@SirCumference Oh, miao miao didn't think that was useful to students. Can add something like that to myow own book. But maybe you would want to read Feynman-Hibbs, because even though it doesnt even begin to talk about Hilbert spaces, the connection to Analytical mechanics is very obvious.
@SirCumference id wonder why someone would think otherwise. Even from the beginning, from Bohr's complementarity principle, the connection to classical mechanics is emphasised. But I can see that the problem was that both von Neumann and Dirac didnt see that it was important to present it that way, and so everybody else just accepted their treatment as gospel and left it at that.
@qwerty You have a full programming language in your hands right there; there ought to be nothing that you cannot handle. It is more a matter of convenience: is it easier to write some code every time? Or is it easier to open Excel and perform some quick calculation.
@qwerty Those hurdles existed because VBA is almost powerful enough to be a proper programming language, and that meant there were plenty of viruses. Business needs the viruses gone, so those protective hurdles got installed and never removed.
Hi everyone, I have a basic question about Dirichlet boundary value problem in electromagnetism: I know how to derive potential outside a sphere given the potential on the boundary using Green's functions.
But if I am given a surface charge density on the sphere, instead of the potential on the it and I have derived the Dirichlet Green's function for a sphere, how do I find the potential outside the sphere?
Hi @RyderRude , I have resolved the mystery of constants in term of one mass automatically become magnitude as 1 any one object. Also how momentum always conserved. : )
@qwerty Turing completeness. And not being so horrible as to be hilariously unusable. The latter condition rules out things like intercal, brainf*ck, and so forth.
I have few concerns and questions about above topic from taylors mechanics by imposing different situations.
1. In the above two particles interacting system, but $F_1^{ext}$ and $F_2^{ext}$ are two different particles having different positions and both external forces on both particles having different magnitude and direction at different location. How can we add both external forces to find resultant external force adding like a concurrent forces? $F^{ext} = F_1^{ext} + F_2^{ext}$
2. What if these two particles are noninteracting system. Then there is no $F_{12}$ and $F_{21}$ then how can we add external forces on both particles to find resultant external force?
@123 u r allowed to add forces at different locations, because this is a useful quantity. The total force on a system is the sum of forces, and it doesn't matter if the forces are at different locations
I think answer for question-1 lies in the center-of-mass COM . The external forces on both interacting particles considered as acting on a COM. By this way we can add both external forces as concurrent forces to find resultant. Am i correct?
if F1 and F2 are the same in both situations, u will get the same result of $\dot {P}$ for both situations. It doesn't mean u will get the same motion for both situations
I think to find the motion in both situations, we need to work on forces/rate of momentum for individual particles. We can not use net external force or net momentum change. Am i correct? @RyderRude
You are saying motion of COM depend on net external force , total momentum and total mass. Can you pls share the equation? Pls we discuss on personal room. It is almost end
Okay... You raised the answer about COM. but problem is that in free space two particles system will have motion both rotation and translation in both situations differently about COM.
Net external act at COM? if this is the case then only translation happen.
Okay here's something I'm confused about .. when I use the geodesic deviation vector for a family of particles ... Do these particles have to be of the same mass?
@MoreAnonymous Oh,he's got two courses,the first one is 'statistical physics of particles' .The second one being the more advanced statistical field theory.
How does one show the turning point condition in a 2 particle collision is Lorentz invariant? Like how do I know total energy = kinetic energy wont change if I do a boost?
is there a name for a distribution of probability distributions?
I am interested in, say, a random variable that follows a Bernoulli distribution characterized by probability $p(t)$ where $p$ itself is a time-dependent random variable
