Recent content by Kamper

So: Suppose one is examining the hydrogen atom and one is in doubt whether to use the Schrödinger or the Dirac equation. Would one then proceed with the Dirac or, if only the low energy states are of interest, use the Schrödinger?

On* My apologies

Well, depends ón how meticulous you are...;-)

One should specify that the "center" is the galaxy's center of mass, right?

But is a general inadequacy in the theory to blame for the limited use or does it just speak to the practical nature of physicsist? And wouldn't one risk missing important points if one's system evaluation is non relativistic?

Than* light* My iPad's autocorrect, one might question whether the name is fitting, is playing around.

Would one consequently use relativistic QM or in some cases use the non relativistic postulates when dealing with a problem in the same that classical physics are used frequently when one deals with objects traveling at speeds much lower then the speed of ligth??

Yes, or every solar system does.

Earth does get its orders from that very same object; however in addition it also orbits the sun in the same way that the moon orbits Earth and thereby also the sun since the Earth orbits the sun.

Obviously the Sun is not the only Star to "bob" up and down because the forces that dictates the sun's movement are the same as those dictating the orbits of the rest of the stars.

When evaluating the flux of the vector field you take the dot product of the surface normal to dA and the vector field. So the flux becomes F=V dot NdA Where NdA is determined by which surface you are evaluating

The definitions do not contradict. When you take the surface integral you basically sum-up all the vectors "flowing" through the surface so both your definitions are the same.

To me it seems unlikely that the transistors are going to become entirely obsolete. It seems much more likely that the technology will evolve and adapt.

Ill try that then. Thank you!

Thanks for the reply by the way!