What were some books published before Newton that discussed Classical Mechanics?
Q. I am interested in finding books published before Newton on the topic of classical mechanics. I prefer no astronomy books. They could be philosophical or quantitative observations. Thank You.
Asked by crazy girl - Mon Jul 6 14:01:42 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A quick way to compile a bibliography is to get E.J. Dijksterhuis great book "The Mechanization of the World Picture" and look at his sources and the pre-Newton people he discusses. Major names in mechanics before Newton include Galileo (his "Two New Sciences"), Tartaglia, Guidobaldo del Monte, Torricelli, Stevin, Beeckman. Good luck.
Answered by CanProf - Mon Jul 6 14:16:41 2009
Q. I am interested in finding books published before Newton on the topic of classical mechanics. I prefer no astronomy books. They could be philosophical or quantitative observations. Thank You.
Asked by crazy girl - Mon Jul 6 14:01:42 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A quick way to compile a bibliography is to get E.J. Dijksterhuis great book "The Mechanization of the World Picture" and look at his sources and the pre-Newton people he discusses. Major names in mechanics before Newton include Galileo (his "Two New Sciences"), Tartaglia, Guidobaldo del Monte, Torricelli, Stevin, Beeckman. Good luck.
Answered by CanProf - Mon Jul 6 14:16:41 2009
Where can I get the solutions manual for the physics textbook: "Classical Mechanics" by John R. Taylor?
Q. I am a big believer that students learn the most when they have access to the solutions manual for their texts. Grading and return of homework by teaching assistants takes too long to be useful, and the solutions to problems are most helpful immediately after solving the problem, so the method you used is still fresh in your mind. In light of this, I am looking for the solutions manual to "Classical Mechanics" by John R. Taylor, but have not as yet been able to find it. Does anyone know where it can be found? Thanks! G
Asked by tangoprince - Fri Jul 25 05:39:35 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. i agree with you, it is very difficult to know if you understand a subject if you don't know whether you are getting the answers right or not the answers give you the assurance that you know what you're doing i can't find the book you want, but you can request it on this site i've noticed this site isn't as good as it used to be, many of the solution manuals are no longer available, but it might be worth a try ,.,.,.
Answered by The Wolf - Fri Jul 25 05:59:31 2008
Q. I am a big believer that students learn the most when they have access to the solutions manual for their texts. Grading and return of homework by teaching assistants takes too long to be useful, and the solutions to problems are most helpful immediately after solving the problem, so the method you used is still fresh in your mind. In light of this, I am looking for the solutions manual to "Classical Mechanics" by John R. Taylor, but have not as yet been able to find it. Does anyone know where it can be found? Thanks! G
Asked by tangoprince - Fri Jul 25 05:39:35 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. i agree with you, it is very difficult to know if you understand a subject if you don't know whether you are getting the answers right or not the answers give you the assurance that you know what you're doing i can't find the book you want, but you can request it on this site i've noticed this site isn't as good as it used to be, many of the solution manuals are no longer available, but it might be worth a try ,.,.,.
Answered by The Wolf - Fri Jul 25 05:59:31 2008
Does light follow the theorem of the addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics?
Q. for example: the light travels at 300,000 km/s when a man flashes the light whale riding a train running at 50 km/s does the speed of the light becomes 300,050 km/s?
Asked by Kent N - Mon Feb 23 04:42:29 2009 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No Speed light is constant and has an maximum limit. And thus nothing can ravel faster than speed of light. Thus c+c=c where c= speed of light. -rds
Answered by Rohn - Mon Feb 23 04:49:12 2009
Q. for example: the light travels at 300,000 km/s when a man flashes the light whale riding a train running at 50 km/s does the speed of the light becomes 300,050 km/s?
Asked by Kent N - Mon Feb 23 04:42:29 2009 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. No Speed light is constant and has an maximum limit. And thus nothing can ravel faster than speed of light. Thus c+c=c where c= speed of light. -rds
Answered by Rohn - Mon Feb 23 04:49:12 2009
Where does classical mechanics break down into quantum?
Q. Where does classical mechanics break down into quantum?
Asked by ABC123 - Fri Jul 17 14:11:50 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Yes, it is somewhat true. The quantum Mechanics is always at play. We dont much realize it when we are dealing with the big objects, say a cup, a football or the Earth, for that matter. Earth itself has a wave but the size is so big that the wavelength is wayyy too small and in effect becomes insignificant. At the level of things very very small...the atoms, or the electrons or at the level of quarks and strings (though all in theory)...the QM takes effect and we see the properties of matter better defined than Newtonian mechanics is capable of. QM is the best theory so far in terms of its reliabilty. It has proven to be most successful, something like the General Relativity...what GR is for Black holes, QM is for atoms.
Answered by Sid - Fri Jul 17 14:31:15 2009
Q. Where does classical mechanics break down into quantum?
Asked by ABC123 - Fri Jul 17 14:11:50 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Yes, it is somewhat true. The quantum Mechanics is always at play. We dont much realize it when we are dealing with the big objects, say a cup, a football or the Earth, for that matter. Earth itself has a wave but the size is so big that the wavelength is wayyy too small and in effect becomes insignificant. At the level of things very very small...the atoms, or the electrons or at the level of quarks and strings (though all in theory)...the QM takes effect and we see the properties of matter better defined than Newtonian mechanics is capable of. QM is the best theory so far in terms of its reliabilty. It has proven to be most successful, something like the General Relativity...what GR is for Black holes, QM is for atoms.
Answered by Sid - Fri Jul 17 14:31:15 2009
Why would, according to classical mechanics, an electron emit radiation whilst orbitting an atom?
Q. I'm doing an A-Level Physics research project on the Bohr model of the atom. As part of it, i want to explain why the Rutherfordian atom was innaccurate, i.e. that it predicts that the electrons will spiral into the nucleus within X nanoseconds because they would emit radiation. I've found nowhere so far that explains WHY they would emit radiation. I've been pointed towards Cherenkov Radiation as an answer, but I'm not sure how that could explain it. Thanks
Asked by jmmL - Wed Oct 31 09:12:05 2007 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. In classical electromagnetism, any time a charge is subjected to an acceleration, it emits electromagnetic radiation. That is, wiggle an electron, and you'll see radio waves (or light, X-ray, etc.) moving away from that spot (this is how a radio broadcasting antenna works). In the classical model, an electron orbits a proton. It is under continuous acceleration toward the proton. This means it should, by the classical physics rules, be producing electromagnetic radiation. The energy for this radiation has to come from somewhere, it comes from the orbital motion of the electron around the proton. So, the electron loses energy, and falls closer to the proton. Closer in, the acceleration is higher, so it loses even more energy even… [cont.]
Answered by Christopher N - Wed Oct 31 09:47:45 2007
Q. I'm doing an A-Level Physics research project on the Bohr model of the atom. As part of it, i want to explain why the Rutherfordian atom was innaccurate, i.e. that it predicts that the electrons will spiral into the nucleus within X nanoseconds because they would emit radiation. I've found nowhere so far that explains WHY they would emit radiation. I've been pointed towards Cherenkov Radiation as an answer, but I'm not sure how that could explain it. Thanks
Asked by jmmL - Wed Oct 31 09:12:05 2007 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. In classical electromagnetism, any time a charge is subjected to an acceleration, it emits electromagnetic radiation. That is, wiggle an electron, and you'll see radio waves (or light, X-ray, etc.) moving away from that spot (this is how a radio broadcasting antenna works). In the classical model, an electron orbits a proton. It is under continuous acceleration toward the proton. This means it should, by the classical physics rules, be producing electromagnetic radiation. The energy for this radiation has to come from somewhere, it comes from the orbital motion of the electron around the proton. So, the electron loses energy, and falls closer to the proton. Closer in, the acceleration is higher, so it loses even more energy even… [cont.]
Answered by Christopher N - Wed Oct 31 09:47:45 2007
explain how black body radiation led to the failure of classical mechanics?
Q. how classical mechanics failed due to black body radiation
Asked by Nitish Mishra - Sun Sep 14 14:22:12 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Black Body Radiation led Planck into his work in developing a quantized way of describing energy, as well as Einstein later with the photoelectric effect. This removed the classic idea of energy as a continuum, and meant that energy was an integer multiple of some number.
Answered by Daniel R - Sun Sep 14 14:38:57 2008
Q. how classical mechanics failed due to black body radiation
Asked by Nitish Mishra - Sun Sep 14 14:22:12 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Black Body Radiation led Planck into his work in developing a quantized way of describing energy, as well as Einstein later with the photoelectric effect. This removed the classic idea of energy as a continuum, and meant that energy was an integer multiple of some number.
Answered by Daniel R - Sun Sep 14 14:38:57 2008
Postulates of classical mechanics?
Q. What are postulates of classical mechanics?(Assumptions of classical mechanics?
Asked by p_ashok k - Fri Jul 21 02:24:22 2006 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Momentum is conserved (Newton's three laws are more or less restatements of / extensions of this). The force of Gravity obeys the (primarily experimentally) derived equation of: F = (- G (m1 m2)) / (distance between m1 and m2)^2 Time and Space are experienced the same way by everyone and they are infinitely divisible. And that is really about it (besides the mountain of assumptions we usually gloss over such as "our system logic is valid" and if you have 2 things they are two "different" things. Also that their is only wave OR particle natures of things, not both). Basically it was off of just that and the Calculus Newton developed that he was able to lay the foundations of Classical Mechanics. That's actually what made it such an… [cont.]
Answered by MindscapeWanderer - Sun Jul 23 04:39:51 2006
Q. What are postulates of classical mechanics?(Assumptions of classical mechanics?
Asked by p_ashok k - Fri Jul 21 02:24:22 2006 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Momentum is conserved (Newton's three laws are more or less restatements of / extensions of this). The force of Gravity obeys the (primarily experimentally) derived equation of: F = (- G (m1 m2)) / (distance between m1 and m2)^2 Time and Space are experienced the same way by everyone and they are infinitely divisible. And that is really about it (besides the mountain of assumptions we usually gloss over such as "our system logic is valid" and if you have 2 things they are two "different" things. Also that their is only wave OR particle natures of things, not both). Basically it was off of just that and the Calculus Newton developed that he was able to lay the foundations of Classical Mechanics. That's actually what made it such an… [cont.]
Answered by MindscapeWanderer - Sun Jul 23 04:39:51 2006
Where is the boundry between quantum mechanics and classical physics?
Q. Where is the boundry between quantum mechanics and classical physics?
Asked by Paul M - Mon Jul 3 05:02:52 2006 - - 8 Answers - 0 Comments
A. About the size of an atom or molecule. Classical physics is fairly accurate for larger sizes (a bunch of atoms packed together into something the size of a grain of sand), but completely fails when it tries to explains how subatomic particles interact.
Answered by Jeff - Mon Jul 3 13:09:11 2006
Q. Where is the boundry between quantum mechanics and classical physics?
Asked by Paul M - Mon Jul 3 05:02:52 2006 - - 8 Answers - 0 Comments
A. About the size of an atom or molecule. Classical physics is fairly accurate for larger sizes (a bunch of atoms packed together into something the size of a grain of sand), but completely fails when it tries to explains how subatomic particles interact.
Answered by Jeff - Mon Jul 3 13:09:11 2006
What is "action" in classical mechanics?
Q. We always hear what is "force", "momentum", "energy", "work", etc., and what they are, and what they mean physically. 10 points goes to the best answer on what is the physical meaning of "action" as defined in classical mechanics. Yes, we know that "action" is something that is minimized, as per Lagrangian mechanics, but what is it that's being minimized? Here's the wiki article on "action": Please do not give the English dictionary definition of "action". I'd like a physical meaning of "action" in physics. Action also has units of momentum x distance, or energy x momentum / force, etc. But none of them are very illuminating.
Asked by Scythian1950 - Wed Jan 16 15:37:43 2008 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Wow, after reading your Wikipedia citation, I became confused and know less about action than I did before reading it. Action is causation, it creates a change in the system (or alternatively actively maintains a system in steady state). Action is like Arnold Schwarzenegger, it makes things happen. My best definition would be that action is what results in the change in the system over time (or another dimension such as distance). And a system changes over time as a consequence of the action. The action and the change in the system are inseparably linked. I realize that this is a chicken and egg definition. This is like the statement of General Relativity that mass creates the gravitational field and the field tells the mass how to… [cont.]
Answered by Frst Grade Rocks! - Wed Jan 16 18:07:02 2008
Q. We always hear what is "force", "momentum", "energy", "work", etc., and what they are, and what they mean physically. 10 points goes to the best answer on what is the physical meaning of "action" as defined in classical mechanics. Yes, we know that "action" is something that is minimized, as per Lagrangian mechanics, but what is it that's being minimized? Here's the wiki article on "action": Please do not give the English dictionary definition of "action". I'd like a physical meaning of "action" in physics. Action also has units of momentum x distance, or energy x momentum / force, etc. But none of them are very illuminating.
Asked by Scythian1950 - Wed Jan 16 15:37:43 2008 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Wow, after reading your Wikipedia citation, I became confused and know less about action than I did before reading it. Action is causation, it creates a change in the system (or alternatively actively maintains a system in steady state). Action is like Arnold Schwarzenegger, it makes things happen. My best definition would be that action is what results in the change in the system over time (or another dimension such as distance). And a system changes over time as a consequence of the action. The action and the change in the system are inseparably linked. I realize that this is a chicken and egg definition. This is like the statement of General Relativity that mass creates the gravitational field and the field tells the mass how to… [cont.]
Answered by Frst Grade Rocks! - Wed Jan 16 18:07:02 2008
What do u mean by classical mechanics?
Q. Classical Mechanics
Asked by Ronnie - Thu Aug 9 04:48:42 2007 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Classical mechanics is the physics of forces, acting upon bodies. It is often referred to as "Newtonian mechanics" after Newton and his laws of motion. Classical mechanics is subdivided into statics (which deals with objects in equilibrium) and dynamics (which deals with objects in motion).
Answered by sree - Thu Aug 9 05:01:59 2007
Q. Classical Mechanics
Asked by Ronnie - Thu Aug 9 04:48:42 2007 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Classical mechanics is the physics of forces, acting upon bodies. It is often referred to as "Newtonian mechanics" after Newton and his laws of motion. Classical mechanics is subdivided into statics (which deals with objects in equilibrium) and dynamics (which deals with objects in motion).
Answered by sree - Thu Aug 9 05:01:59 2007
I need solution of classical mechanics, please send it for me...?
Q. I need solution of classical mechanics, please send it for me...?
Asked by shoso76 - Tue Apr 29 14:14:35 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. You've got to be kidding... Solution to WHAT in classical mechanics? Here we can help you by answering specific questions, not recite an encyclopedia.
Answered by PhysicsDude - Fri May 2 21:36:13 2008
Q. I need solution of classical mechanics, please send it for me...?
Asked by shoso76 - Tue Apr 29 14:14:35 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. You've got to be kidding... Solution to WHAT in classical mechanics? Here we can help you by answering specific questions, not recite an encyclopedia.
Answered by PhysicsDude - Fri May 2 21:36:13 2008
What are some paradoxes that would arise if classical physics were completely accurate?
Q. Is classical mechanics a self-consistent mathematical model? If yes: What if you add in Maxwell's equations? I know you get an immediate contradiction if you add in observations from the actual physical universe, like the fact that the speed of light is constant in every reference frame. But my question is, are there paradoxes that lie purely within Newton's model of physics?
Asked by Liron Shapira - Thu May 1 01:49:05 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The most simple is time-zero of the universe. Newton's laws state that objects do not simply start moving, they are acted upon. Time-zero requires something more to have happened for atomic particles to suddenly erupt out of nothingness and create something(ness). While the Laws of Physics are applicable for all intents and purposes in real life, entirely new rules will have to be made for space-time (hence quantum physics)
Answered by Urban Aristotle - Thu May 1 02:05:34 2008
Q. Is classical mechanics a self-consistent mathematical model? If yes: What if you add in Maxwell's equations? I know you get an immediate contradiction if you add in observations from the actual physical universe, like the fact that the speed of light is constant in every reference frame. But my question is, are there paradoxes that lie purely within Newton's model of physics?
Asked by Liron Shapira - Thu May 1 01:49:05 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The most simple is time-zero of the universe. Newton's laws state that objects do not simply start moving, they are acted upon. Time-zero requires something more to have happened for atomic particles to suddenly erupt out of nothingness and create something(ness). While the Laws of Physics are applicable for all intents and purposes in real life, entirely new rules will have to be made for space-time (hence quantum physics)
Answered by Urban Aristotle - Thu May 1 02:05:34 2008
why quantum mechanics preferred to classical mechanics?
Q. why quantum mechanics preferred to classical mechanics?
Asked by deepi - Sun Jan 11 00:54:30 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Classical mechanics is good for solving 'macro' world problems involving gravity (General Relativity) and dynamics. Theories that are classical, generally have a cause and effect elements within them and are continuous in their extent of calculation! however, classical theories do not resolve problems to do with the 'micro' or particle world! During the later years of the nineteenth century, physicists were attempting to calculate the energy distribution of the radiation emitted by a cavity known as a blackbody. A blackbody is a cavity that is a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation and has a radiation spectrum that depends upon its absolute temperature. Many theorists attempted to use 'classical' physics to account for the spectrum… [cont.]
Answered by . - Sun Jan 11 07:42:56 2009
Q. why quantum mechanics preferred to classical mechanics?
Asked by deepi - Sun Jan 11 00:54:30 2009 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Classical mechanics is good for solving 'macro' world problems involving gravity (General Relativity) and dynamics. Theories that are classical, generally have a cause and effect elements within them and are continuous in their extent of calculation! however, classical theories do not resolve problems to do with the 'micro' or particle world! During the later years of the nineteenth century, physicists were attempting to calculate the energy distribution of the radiation emitted by a cavity known as a blackbody. A blackbody is a cavity that is a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation and has a radiation spectrum that depends upon its absolute temperature. Many theorists attempted to use 'classical' physics to account for the spectrum… [cont.]
Answered by . - Sun Jan 11 07:42:56 2009
Which statement is the most correct on Quantum mechanics?
Q. Here is where I have to choes from 1.Quantum mechanics fits perfectly into the classical models of mechanics and electromagnetism. 2.Quantum mechanics overthrew mechanics and electromagnetism by replacing all of their laws with its own. 3.Quantum mechanics is now considered obsolete compared to classical mechanics and electromagnetism. 4.Quantum mechanics currently stands separate yet as equally viable as classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Can you please help me I have an idea but I am not sure.
Asked by Sesily E - Fri May 4 13:05:57 2007 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 4. Both QM and classical (or "newtonian") mechanics are valid models at their respective scales (the particle scale vs. the continuum scale, respectively), but they are not united under one overarching theory and so they remain separate. The laws of classical mechanics did not change when QM was formulated and they remain valid today.
Answered by TR - Fri May 4 13:10:24 2007
Q. Here is where I have to choes from 1.Quantum mechanics fits perfectly into the classical models of mechanics and electromagnetism. 2.Quantum mechanics overthrew mechanics and electromagnetism by replacing all of their laws with its own. 3.Quantum mechanics is now considered obsolete compared to classical mechanics and electromagnetism. 4.Quantum mechanics currently stands separate yet as equally viable as classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Can you please help me I have an idea but I am not sure.
Asked by Sesily E - Fri May 4 13:05:57 2007 - - 6 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 4. Both QM and classical (or "newtonian") mechanics are valid models at their respective scales (the particle scale vs. the continuum scale, respectively), but they are not united under one overarching theory and so they remain separate. The laws of classical mechanics did not change when QM was formulated and they remain valid today.
Answered by TR - Fri May 4 13:10:24 2007
Another Classical Mechanics question?
Q. Having trouble again... anyone knows how to solve this? Show that x=xo exp(-kt/b) for a damped oscillator whose mass is negligible compared to the restoring force kx and damping force bx ... At t=0 and x = xo.
Asked by GlynN - Tue Aug 14 07:40:34 2007 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. There is a typo. The damping force is usually proportional to the velocity (x' = dx/dt ) of the object. With this the equation of motion becomes: m d x/dt = - b dx/dt - k x with negligible mass the LHS of the equation equals zero. Thus: - b dx/dt - k x = 0 <=> dx/dt = - (k/b) x separate variables (1/x) dx = - (k/b) dt integrate (1/x) dx = - (k/b) dt <=> ln(x) = - (k/b) x + c c is the constant of integration <=> x = e^( - (k/b) t + c) <=> x = C e^( - (k/b) t) (C = e^c) Apply boundary condition x(t=0) = x <=> x = C e^( - (k/b) 0) => C = x => x = x e^( - (k/b) t) Cheers
Answered by schmiso - Tue Aug 14 12:20:59 2007
Q. Having trouble again... anyone knows how to solve this? Show that x=xo exp(-kt/b) for a damped oscillator whose mass is negligible compared to the restoring force kx and damping force bx ... At t=0 and x = xo.
Asked by GlynN - Tue Aug 14 07:40:34 2007 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. There is a typo. The damping force is usually proportional to the velocity (x' = dx/dt ) of the object. With this the equation of motion becomes: m d x/dt = - b dx/dt - k x with negligible mass the LHS of the equation equals zero. Thus: - b dx/dt - k x = 0 <=> dx/dt = - (k/b) x separate variables (1/x) dx = - (k/b) dt integrate (1/x) dx = - (k/b) dt <=> ln(x) = - (k/b) x + c c is the constant of integration <=> x = e^( - (k/b) t + c) <=> x = C e^( - (k/b) t) (C = e^c) Apply boundary condition x(t=0) = x <=> x = C e^( - (k/b) 0) => C = x => x = x e^( - (k/b) t) Cheers
Answered by schmiso - Tue Aug 14 12:20:59 2007
websites for information about classical mechanics?
Q. are there any physics websites
Asked by ridletomit235 - Sun Apr 30 01:59:16 2006 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The site listed below seems to have some nice web applets with various kinematics applications and such. I would (and did) search Google for "kinematics" to find the best. Specific searches such as "rotational motion", "Newton's laws", "1-D kinematics", "2-D kinematics", etc will yield more tuned results.
Answered by xpedition0 - Sun Apr 30 02:31:46 2006
Q. are there any physics websites
Asked by ridletomit235 - Sun Apr 30 01:59:16 2006 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. The site listed below seems to have some nice web applets with various kinematics applications and such. I would (and did) search Google for "kinematics" to find the best. Specific searches such as "rotational motion", "Newton's laws", "1-D kinematics", "2-D kinematics", etc will yield more tuned results.
Answered by xpedition0 - Sun Apr 30 02:31:46 2006
Problem in classical mechanics?
Q. The coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the incline is 0.29. What is the magnitude of the acceleration of the suspended block as it falls? Disregard any pulley mass or friction. That's the question. I'll try to describe the accompanying diagram.: Basically theres a ramp sloping downwards to the right at an angle of 30 degrees. On the ramp is a block of mass 2M in motion. A string tied to the right end of the object leads down and right to the end of the ramp where it is connected to a pulley. The string passes through the pulley and extends directly downwards to an block of mass M. I don't believe it is possible to solve this problem since too little information is given and you end up having three unknown variables… [cont.]
Asked by Wise Idiot - Mon Feb 11 11:52:13 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. = 0.29 = 30 i'll assume that the acceleration is toward 2m ( m)a = F (m+2m)a = 2mgsin - 2 mgcos - mg 3ma = (2sin - 2 cos - 1)mg a = (2sin - 2 cos - 1)g/3 = -1.6m/s the negative answer shows that the system accelerates in the opposite direction than what I assumed the system accelerates toward m with a = 1.6m/s .,.,,.
Answered by The Wolf - Sat Feb 16 06:27:19 2008
Q. The coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the incline is 0.29. What is the magnitude of the acceleration of the suspended block as it falls? Disregard any pulley mass or friction. That's the question. I'll try to describe the accompanying diagram.: Basically theres a ramp sloping downwards to the right at an angle of 30 degrees. On the ramp is a block of mass 2M in motion. A string tied to the right end of the object leads down and right to the end of the ramp where it is connected to a pulley. The string passes through the pulley and extends directly downwards to an block of mass M. I don't believe it is possible to solve this problem since too little information is given and you end up having three unknown variables… [cont.]
Asked by Wise Idiot - Mon Feb 11 11:52:13 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. = 0.29 = 30 i'll assume that the acceleration is toward 2m ( m)a = F (m+2m)a = 2mgsin - 2 mgcos - mg 3ma = (2sin - 2 cos - 1)mg a = (2sin - 2 cos - 1)g/3 = -1.6m/s the negative answer shows that the system accelerates in the opposite direction than what I assumed the system accelerates toward m with a = 1.6m/s .,.,,.
Answered by The Wolf - Sat Feb 16 06:27:19 2008
what is the use of principle of least action in classical mechanics?...in simple words......pls?
Q. principle of least action is a variational principle related with hamiltonian formulation
Asked by Bipin mzr - Mon Nov 13 05:09:06 2006 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. First, the non-simple words. This is one example of a principle of thermodynamics. The state of a system will be that with the lowest Gibbs Energy. If you mix 2 parts hydrogen gas and one part oxygen gas and trigger the reaction with a spark, they will combust to form water, releasing energy in the process. That's because the water molecule has a lower energy level than the isolated atoms. In classical mechanics, it started out as an empirical observation that nature is lazy. Light travelling from one point to another takes a specific path because any other path would be a longer one. Deducing the path this way is a minimization problem. You write a system of equations for all the ways the path could vary. Then you solve that… [cont.]
Answered by Frank N - Mon Nov 13 13:57:29 2006
Q. principle of least action is a variational principle related with hamiltonian formulation
Asked by Bipin mzr - Mon Nov 13 05:09:06 2006 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. First, the non-simple words. This is one example of a principle of thermodynamics. The state of a system will be that with the lowest Gibbs Energy. If you mix 2 parts hydrogen gas and one part oxygen gas and trigger the reaction with a spark, they will combust to form water, releasing energy in the process. That's because the water molecule has a lower energy level than the isolated atoms. In classical mechanics, it started out as an empirical observation that nature is lazy. Light travelling from one point to another takes a specific path because any other path would be a longer one. Deducing the path this way is a minimization problem. You write a system of equations for all the ways the path could vary. Then you solve that… [cont.]
Answered by Frank N - Mon Nov 13 13:57:29 2006
The fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics using classical view & quantum view explain scattering theory.
Q. The fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics using classical view & quantum view explain scattering theory.
Asked by sunnypeters - Thu Nov 16 15:36:33 2006 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Hi, That's too much like real work, but think about it like breaking pool balls in classical, and wave interference with quantum. Hope that helps, Matt
Answered by Matt - Thu Nov 16 15:47:55 2006
Q. The fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics using classical view & quantum view explain scattering theory.
Asked by sunnypeters - Thu Nov 16 15:36:33 2006 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments
A. Hi, That's too much like real work, but think about it like breaking pool balls in classical, and wave interference with quantum. Hope that helps, Matt
Answered by Matt - Thu Nov 16 15:47:55 2006
Is text book Quantum Mechanics written by Richard Robinett a good one?
Q. This is the one : Has anyone use it?
Asked by ling meng f - Fri Jan 16 00:29:03 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I've looked at it. I don't think it's the best book for an introductory course. Griffiths is, far and away, the best introduction to the subject. Eisberg and Resnick is a good book as well because it has lots of extra chapters that give examples of applied QM--more than you can cover in an intro course, so it's good for several courses' worth of learning.
Answered by ( )Mistress Bekki - Fri Jan 16 01:29:20 2009
Q. This is the one : Has anyone use it?
Asked by ling meng f - Fri Jan 16 00:29:03 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. I've looked at it. I don't think it's the best book for an introductory course. Griffiths is, far and away, the best introduction to the subject. Eisberg and Resnick is a good book as well because it has lots of extra chapters that give examples of applied QM--more than you can cover in an intro course, so it's good for several courses' worth of learning.
Answered by ( )Mistress Bekki - Fri Jan 16 01:29:20 2009
From Yahoo Answer Search: 'classical mechanics'
Sun Sep 27 19:50:22 2009 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
news.google.com
Science Daily (press release)
... a device that exploits the laws of quantum mechanics to perform certain computations faster than can be done with classical bits alone. ...
and more »
i3.ytimg.com
90px x 120px | 2.90kB
[source page]
Lec 28 | 8 01 Physics I Classical Mechanics Fall 1999 49 0 16573 16 Wire Being Sucked in Again Lec 28 | 8 01 Physics I Classical Mechanics Fall 1999 49 0 16573 16 Wire Being Sucked in Again
jamesmessig.wordpress.com
jamesmessig
ue, 08 Sep 2009 01:04:23 GM
It is interesting to consider that in light of the above generalizations, the notion that . classical mechanics. , might be far from complete becomes somewhat evident. I personally hold to the opinion, that as wide and far reaching as the ...
[Hide]▲
