Because everything inside the bus having different force to keep the acceleration same as bus. For every object inside the bus showing different force which one is pseudo force (which should be constant).
@Azmuth What object mass need to be taken bus/passengers/seat because pseudo force is different for every object.
@123 That totally depends on the question you want to solve... Usually the total pseudo force is taken by consideration of a single object and calculating net forces on others.
But again, it depends on question.
Usually questions of circular motion require pseudoforce... it simplifies things...
@Azmuth you are always given me the link of elementary level. :D which never solve my problem. Only discussion with you guys can solve the phenomenon. :P
So this the question? We are taking bus as non-inertial frame. There are many things inside the. What mass need to be taken for pseudo-force total mass bus whatever inside the bus or anything else?
@123 See pseudo force is same on every object which is proportional to the total acceleration of the whole body as a whole (as in this case, bus) if you are able to recover out PseudoForce for one object, you can cancel out it from other objects too and get a net neutral setup
@Azmuth Mean we have acceleration second derivative , if we integrate over time once we get velocity then integrate again it gives us curve/trajectory equation.
@Azmuth What is meant by that? If we avoid trajectory or what happened between two extreme points of motion we are totally unaware of anything between starting and endpoint (which we take dx in work done)
@Azmuth Hmm.. using work-energy idea we can only find velocity, acceleration, momentum only in the direction of force. What about other components? As in projectile x-component has no force.
@123 No, not really, we can find out the magnitude of total velocity, acceleration, momentum of the object using work energy concepts.... (although there are some cheap tricks to get components too, in some special cases)
Work-Energy idea only possible where if we place object in force field (as free fall in gravity) or giving some initial velocity only in the direction of force.
You'll realize the power of work energy concepts when you'll study QM using Line integrals, there are infinite paths possible for a quantum particle to reach from A to B, in such cases it's useful there.
@123 When you want to find the other component which isn't in the direction of force, use the concept of Kinetic Energy to get velocity of that component (although that doesn't mean that you can use work energy concepts in every situation to get different components of velocity)
@123 I'd suggest big more time with Newtonian Mechanics, you'll easily get acquainted with QM then.
Yes that's why i confused. If there is only KE scalar and we put velocity like projectile initial velocity this is not the actual velocity in the direction of force. $KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$ gives us total KE of the object and under the influence of force part of velocity $V_y$ only changes not $V_x$
To find different components, you've to pretend that you have two objects, one traveling x axis and other y axis, the x axis one has no influence of any force and y-axis one has gravity...
Anybody have any idea how to see $\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} C_{\gamma \delta} = - (C^{-1})^{\alpha \beta}$ as obvious, where $C_{\alpha \beta}$ is charge conjugation for Majorana spinors e.g. $\psi_{\alpha} = C_{\alpha \alpha'} \overline{\psi}^{\alpha'}$
I can't tell you how long I've tried to get some stupid cofficients working due to using these, every answer seems right for ages until it's obviously wrong :(
Here's another 'obvious' one $\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (\gamma_5 C)_{\gamma \delta} = + (C^{-1} \gamma_5)^{\alpha \beta}$
Not only is the first identity above obvious in a particular representation, the way the Majorana thing I was hoping would be fixed by changing the above was fixed a different way as usual...
Copy from one, it is plagiarism, copy from two, it is research
I always knew I was a good researcher
Unfortunately the problem with the old and elementary concepts is that most of them are not even researched/cited or properly verified. They instead get evolved and are finally named with English names, Pressure as an example.
@NiharKarve More seriously, depends a lot on the location and the specialization. The most programming I had to do in undergrad was changing some variables in Python scripts on a lab computer, but other people who took courses on stuff like numerical algorithms of course programmed a lot more
but that's one data point from one university, I have no doubt that there are places where the mandatory curriculum contains a lot more programming
Could I just verify, since it hasn't been explicitly stated in what I've been reading, the tangent bundle is a vector bundle for which the rank of the vector bundle matches the dimension of the manifold, and the field over which the vector space in the vector bundle is defined is the same as the field on which the coordinate functions of the manifold are defined
@Charlie The tangent bundle is also a nice example of why it matters to talk about bundles - it is the trivial bundle if and only if there are $\mathrm{dim}(M)$ vector fields on the manifold such that they are a basis of the tangent space at any point. (search word: "parallelizable manifold")
this is a comparatively strong condition and there's plenty of manifolds that aren't parallelizable, so if you want to talk about "the collection of tangent spaces" in a geometric way, you have to invent bundles
while the English name is mildly funny, I like the more absurd German variant better - there it's "the hedgehog's theorem" because it shows you can't brush a hedgehog without leaving a blank spot (the hairs/spines are the vectors and the blank spot is the zero of the vector field)
I once attempted to pick up a hedgehog. It had wandered into the middle of a road and I thought I would pick it up and move it to the side where it stood less chance of being run over.
Yes, along the side of the road is a strip of woodland, which is no doubt where the hedgehog had come from. The last I saw of it was it scurrying away into the wood.
I don't think you can ask them to find a particular paper, but I'm not sure. But why don't you just ask them your actual question - who first defined pressure - instead of asking for a paper that might not even answer your question?
Whenever reading about some physics problem or solution, watching a physics video, seeing a physics lecture in English I see almost everybody using differential equations.
It seems highly improbable to me that this is the way physics is taught in English because in my country we rarely ever use d...
Before learning any topic I always find the reason of why definitions are created for any particular topic
In fluid statistics i encountered term called pressure
But i cant find any reference where i can know who first defined it or why is it was defined that way that time
Any help appreciated
I am trying to understand space groups in crystallography. In Internation tables for crystallography, for a nonsymmorphic space group, they list some symmetry operations. 8 of them are listed under the (0,0,0)+ set and 8 in the (1/2, 1/2, 1/2)+ set. What does this mean? Are there 16 operations in total? How do the sets differ?
Hitting a slight wall in the construction of principle fibre bundles, most descriptions state that in a principle bundle the fibres themselves are Lie groups, $G$, but also that the group $G$ "acts freely on the fibres", which sounds like $G$ is acting on itself
I understand that if $G$ acts freely on a manifold $E$ then the quotient $E/G\cong G$
Do we have the same requirement as with vector bundles that locally $E$ looks like $U\times G$, where $U\subset M$ is in the base space and $E$ is the total space
And that way no one forgets to turn it on at all and have a pipe explode or something. That happened at the gym in my elementary school over one winter break.
Before learning any topic I always find the reason of why definitions are created for any particular topic
In fluid statistics i encountered term called pressure
But i cant find any reference where i can know who first defined it or why is it was defined that way that time
Any help appreciated
