Recent content by harts

Got an offer to go to Los Alamos! Thought I'd comment because I saw a couple of others on this thread who had applied to this lab. It has to do with nuclear magnetic resonance methods - anyone here vaguely familiar with this stuff?

Modern Physics, 6th edition, by Paul Tipler and Ralph Llewellyn

The yahoo answer is incorrect. Notice how it gives the energy that it would take to "reverse the orientation". To go from the lowest potential energy to the highest potential energy, you have ΔU=pE-(-pE). Check out this wikipedia page - specifically, the section on torque on a dipole...

As for your confusion on the centripetal force question, notice that 6.8 micrograms is 6.8 E-9 kilograms, not 6.8E-6 kilograms.

A dipole has a net charge of zero. A dipole field falls off according to the relationship r-3. If you can show from the data you're given that the field follows this relationship, you can conclude that it is a dipole, and therefore conclude that the net charge is zero. For the other one, I...

Hi Physics Forum! I want you guys to help me out. I want to learn physics the hard way. Let me explain. I'm currently finishing my sophomore year at Colorado School of Mines. I am majoring in Engineering Physics. I'm doing great in school. I've signed up for SPS and APS - Physics Today should...

The tension in the string, which is the source of torque for this scenario, is not equal to mb*g. Remember that the acceleration that you calculated wasn't g.

I'm currently preparing for a challenge exam, and I'm having trouble understanding antennas. My physics book is good, but it is very brief in its section on antennas. I know there are more complicated types of antennas, but let's just stick with the "simple" half-wave antenna (or dipole antenna...

Its not 8*10^4 either. That's, 80,000. And.. thanks?

The person is falling at a faster speed at 40 meters than at 20 meters, because of gravity.

Another useful equation that would work in your case is P=Fv This comes from the fact that P = ΔW/Δt = FΔx/Δt = Fv

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/heis/heis.html This lecture thing I found when I googled Heisenberg's microscope kinda defends my angle approximation idea. Now that I look at this lecture, I'm pretty sure they are getting that 2 from the fact that the uncertainty in p ranges from...

All of these equations, on your pdf and on wikipedia, are all approximations. Maybe they all roughly explain the same thing?

correct

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html