
Mew
10:57 AM
np
 
@S007 No problem... Aboout the other problem http://physicsproblems.nfshost.com/?qa=112/at-what-distance-will-the-particle-be
at the moment I cannot send my comment...
We have that $F=mv\frac{dv}{dx} \Rightarrow -kx^2=mv\frac{dv}{dx} $. We are looking what distance it has made for $t=2$ right? So we have to solve for $dx$, or what?
 
Anonymous
@MaryStar Form a differential equation. Do you know how to solve them ?
 
Anonymous
btw why can't you comment there ?
 
@S007 I don't know... I will try again...
 
@MaryStar I think you were correct the first time. $a_r = \cosh t$ and $a_\theta = 0$.
 
Anonymous
11:14 AM
@Mew Latex again not working....physicsproblems.nfshost.com/?qa=112/…
 
Anonymous
So $$\int{0}^{d}{-kx^2} dx = m \int{0}^{2}{dt}$$ where $d$ is the required distance traveled.
 
Mew
@S007, refresh the page
 
Anonymous
See the edit in your answer
 
@JohnRennie I changed my answer, because I found this:
 
Mew
It seems that you sometimes have to refresh the page for it to render
 
11:15 AM
 
Mew
oh i see S007
I'll work on that thanks
 
Anonymous
@Mew I refreshed thrice...is it working on your pc ?
 
Mew
yeah the lmits of integration ins't working
it's working in the preview
just not in the final output
something i'll look at
 
Anonymous
yes...no prob..take your time
 
Mew
I updated Marys' question to include her working for quality
please poost your own answer if you have one
I think you updated my v(x) to v(t)
I think that was not the correct change because dx/dt is still v(x) as the velocity is a function of position in this case
 
11:19 AM
@MaryStar Ah OK, there are two subtly different meanings of acceleration when dealing with circular motion.
 
Anonymous
@Mew yes it is right now
 
Anonymous
@Mew oh but limits of time is given not velocity...i think that last part needs change
 
Mew
S007 I'm working on the answer
please don't edit as i'm still editing it and I dont' watnt o lose the chagnes
Please create your own answer as I'm still figuring it out
@MaryStar, where is this quesiton from, ar eyou sure it is correct?
It would be simpler if the force was -kx rather than -kx^2
 
 
1 hour later…
12:34 PM
@MaryStar I've seen you do very sophisticated algebra in the math chat, somehow I doubt you're struggling with an ODE.
 
Mew
@0celo7, the question she asked is actually not analytically solveable
well not nicely anyway
 
Use a series method.
 
Mew
check out the wolfram solution
you can use a series method to approximate but if your after an exact solution it's insane
I think she meant to say F = -kx rather than -kx^2
 
Mew
12:57 PM
Hi Andras
 
1:15 PM
@Mew, hello!
 
Mew
@heather, hi
have you checked out the site, it now has latex
 
I just wanted to ask: how does the point system work?
 
Mew
I'll check
it can be amended
10 points per upvote on your question
20 points per upvote on your naswer
-2 points when you give a downvote
you need 100 points to downvote
 
I got a weird swing from 100 up to 170 and then back down to 120. I've asked 1 question and gotten two upvotes and one downvote.
 
Mew
this can be amended, but these are the current settings
 
1:17 PM
I like the point values
 
Mew
Sorry that is because I was adjusting the point system
 
Ah, okay, now I understand. =) That point system sounds good.
 
Mew
I wouldn't worry about your score yet because I think we should decide how it works as a community
and thus it may change in the future
@heather, you are a moderator now
There was a bit of spam this morning because the capture wasn't working
This has now been fixed
 
Yeah, I noticed some junk yesterday too. Thanks for fixing that!
 
Mew
There is also a chatroom for moderators only on the new site
 
1:20 PM
yes, I noticed that as well
I also noticed that MathJax/LaTeX now works.
Oh, and there is now a meta! I didn't notice that for a moment.
 
Mew
Yep
There is a meta
but I think it is integrated with the main site at the moment
So if you get points in meta, it will give points to your whole account
and meta questions will display in the main feed unless you specificly select "physics problems'
 
Hmm, interesting. Do downvotes on meta influence your score?
 
Mew
I will iron out these issues in the next 24 hours
Downvotes don't influence your score at all at the moment
 
Okay
 
Mew
But in the future it may
But currently I'd like to encourage people contributing without worrying too much about getting negative points
Then when we have more content we can define poor vs good quality etc.
Let me know if you notice anything that needs changing or adding to improve the site :)
I'm sure there's lots and i'm making a to do list as i find them
 
1:24 PM
@Mew, is there anything I can do to help create the site? I'd be glad to do any coding necessary =)
I also asked a meta question to get the ball rolling on what is on and off-topic
 
Mew
@heather, on the weekend when I have more time I will try to set something up that can allow us to share code etc.
in the mean time if you see any posts in the moderate que pls approve them if they are not spam
 
@Mew, better idea for sharing code: how about github? You can create a private gist and link to it here.
And of course, I will keep up moderator duties.
 
Mew
YEah good idea, that is what i had in mind as well
 
I have a github account and everything, so it should be good.
 
Mew
cool
alright i gtg to bed now
laterz
 
1:29 PM
thank you for all your work! Have a good night
 
2:11 PM
what's going on
 
-2
Q: Proof that CO2 is responsible for Global warming

PrathyushI am looking for literature that give a proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming. Please also include studies that show otherwise.

on-topic/off-topic/too broad/duplicate?
 
Off topic.
 
all of the above.
@0celo7, work on the new site! =)
 
Why would I
I don't even like physics
 
Physics problems?
@0celo7 Wut?
 
2:15 PM
@0celo7, no, you asked what was going on. That's what. And wait, what!? You do too like physics, right?
 
Nope
 
@0celo7 what do you like , then?
 
Okay, nope, that doesn't make sense. You like GR!
@SwapnilDas, math...
 
@heather Ah, btw, I've noticed that you seem to have a lot of meta discussion about that site in this room. As there are in general no topic restrictions here, that's fine, but I think it would be good if you would move those discussions elsewhere in the long run.
 
Hmm
 
2:17 PM
@ACuriousMind, ah, yes, that probably would be a good idea. If I created a room, would you mind moving some of the messages over, using your mod powers?
 
@heather I wouldn't mind, but with "elsewhere" I meant rather "somewhere that's not an SE chat room" - the site isn't affliated with SE, so I don't think you should rely on SE chats to coordinate it. If you want to have a site that works on its own, it needs to organize itself by its own means.
 
rekt
 
@ACuriousMind, hmm. I guess, would it be okay to start with a separate SE chat room? Currently the chat on the other site is still in progress.
 
Does relativistic mass depend on medium?
 
@0celo7 It's meant to be advice, not an admonition.
 
2:20 PM
I ask because speed of light differs from one medium to another.
 
@ACuriousMind sufficiently good advice is both
 
@SwapnilDas 1. Relativistic mass is an obsolete/unhelpful concept, see e.g. the answers here 2. The speed of light in all relativistic formulae is the speed of light in vacuum, regardless of whether you're in a medium or not.
@heather Sure, I said I wouldn't mind. I just don't think you should get used to that as a status quo.
 
@ACuriousMind Thanks a ton!
 
@ACuriousMind, thanks! I've almost got the room ready.
 
@0celo7 That's an unnecessarily adversarial view of advice.
 
2:24 PM
@ACuriousMind, here's the room:

 Physics Problem Solving

Discussion about a new site for solving physics problems. See ...
 
@ACuriousMind Chalk it up to the advice I've been given, I guess.
 
2:46 PM
worst typography I've seen in a while :P
 
:-/
 
@ACuriousMind why are you reading what looks like actual physics?
I can beat it.
 
@0celo7 It's from this question
 
Beat that :P
 
shit what the hell is that
 
2:53 PM
Physics, allegedly.
 
@0celo7 That's a TeX/Word/whatever (or printer) fail, but there's at least not such terrible kerning in the text.
 
@ACuriousMind You gotta admit it's funny
 
It is
 
not so funny when the booklet came with a $100,000 machine, but still.
 
kinda looks like those movie montages where random formulae and symbols float across the screen
 
2:56 PM
that one wall in Bioshock infinite
although the equations there were coherent IIRC
 
I think an answer get downvote deserves sth like -4 or -5, but only ppl with 50 or 100 can downvote... (upvote seems perfect for me)
 
Correct, see e.g. the Duffster.
 
lol
 
On average he has the most downvotes of any user
but somehow gets rep like there's no tomorrow
crazy
 
pretty cool tho
 
3:00 PM
Duffield? Yeah he's cool
 
@0celo7 Cool?
 
@MetaEd you look like you're ready to ban someone
scary avatar
@JohnRennie Yes
 
@0celo7 He's just downvoted all my recent answers on GR. It's something he now does as a matter of course.
Obviously because only he knows GR properly.
 
of course
 
Friendly reminder to not allege that you know how other people votes unless they explicitly said so
 
3:02 PM
Haha
Classic duffield
 
@ACuriousMind The downvotes started within five minutes of JD's profile saying he was last seen.
That is, at the time I noticed the first downvote was 47 minutes ago and his profile showed he was last seen 52 minutes ago.
 
@JohnRennie Yes, and there are often downvotes on questions where I left critical comments. It's not always me who gave the downvote but people invariably assume it was. It's irksome.
Just...don't assume.
 
You and I both know it's a safe assumption. But I won't embarass the SE Chat by pursuing it any further.
@ACuriousMind on an unrelated matter, can I ask you an embarrassingly simple question about differential geometry?
 
@JohnRennie Sure
 
@ACuriousMind even if they explicitly said so. People lie about voting behavior all the time. As far as I'm concerned, it is never acceptable to claim that someone else voted in a particular way in public.
 
3:06 PM
This question:
5 hours ago, by Mary Star
When we have that the motion of a particle in polar coordinates is givwn by the realtions $r=\cosh (t) \ \ \theta=t$, do we have that the acceleration is equal to $r''=\cosh (t)$ ?
 
@DavidZ Eh, well, if they lied, they have to live with that being public perception, no?
 
I've only just realised that it's asking for the acceleration experienced by the moving particle, or at least I think so.
If this was GR it would be the norm of the 4-acceleration. Is this just the equivalent in 2D and ignoring time?
 
@ACuriousMind sure, but when people start repeating that claim it only leads to trouble in my experience.
 
In polar coordinates there's a weird equation for acceleration, no?
 
@0celo7 there is, but I think I've just realised that it's done the same way as in GR.
i.e. you calculate the acceleration 2-vector using the Christoffel symbols then take its norm using the metric.
 
3:09 PM
Yep
 
At least, I've just done the calculation and it works.
 
We've talked about this before.
 
@JohnRennie You have to consider that the basis vectors, too, change from point to point so along a path you need to consider both the coordinates and the vectors themselves as time-dependent, so no, the acceleration is not as straightforward as $r''$.
 
@JohnRennie I can explain this later. It's all in Zee's book, as usual.
 
@ACuriousMind yes, that's my point. You calculate the equivalent of the four-acceleration (whatever that's called in 2D) using the Christoffel symbols.
Then calculate the norm using the metric.
And I get the right answer, so I assume this is the correct procedure. It's just that I've never heard the method mentioned when doing calculations with polar coordinates.
 
3:13 PM
@JohnRennie Yes. In a more "elementary" way, without doing full-on differential geometry, you'd write the position as $x(t) = \cosh(t)e_r(t) + te_\theta(t)$ where $e_r(t)$ is the radial vector at the point $(\cosh(t),t)$ and then differentiate the whole thing twice using product and chain rule
 
Doing the calculation in the same way you'd do it in GR just seems more satisfying somehow :-)
 
Sure, once you know the differential geometry, you wouldn't want to do it this way
But this is the way it was explained in my mechanics course, and it doesn't need any new concepts, so I'd think that the average physics exercise expects you to do it that way
 
I have vague memories of school teachers telling me how to calculate accelerations in polar coordinates and I never really got it because it seemed so arbitrary. Finally, 40 years later I've suddenly realised what they were talking about :-)
 
@DavidZ I'll defer to your more extensive experience with trouble ;)
@JohnRennie Sure, and I don't think it would be too hard to do it that way. But for some reasons physicists are hesitant to use proper geometry outside of GR (and sometimes even within it)
 
3:32 PM
0
Q: Why was my question closed as too broad?

PrathyushMy question Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming was closed as being too broad. There are many research papers on the topic, however it is a very specific question. If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen, but I don't ...

 
Homework?
-1
Q: How to interpret Law of conservation of strangeness?

SPARKIs there a recent explanation of Law of conservation of strangeness? and why does it not work for reactions taking long times like $10^{-10}$ seconds?

It isn't obviously homework, but it seems an odd question to come up with on your own.
 
@JohnRennie Well, does it runs afoul of the homework policy? Remember that whether a question is in fact from actual assigned homework is irelevant.
Also, after what I've seen on this site, I make no assumptions at all about the kinds of questions people come up with on their own :P
 
I'm genuinely unsure. I know the answer, so there's an instinctive urge to post an answer, but I'm not sure if an answer is appropriate.
 
3:53 PM
You're right, it doesn't seem like a homework-like question directly, but it is such a well-known fact that it seems suspicious.
That's one I would call out for insufficient research effort.
 
4:11 PM
I wonder how much money the campus Chick Fil As make daily
 
user116211
0
Q: Origin of the eq. 6.190 in the Di Francesco's book conformal field theory

Diego A C JaraRecently I am reading Philippe Francesco's Book: Conformal Field Theory. Actually, I am having problems in understanding the origin of the following equation: $\mathscr{F}_{1}=\frac{\left(h_{p}+h_{2}-h_{1}\right)\left(h_{p}+h_{3}-h_{4}\right)}{2h_{p}} .\tag{6.190} $ Comparing the equation 6....

 
user116211
Homework?
 
It's reasonable that anyone who can answer the question has the book.
 
user116211
While I know simply nothing about this @diego, do you think everyone has the concerned book? Even if they have, why should one turn pages after pages to check the equation? Please make your post self-contained; explicitly write down all the terminologies and the concerned text. — MAFIA36790 1 min ago
 
Yes, I'm responding to that comment.
@ACuriousMind A new low: beanie and sandals
@ACuriousMind Ah, no I take it back
the other day I saw something so horrendous that I was too shocked to tell you
@ACuriousMind Sandals, sweatpants, and a half-tucked dress shirt
 
4:32 PM
Hi all
Who has knowledge in statistical mechanics
I have a small problem
 
@Student404Mus write it - maybe someone will know something
 
@0celo7 What do you have against sandals?
 
In classical mechanics -bolzman's distribution
 
@BalarkaSen nothing when worn with shorts
with long pants they are inconsistent
 
4:36 PM
We want to show that for negative temperatures.. Internal energy is bounded between 1/2 and 1
For 1/(kT)=log(N/U-1)
How we reached 1/2<U<1?
I tried to get this but I arrived to 1/2<U/N<1
 
@ffahim: I prefer to keep discussions in the main chat room. Sorry.
 
@0celo7 I wear them with long pants.
 
@BalarkaSen You think Gromov looks decent.
 
My question may be annoying.. that's why.. however it's about the derivation of S=(U+V)/2*t @JohnRennie
 
@ffahim that looks wrong. It should be $s = ut + at^2/2$.
 
4:49 PM
@JohnRennie Do you think Gromov is a good looking man (no homo)
 
Hang on, I'll do an image search ...
 
Both are correct... second one is derived from first one... but I don't know the derivation of first one @JohnRennie
 
No answer?
 
??@Student404Mus
 
The question I posted previously
 
@JohnRennie HA
@BalarkaSen
 
@Student404Mus What is N?
 
No fashion advice from you
 
@ffahim What are u and v?
 
4:53 PM
Number of free particles
 
@0celo7 do you mind! Look at my avatar. I always dress impeccably.
 
@JohnRennie @BalarkaSen
 
U is the internal energy
 
not you
 
u means initial velocity and V means final velocity reached after covering displacement S by t seconds. @ACuriousMind
 
4:54 PM
k is bolzman's cst
 
@Student404Mus Are you sure it doesn't mean to say that the internal energy per particle, i.e. U/N is bounded like that?
 
@ffahim: $(u + v)/2$ is the average velocity, assuming the acceleration stays constant.
So what that equation is telling you is that you can take the average velocity then multiply it by the time to get the distance moved.
 
@MAFIA36790 I don't think so
Low-effort, yes, but not homework-like
 
@0celo7 @JR Sure, he dresses up like a vagabond. Doesn't make him look un-decent.
 
@DavidZ "I have equation (1) and need to derive equation (2), how do I do that?" is not homework-like?
 
4:58 PM
@BalarkaSen His beard.
 
What about it? I think it's pretty cool.
 

« first day (2190 days earlier)      last day (2740 days later) »