Recent content by PhDeezNutz

Here’s a clip of Neil conflating the uncertainty principle with the observer effect. And while it’s true that most people don’t correctly understand trans issues…….the public voice of science has a responsibility not to spout nonsense. He doesn’t get a pass on “gender qubits” In regards to...

I know this thread is about Brian cox so I’ll make a post about him soon. But Neil is even worse. In defense of trans rights he said “maybe we are gender qubits”. regardless of anyone’s stance the science behind sex vs. gender identity is much more complex than making a stupid quantum analogy...

I agree with OP. It's clear that physics is not NDGT's wheel house despite him being the most popular outwardly facing "physicist" of our era.

God that guy was funny!😄 I’m gonna be honest. I’m still scared of him even after his passing. But as said before RIP. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-explain-ai-to-middle-schoolers.1065916/

I noticed your supposed solution paper is from 15.8 of Stewart’s calculus book. Is it something like this?

You made the effort to post what I presume is the answer guide. Can you post a picture of the actual question? You talk about a cone at first and the picture shows a cylinder. I’m with many others. Confused.

I’m gonna be honest I was a little bit scared of him so I never ended up being lashed by him. But Rest in Peace!! My favorite post by him (in a now closed thread) was in regards to Sabine Hossenfelder is Post in thread '"The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)'...

The distance depends on the distance……who would have thought? That article is exceptionally bad.

Man I’m so sorry I didn’t see this thread until now. Even more sorry that I didn’t know until now. R.I.P.

On a side note (or maybe not a side note?). I think I see the motivation for defining the Poisson Bracket. If we add a total time derivative ##\frac{dF(q,p,t)}{dt}## to the Lagrangian and ASSUME that Hamilton’s equations hold, that is ##\dot q = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p}## ##\dot p = -...

Based off of these MIT Notes: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-09-classical-mechanics-iii-fall-2014/f00f7f68ac7ba346a0868efb7430582c_MIT8_09F14_Chapter_4.pdf 1) This set of notes starts with the premise that ##L’ = L + \frac{dF(q,t)}{dt} = L + \frac{\partial F}{\partial q} \dot q + \frac{\partial...

OP are you familiar with solving second order linear non-homogenous differential equations? I was able to get the correct answer (Which is A btw as others have pointed out) Use the ansatz ##x(t) = Ae^{\sqrt{5} t} + Be^{-\sqrt{5} t} + C## Apply the initial conditions ##x(0) = 0## and ##...

I think the answer for the charge across the second capacitor that was initially charged to ##C\epsilon## should be ##\frac{1}{3} C \epsilon \left(e^{-\frac{3t}{2CR}} + 2 \right)## Which i was able to get through Laplace Transforms. This answer at the very least supports the initial condition...

I think a partial answer to OP’s question “without integration or differentiation” is using Laplace transforms. I will give it some more thought as to how I would incorporate initial conditions.

What is the meaning of CE? (Capacitance times electric field?) I’m not sure that has units of charge as the problem statement indicates.