The h Bar

5:05 AM

I think the coriolis force should exist only if the ball flies off the rotating frame.
Because without that the ball would be rotating along with observer at rotating frame and the observer will see the ball in straight trajectory and the ground observer would see the ball takung the curved paths.
Which is contraction to my read book.
Am i right or i have a misconception?

user280247

6:19 AM

any idea abt how to solve this problem ?

Slereah

7:03 AM

Morning

Anonymous

@Slereah Morning. Howzlife? :)

Slereah

Disappointing

Anonymous

Oh, why? :|

Slereah

You know

just in general

Anonymous

Sorta same here.....my life's disappointing because I can never hear the alarm clock in the morning :P

Anonymous

7:10 AM

Hmm, my schedule gets completely messed up during holidays. Gotta buckle up I guess

Al Nejati

why is life disappointing

Anonymous

@AlNejati Is that a question or rhetoric? :P

Al Nejati

genuine question

Anonymous

@AlNejati Ans: Because reasons.

Anonymous

7:26 AM

(The primary reason being of course that I am deaf while sleeping and since I'm the center of the universe, everyone else's life is disappointing too)

Secret

9:44 AM

life is slow for me, will get steady soon. Just one more keystone and it will be completed

Noah P

10:21 AM

Is there any reason why it wouldn't be possible to find a vector potential, $\vec{A}$ for $B(\vec{r}) \propto \vec{r}$?

John Rennie

10:36 AM

@NoahP wouldn't that magnetic field have a non-zero divergence?

Noah P

How so? @JohnRennie

John Rennie

@NoahP the field lines all start at the origin and radiate outwards

Noah P

Ahhh ok, thanks!

ostrichguy

12:13 PM

@Blue are you free?

Can you please help me solve the problem on QM that I've sent tomorrow ?

Anonymous

@ostrichguy Sorry, no. I'm preparing for a test

ostrichguy

Ah nevermind.

Slereah

1:08 PM

We can't help you with a problem that you sent tomorrow

2

for tomorrow has not happened yet

2

Emilio Pisanty

1:28 PM

@Chair seriously? That's one heck of an unanswerable question.

Avnish Kabaj

In many languages tomorrow and yesterday is the Same word

Secret

What if tomorrow had already happened

Semiclassical

today and today-adjacent

Secret

and we are living in yesterday's future

Avnish Kabaj

Oh yeah he's an indian

kal is that word

Anonymous

1:41 PM

Kaal

Kaal or Kāla (Sanskrit: काल [kɑːˈlə]; Tamil: காலம் ( listen) kaalam or kaala) is a word used in Sanskrit to mean "time". The Tamil word kaalam refers to duration (an interval) in time. It is also the name of a deity in which sense it is not always distinguishable from kāla meaning "black". It is often used as one of the various names or forms of Yama. Kaal/Kaala is also referred to the concept of Spacetime. In the Yogic System the concept of SpaceTime was referred to as one word rather than two separate concepts of Space (darkness) and Time. == Etymology == Monier-Williams's widely used Sanskrit...

Anonymous

> Kaal/Kaala is also referred to the concept of Spacetime. In the Yogic System the concept of SpaceTime was referred to as one word rather than two separate concepts of Space (darkness) and Time.

Anonymous

Oh boy XD

Anonymous

So umm...Einstein just copied from the yogis? Seems legit

Semiclassical

show me where it talks about time dilation, then we'll talk :P

Anonymous

@Semiclassical Easy: Check this highly peer-reviewed paper from your favourite site

Anonymous

1:47 PM

That too written by a civil engineer

Anonymous

About time to accept that we've been living in a lie ;)

Semiclassical

...ow

user351417

@EmilioPisanty Okee I'm not an expert in this and it's all stuff I've read myself so tell me if I have a completely messed up idea, but isn't it that question describing 2 degenerate layers being split due to the Zeeman effect? After that the photons wouldn't necessarily be in squeezed states but the polarization depends on the change in $m$, right? So if there's a change of $\Delta m =\pm 1$ you get polarized light perpendicular to the field and if $\Delta m=0$ you get light parallel to the field?

user351417

I thought something of the sort would make an appropriate answer, so I left that open.

user351417

I didn't really understand why your comment implied that the question's too broad... perhaps the difference is that I interpreted that stuff as two degenerate orbits splitting due to the external field with another level being discrete and significantly higher/lower, while you took it as the two levels being degenerate in the first place?

Emilio Pisanty

2:19 PM

> isn't it that question describing 2 degenerate layers being split due to the Zeeman effect?

no.

it's specifically saying that those two "layers" are not split.

the only way the question can be made to make sense is if there are more states involved

and the answer will depend on those states: which ones, how many, at what energy, at what coupling, etc etc etc

unless and until the question specifies all of those conditions, the answer will be "sometimes yes, sometimes no", which is completely useless to OP and to any future visitors.

The question as amended in the comments basically asks "Suppose that I have some sort of quantum system doing possibly-quantum stuff. Does quantum stuff happen?"

user351417

hmm yeah, I tend to say 'layers' though 'levels' is the right word. Anyways, it goes back to the interpretation which I described. I think the answer I guessed, which seems similar enough to what you say the answer is, where you discuss the different possibilities/factors is OK; it'd probably help the OP, though I can't imagine future visitors ending up in that state.

user351417

I ignored that stuff in the comments because 1) I had no idea what he was trying to say and 2) It's a comment, not an edit. If that's supposed to be taken seriously, I'd like to see it formally added to the post in a manner which reflects the OP's intent.

CooperCape

This q. says that a group of people want to hold a party for a length such that their 'celebrations' are simultaneous with the impact of a comet on Jupiter in all inertial frames.

My thoughts is that it has to go on forever as some inertial frames move at $c$

but is it really just that?

danielunderwood

2:56 PM

I don't think a frame moving at the speed of light is considered an inertial frame

Emilio Pisanty

For full clarity: there are no pairs of inertial frames that are moving at the speed of light w.r.t. each other.

user280247

Any idea on how to solve this problem about airplane landing?

Transcript for