Recent content by rhoparkour

Oh my bad, just a typo. Here's the good one: P + \frac{K^{2}}{g D} \ddot{P} = 0 Just got the P miced up with the P'' for a second.

Is there any hope of solving the geodesic equation of motion? If so, that could prove your point and allow you to plot geodesics. I have another idea, try plotting an x-y, we see that geodesics for a constant time "t0" have the derivative: \frac{dy}{dx} = M \left[ 1 + 2h cos\left(\omega...

I may be confused here, but what is a straight line in a curved space? From my understanding, there are no more straight lines, but geodesics. So the way I see it, the problem is asking you: is a geodesic a geodesic? Now, if we "define" a straight line to be something parametrized as: x...

Gaussian functions multiplied by powers of x are usually solved by integration by parts. Also, any self-respecting physicist knows that: \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} e^{-x^{2}} \, dx = \sqrt{\pi} *This is as hard to derive as it appears. Even wikipedia has it at...

I just have to ask, you have not defined K so I'm not sure your derivation is correct. Assuming it is correct, you just got your answer. HINT: Compare your final differential equation with the harmonic oscillator differential equation. i.e.Compare \ddot{x} + \omega^{2}x = 0 with...

Your principle of uncertainty formula is wrong, just by a hair. The expectation value of the commutator is not just squared, it is the modulus squared; i.e. it is itself times its conjugate. I have not checked the rest, this is all on a quick glance and that's why your i factor does not...

xaos is right, this "conversion" of the problem is a local approximation of your F,G functions to an linear (or affine) function. In general the set of equations you give is not linear, the only way to "linearize" it is to do this Taylor expansion (assuming the F and G were not already linear).

The Landau series has a good treatment of this as well. It starts off with a Lagrangian formulation.

I agree with shoehorn. Wald's book is a rigorous relativity text, but still written in a physics style. None of this "see Theorem 4.5.6" and "according to Lemma 3.5.67b" nonsense. Wald is as abstract and rigorous as possible without sacrificing the physical content of relativity. That is...

Ok, here goes, I hope my LATEX is good enough. Let me describe the situation we have here. We have a vector field F of class C1 defined on the whole of R3, two surfaces S and S' sharing the same boundary B (namely, the circle). For the sake of clarity, Stokes' theorem says: \iint_{S}...

Let me give you a hint. Stoke's theorem relates the surface integration of the curl of F with the boundary integration of JUST F, taking into account orientation (you should be able to answer how you do this, the trick is in relating the normal to the surface to a direction in boundary...

First off, B is already given, you are assuming the wire does not exert forces on itself (or at least, these contributions are irrelevant). There is no one unit tangent vector L. You must think of the bent wire as being made of little pieces of straight wire and find the torque exerted by the...

Have you tried to see if the relativistic four momentum is conserved in this frame? I think I got it. Before the encounter, the total four momentum in said frame is 0, after it it will be something not zero due to the rest mass of the electron. I haven't really thought about it, but maybe...