Recent content by alexmahone

Hey @Janus, sorry for my delay in replying. The truth is that I've been having a very hard time with this problem and in formulating my thoughts regarding the same. But I'll give it a go: I have a conceptual misunderstanding here: One can very well calculate the time when each pulse reads the...

In the spaceship frame of reference, the light pulses reach the front and the back of the spaceship simultaneously. So...?

Homework Statement: A spaceship has two clocks: one in the front and one at the back. The clocks are synchronized in the spaceship's frame of reference. The spaceship zooms past the Earth's surface at a relativistic speed. Prove that in the Earth's frame of reference, the clock at the front...

I'm taking an online course that covers the Rankine power cycle, that, unfortunately, isn't mentioned in any of my textbooks. Do you guys have a textbook that covers this cycle? Thanks

Please help me interpret these genetic intelligence results. How can I have acute 'reading and spelling ability', acute 'mathematical ability' and less strong 'cognitive ability'?

Thanks! Substituting these 2 results into ##\displaystyle\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial p}\right)_Vdp+\gamma\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_p dV=0##, we get ##\displaystyle\frac{V}{f'(T)}dp+\gamma\frac{p}{f'(T)}dV=0## ##\implies Vdp+\gamma pdV=0## Dividing both sides by ##pV##...

Now, ## \displaystyle dQ=\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial p}\right)_V dp+\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial V}\right)_p dV## In an adiabatic change, ##dQ=0##. So, ## \displaystyle\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial p}\right)_V dp+\left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial V}\right)_p dV=0## Using (3) and...

It appears that my question has already been asked and answered here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/average-electric-field-over-a-spherical-surface.966561/ Sorry.

I'm sure the average is going to be an integral, but \displaystyle\frac{1}{4\pi R^2}\oint\mathbf{E}\cdot d\mathbf{a} gives me a scalar, not a vector.

Thanks a lot! But how are the axioms defined? Are they motivated by reality? By language? If the axioms are completely arbitrary, one could essentially build infinitely many mathematical theories. So, how do mathematicians decide which axiomatic theories to study?

I'm a math major and therefore need to be able to define "mathematics" in a sentence. A few years ago, I would've said "the study of numbers", but with topics like "Set Theory" that have little to do with numbers, that definition seems inadequate.

The proof has been checked only by finite number of people, so we can't be 99.999...% sure it's right.

When Grisha Perelman submitted his proof of the Poincare conjecture, he may have been reasonably sure that it contained no mistakes. But he could not have been 100% sure as he is, after all, human. Each time it was checked, say by the referee of an academic journal, the probability that it...

Yep. :)

That's right. :)