Hi everyone, I've a question which may not fit the formal Q/A format, so I'm trying the chat... From Euler's inverse formula we know a cosine is the sum of two rotating phasors. I'm looking for a simple experiment showing this property, like a pendulum shows what is a sinusoid. Any idea? (I'm not looking for a math proof but something visual).
@LalitTolani Please don't post your question here directly after you ask it - if everyone did that, the chat would be flooded with posts. (If you think it is of specific interest to someone here or you're looking for feedback on it that's a different matter)
Hello, is anyone here? Nice to meet you all! Actually I'm here because I have a book in which I'm struggling with a statement related with electron spin. If you allow me to ask then may I?
Actually I'm struggling here with a line, it's written something like this "be remembered that the spin of an electron is some kind of property and is not actually spin."
What does this line actually mean, as far as i know that the spin of an electron is the rotation about its own axis
But here it's mentioned that it's not actually spin but it's some other kind of property?
the wording "spin is not actually spin" is very confusing and I would be surprised if that is an actual quote. Are you sure the text isn't saying that spin is not actually rotation?
they mean that while spin behaves like angular momentum, it is not actually related to literal classical rotation (the electron is a point particle, after all, it is not even clear what it would mean classically for it to spin around itself)
But even if it is a point particle then also it occupies some space that means it should have some radius and if such then it must have an axis of rotation around which it can spin
there is no explanation for what spin "is" in any more elementary terms - as far as we know it really is just an angular-momentum-like quantity that particles possess much like they possess mass or charge
But do they really have this amount of sufficient angular momentum that they can produce such a great amount of magnetic field which was able to be detected in that experiment?
I thought that's how they detected that electron has angular momentum because as they bombarded the electrons through variable magnetic field, so because of that field to field interaction they just deflected from their path
Yes, that must be the reason. Now the conclusion here i think is that the experiment was carried out just to confirm the presence of magnetic field (produced by that silver atom) which should be a consequence of electron possessing angular momentum.
Although people call me a physics expert but in front of you I'm just nothing. it's my duty to call you 'sir' as you are helping me to increase my knowledge more precisely.
I don't like honorifics, especially not when they're used for me. I know there are people who get angry if you don't show them the proper "respect" but you really don't need to call me 'sir'
we're all just people, and you're not "nothing" just because you might know less than I do.
(also I don't think I've done anything to indicate I'm male)
the only time that doesn't happen is when my profile picture is very obviously female and then the assumptions tend to be bothersome in different ways :P
@ACuriousMind most of the reputed space organizations have only few people in their lab but still they are capable to touch the moon. Because those few people are like you, the brainists.
and I disagree with the idea that the main thing that impedes humanity's progress is a lack of smart people
the hard reality is that having smart people doesn't magically solve societal problems or somehow magically make resources available (where does all the stuff these "brainists" shoot into space come from?)
it's not really a matter of brainy tbh. it's mostly just a matter of whether they have enough interest in the subject to put the time and effort into learning it
@ACuriousMind if anything i think "intelligence" in the usual stereotypical sense can be a problem, in that it tends to make people devalue other kinds of intelligence (emotional/social/etc)
@Semiclassical yes, there is a certain brand of "smart person" who tends to ignore or actively deny any problem that can't be solved with technology/science alone
the main difference between physicists and physics enthusiasts to my brain is in the realm of class position, tho that's not quite the right word for it
it's not a matter of different brains but different circumstances/communities
@SirCumference @ACuriousMind @RyanUnger okay guys (don't know what to say other than the word 'guys' as you said i can't call you 'sir' but hey, anyways) so it's midnight here, and I guess it's time to go to bed for me by the way i enjoyed a lot here and also gained some true knowledge and if you people allow me then I can spend some time with you guys here everyday?
do yall think non-linear learning is objectively better (for learning) than reading through a textbook sequentially
Though, perhaps it is a loaded question. Idk I find it hard to believe that unless 1) you already have enough background knowledge to skip certain section, or 2) the chapter contains disjoint concepts that do not depend on one another, then non-linear learning seems a bit questionable
@SillyGoose I don't think it is "objectively better", but learning how to skim a text without having to read it completely sequentially is a useful skill
sometimes it might be good for learning to just read ahead and only go back when stuff is unclear (that what indices + CTRL+F are for!), but it's also useful beyond that
e.g. when I try to understand a paper I usually read the introduction and the conclusion first and then look in the middle for interesting bits instead of reading it from front to back :P
this isn't always the most effective method, but it reduces the time spent reading parts I don't actually care about or that I already understand significantly
of course it's a bit different if you try to read a textbook, but I also find it rare that a textbook should contain completely new and worthwhile information on every page :P
Lastly, often you can actually skip sections of books if you're willing to treat them as black boxes: The book might not need you to understand the entire section, it will just say "as we showed in chapter X" and as long as you're then willing to take the one claim that follows that on faith you can understand what follows just fine
this is also a useful skill: learning to accept and understand arguments without having to go down every possible rabbit hole of explanations to their bottom, that's a trap I see people falling into far too often
there's a place for that kind of deep analysis, but imo it should never be the during the first reading of a text
