Suppose I was standing in the sea, and touched an electric fence; I would receive an electric shock, because both my body and the sea are conductors, and create a path for the electricity to flow. The sea is so big that it has the capacity to draw and dissipate a great quantity of charge. However...
But neither of the two have enough details. What is the best way to get more informative answers?
Will starting a bounty be helpful? I'm asking this because two of my bounties I started on a different site went in vain. I didn't get even a single answer. Are there any alternatives? Kindly guide me in this regard. Thank you.
Please explain this statement,"The solute atoms are able to diffuse in the specimen at a rate faster the speed of dislocations so as to catch and lock them.Therefore the load must increase and when the dislocations are torn away the solute atoms there is a load drop."
I looked a little more yesterday regarding how the phycists think about physics. My impression is that in different models things may either have indefinite states (position, momentum etc) (case 1, Copenhagen interpretation etc) or have definite states (case 2: pilot wave theory), but it doesn't seem to matter much as it might not be too clear how exactly unknowability (hidden variables in case 2) differs from uncertainty (case 1).
I know little about decoherence, (did not get into the linear algebra), but according to some description, it seems that decoherence is somewhat viewed by some as leaking? information from a system to another. And from the point of view of an observer in another system, there could be a definite outcome (a.k.a. a measurement happens).
There is also a thing called the rate of decoherence so that even though every thing is interacting with every thing in the observable universe, a wave function might not be 'collapsed' much if it's a weak interaction (ex. very weak gravitational pull, or encountering a photon with little energy etc.)
There is also a perspective problem (ex. Wigner's friend): if a measurement happens between system 1 and system 2, to an outsider system 3, does the the wavefunction of system 1+2 change if no measurement happens between system 1+2 and system 3 yet. I guess system 1+2 would still appear in a superposition for system 3 if system 3 does no measurement on it but I guess it doesn't make much difference from an observer point of view.
@JohnRennie If possible, could you take a peek at what I wrote and let me know if that makes any sense to you? You don't need to explain anything, thanks a lot!
Background
So if I think of a gas of say having only $2$ point particles $A$ and $B$. Then, the Hamiltonian in the relativistic case is given by:
$$ H_1 = \gamma_A m_Ac^2 + \gamma_B m_Bc^2 $$
where $\gamma= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$ and $m$ is mass.
However, this doesn't really make sense...
Yeah, the feedback to users w.r.t. reviews isn't great.
@MoreAnonymous Given that both close votes that currently are on the post were cast after most of your edits (something you also can't tell, I know), we would likely remove the bounty to let the close review be finished first. So no, please don't put a bounty on that.
Frankly, I would not recommend bountying that question in its current form at all, since it is entirely unclear. For starters: You talk about equations of motion but never actually write down a single such equation. You add that $\delta$-term to your Hamiltonian and seem to believe it somehow changes the behaviour during collisions but you haven't done anything to show that.
Before asking this question I searched for the answer on the web (in particular on Physics.SE) and here are some that I found:
In an incompressible Ideal fluid, can the pressure increase with depth?
Why do water molecule apply more pressure (i.e., more force) at depth?
..., etc. But the answe...
@M.GuruVishnu I think your best bet is a bounty still. If it doesn't work out, then I guess that's just what is going to happen. Although keep in mind that the amount of points you put up might affect the attention it gets
>If the charge is moving with some velocity $v$ then the force on it is $ q(\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B})$ and the distance $d\mathbf{l}$ that it travels can be written as $$ d\mathbf{l} = \mathbf{v}dt$$ and therefore the expression for work will be $$ \int \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{l} = \int q(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) \cdot \mathbf{v}dt = 0$$
But the problem is why he has replaced $d\mathbf{l}$ by $\mathbf{v}dt$. The definition of work says "Force times the displacement caused by that force" but here he has not used the displacement caused by the force rather he has taken the original displacement
@AbhasKumarSinha There's a lot of point in teaching students Newtonian mechanics though. It's approximately true and can give very useful models for the macroscopic non-high speed world. You can have entire careers and fields based on newtonian physics.
@Knight $$ dl = v \, dt \\ \dfrac d {dt} l = v$$ is a kinematic assumption and can't be proved...
@JMac That's what I said, QM and GR seem rather very absurd and incomplete and have a scope of a lot of improvements in the future. Rather Newtonian Mechanics can be shown working
No the problem is $dl = vdt$ is the equation that we use if the particle were traveling with $v$, we should take $dl$ that is caused by the force and which must be in the direction of the force
@AbhasKumarSinha QM and GR are technically more true than newtonian mechanics though. They can more accurately describe phenomenon where newtonian mechanics fails, and still seem to come out to the newtonian solutions when the conditions of newtonian mechanics are met.
@JMac That's true, but modern physics have a lot of scope for improvements, teaching QM now doesn't gurantees that the QM would be same as today after 60 years. Personally, I align myself to the group saying God does not play dice Even though there might not be any hidden variable, but another equation apart from Sch eqns, to describe the system correctly...
@AbhasKumarSinha Well it was an attempt to describe how things worked in general. Newton never specified that it was only for low velocities and that it had limits due to the speed of light. He never mentioned that it broke down at microscopic scales. It is an incomplete model, moreso than QM for example, because QM can explain newtonian mechanics and high speed situations.
There is word complete different, which not work on my question, I haven, t edited the title in fact, and make the question suitable with article. @ACuriousMind @JMac
@yuvrajsingh You asked a question and it was answered - if you have a different question, you should ask it as a new question. It is not fair to the people who answered if you completely change the content of the question.
Brother earlier the question not justify my title, in fact posted the question, when I was very very fresh user on the site, today I updated the question. With suitable subject.
According to Bayesian Nash equilibrium In a two player first-price sealed bid auction I know that expected payoff is given by 2*v1*s1 - 2*s1*s1 where s1 is the bid price of player 1 and v1 is the valuation.
In a first-price sealed bid auction with n risk-neutral agents whose valuations are indep...
@yuvrajsingh You're title may have described what you wanted to ask, but the body of your question asked something quite different, and people gave you answers about that. I don't see how it's fair to make their answers invalid because your title and question didn't really match.
@yuvrajsingh Please stop calling me "brother". What you wanted to ask doesn't matter, what matters is the question you asked and you don't get to completely change that now. In particular since this appears to be your attempt to ask a new question even though you are currently blocked from asking further questions.
@AaronStevens I'm saying that displacement will be in the direction of the force, becasue the force will be perpendicular to velocity and particle will move perpendicular to its initial velocity.
@yuvrajsingh Actually... looking at the question history, it should be rolled back and closed as a duplicate again. The question was closed as a duplicate on June 9th, the same day you got those answers. The question didn't ask about heat. physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/485084/6 Changing the question completely like that is not okay to avoid a duplicate...
@yuvrajsingh physics.stackexchange.com/posts/485084/revisions ... really, you did it again? It should be rolled back to revision 6 when it was asking something completely different and closed as a duplicate. You can't completely change a question because it's closed as a duplicate, you need to ask a new question.
@Knight The profile shouldn't matter. If someone doesn't want you to call them brother, you shouldn't.
@Dale Yes. If OP has a new question, they can simply ask a new question. (If they can't because they are blocked by the system from asking further questions, then they are trying to circumvent that restriction, which we also shouldn't accommodate) — ACuriousMind ♦1 hour ago
@ACuriousMind Your profile shows that you are not a student and hence must be having more knowledge and experience than an undergraduate, that's what I meant.
@PM2Ring @j Mac @ACuriousMind, I really sorry if some how, I disrespect the site and you, but this was the question which I want to ask, when I join the sitem
@yuvrajsingh Ok. But it's far too late to change your question now. It's ok to make small edits to make the question more clear, or to improve the grammar. But you should never make edits that cause existing valid answers to become invalid.
When a OP has one of their questions closed one of the main desirable outcomes is for the OP to edit the question to address the issues that led to the closure. However, where should we draw the line between editing an existing question and asking a new question?
In this case
How light wave ha...
I am trying to solve the Schrodinger equation for the harmonic oscillator potential. I don't see why I should use the asymptotic method(physics.stackexchange.com/questions/501156/…) rather than directly writing the wavefunction as a power series(I tried that but I can't seem to get to the Hermite polynomial solution). Any thoughts?
@Knight I think the sole reason for the confusion is that the magnetic force curves the path of the particle and hence the $dl$ shouldn't be in the direction of $v dt$ right? But you might notice that velocity (magnitude) doesn't change in due process and hence you can equate the magnitude of velocity times time as the path length.
@Knight Yes... by definition dl and v are in the same direction. Also by definition the work depends on dl. There isn't any assuming going on here. Just working with definitions of physical quantities
@AbhasKumarSinha No, different to "Surely you must be joking, Mr Feynman". Greg Egan was a programmer before he was able to support himself through his science fiction. On his Web site, there are many articles about the science & mathematics that he uses in his stories.
@Knight See if you take a look at any instant then $dl$ moved in that instant must have the direction of $v$. Now for calculating work what you need to know is the force as a function of displacement (for simplicity) and which in this case is always perpendicular to the displacement and hence is doing no work.
@Knight Yes, the direction of dl will change. However the magnetic force also changes direction due to this. The magnetic force is special in that it's direction depends on the velocity of the particle. I suggest first making sure you understand work, differentials etc. for easier forces. Then you can look at magnetic forces
@yuvrajsingh en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation Right, so there's the idea of thermal radiation. All bodies can emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation. It varies depending on the object and wavelegnth. If an object is absorbing more radiation than it emits to it's surroundings that heats the object up.
@AbhasKumarSinha https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q7hLf.png This is a diagram of a two port circuit that allegedly has the initial conditions as depicted. From this I am to find R1 and R6 so that I may find the value of I1 when I change the EMS generator output.
I've used the reciprocity theorem to swap E1,E2 and E3 so that I may get additional equations to solve the system for R1 and R6, but I find every system to be singular. I.e. I can't find any two R1 and R6 that satisfy these initial conditions.
@yuvrajsingh JMac has given you some good links, but also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation The basic idea is that when a body absorbs light, the energy from that light isn't destroyed, because energy is always conserved. So that energy increases the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules in the body, and that means its temperature rises. But that's just a rough description!
@NikolaPetrovic Apologies, I don't remember reprocity theorem, You may choose to wait for a while, till someone who knows comes here, or alternatively, you can use SE for it.
I've also used a circuit simulator to recreate the circuit (i.stack.imgur.com/LL3ca.png) and it doesn't seem to me that any values of R1 and R6 will let me measure 140mA and 100mA as depicted
I recreated only the initial conditions with that circuit - the generators V3 and V2 I've replaced with a short-circuit
@NikolaPetrovic Use simulators there to make charts and use Kerchoff's laws to roll the current to get the values and caluclate emp values of generators.
I'm looping through a multidimensional dictionary in python (it has products with ids, names, prices...) and then I'm putting that information of each product in an excel file with code. The problem is I have duplicate products and I want to remove them, that's why before the loop, I create an array where I append the id of a product if it doesn't exist and if it exists I don't put it in the excel. It doesn't work :(. Like, I can print the ids of the products that repeat but it doesn't stop
@NovaliumCompany BTW, to test duplicate products, it's probably more efficient to use a set (or maybe a dict), not a list. Especially if there are lots of products. Membership testing of sets & dicts is much more efficient than for lists.
i'm hosting from pythonanywhere and not only did I pay for hosting but now they are telling me I can only use the CPU max speed only 2000 secs, WOW!....
@NovaliumCompany That code looks ok, so I suppose the cause of your problem is in some other part of your code. BTW, if you do want to ask about this on Stack Overflow or in the Python room please post your code as (properly formatted) text, not as an image. People want to see code that they can edit & run, you can't easily do that with an image. ;)
@NovaliumCompany There's a free online Python interpreter at repl.it/@enaard/Python-3 It's ok, but a bit annoying to use from a phone.
If I have a list of the products and I want to remove the duplicate products in that list based on the id, how do I do that. I get the id by mylist[i].find("id").text
@NovaliumCompany How big is the list, usually? Removing items from lists is a bit inefficient. It's generally better to create a new list containing the stuff you want to keep. Do you need to preserve the order of the products in the list, or is it ok if they get jumbled up a little?
Also, removing stuff from a list that you're looping over is generally a bad idea, unless you're very careful. It's a bit like sawing off a tree branch that you're sitting on... :)
@NovaliumCompany Ok. So you've messed up the logic somewhere. And maybe some of that Beautiful Soup stuff doesn't work exactly the way you think it does. So you need to try & isolate the problem, like that page (that I linked a while ago) about minimal reprex & MCVE says.
@NovaliumCompany Yeah, if you're angry it's hard to think straight. So take a break. And when you come back to your code, try something else, like putting your products into a dict.
Take a break to eat if you're hungry. Sometimes you do that and get back to magically realize the solution. And 3 hours haven't gone to waste -- they've been spent learning something that will save you time in the future!
I now made an array containing only the allowed ids (i.e contains all except the duplicates) and in the main loop I check if the product id is in the array of allowed_ids only if it it's in, then add and it still doesn't work..........
@AbhasKumarSinha interesting article/ pov but it sometimes pushes it too far (reflecting Blairs ideology). global warming as "einsteinian" vs not newtonian? lol!
> Tiny traces of carbon dioxide in the air make a heat blanket around earth because of the Einsteinian physics of photons interacting with CO2 molecules.
it's quite complicated to explain but basically the allowed_ids array contains all ids except the duplicated but in the array there is one of each duplicate... it's a bit weird, anyways, time for Hawaii 5-0
user439435
6:25 PM
@AbhasKumarSinha sorry I haven't studied statistical mechanics yet(I'm a high schooler). Though if you have any relevant molecular model I can try to understand it(using whatsoever power of imagination that I have).
Background
So if I think of a gas of say having only $2$ point particles $A$ and $B$. Then, the Hamiltonian in the relativistic case is given by:
$$ H_1 = \gamma_A m_Ac^2 + \gamma_B m_Bc^2 $$
where $\gamma= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}$ and $m$ is mass.
However, this doesn't really make sense...
Before asking this question I searched for the answer on the web (in particular on Physics.SE) and here are some that I found:
In an incompressible Ideal fluid, can the pressure increase with depth?
Why do water molecule apply more pressure (i.e., more force) at depth?
..., etc. But the answe...
When a OP has one of their questions closed one of the main desirable outcomes is for the OP to edit the question to address the issues that led to the closure. However, where should we draw the line between editing an existing question and asking a new question?
In this case
How light wave ha...
