Recent content by Naz93

Hi, Probably a really stupid question... but I'm confused about how to relate a line width in frequency to one in wavelength. To me it seems obvious that if there's a broader spread of frequencies, there must be a broader spread of wavelengths, and vice versa - after all, the line is broader...

Amazing, thanks! That's a really nice explanation :-)

But how to project a circle onto the curved surface of a sphere? Is the way to actually calculate a solid angle to use the equation on wikepedia (integral of sin(theta)d(theta)d(phi) ) with the limits of theta and phi both set to the divergence angle?

Thanks both. The formula would then give the divergence, calculated from the two beam diameters and the distance between them... but then I'm still confused how to get the solid angle of the beam from the divergence. I think I'm just confused what a solid angle even is...

Well... I don't know what theta or phi even are in relation to the beam divergence. The equation is a correct expression for a solid angle in terms of the two polar angle coordinates, but I don't see how it helps in finding the solid angle given a beam divergence...

Hmm, that kind of explains it. All I'm really after is a way to calculate a number for the solid angle of a beam, given a number for the divergence of the beam... I'm still not sure how to do this

Be careful - the initial velocity is horizontal, but there is no horizontal acceleration. You have that the initial vertical velocity component is 0 m/s, the vertical acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2 downwards, and you don't know the final vertical velocity. You know the horizontal distance traveled is...

I don't know of an equation to calculate solid angle from beam divergence... I only know solid angle by the definition dΩ=sinθ*dθ*dø I feel like I'm missing something obvious here...

I am somewhat confused about the connection between divergence and solid angle for a beam. I know individually what each term means... but I'm confused as to how (or even if) one can calculate the solid angle of a beam, given the divergence. I have some notes from a previous lecture series I...

x=0. But this just corresponds to the motion starting at the equilibrium position. For future t, x then oscillates symmetrically about x=0.

the value of phi is just a phase shift that determines the value of the displacement from equilibrium (x) at time t=0.

So, in the original equation, you have F = G*m1*m2/r^2 In the new equation, you have F' = G *(2xm1)*(3xm2)/r^2 = 6*G*m1*m2/r^2 = 6*F So the force is increased by a factor of 6. Does that make sense? (Apologies for the badly formatted equations, I'm useless with this stuff... will...

1. x is displacement from equilibrium. One way to see this must be the case is that the right side of the equation is symmetric about the equilibrium position, so the left side must be too. It couldn't be the displacement from the maximum extension point. 2. Yes. You've got it :) 3...

Rather than put all the numbers in, just note that F depends on the product of the masses. So if one mass doubles and the other triples, you can replace m1 with 2xm1 and m2 with 3xm2. Write both equations (the original one and the one with the new masses) side by side, and the answer should be...

As the others have said, in an inelatic collision, there is a maximal loss of kinetic energy (it is 0 in the centre of momentum frame). This corresponds to the two masses moving together in any other (inertial) frame. So there is only one velocity to consider in the final state, reducing the...