What total energy is stored in the capacitors in the figure below

(C₁ = 0.643

Two capacitor plates are equally and oppositely charged. They are separated by 1.5cm . An electron is released from rest at the surface of the negative plate and, at the same time, a proton is released from rest at the surface of the positive plate.

Where do the electron and proton pass each other? Give your answer as a distance from the positive plate.

Scientists use the scientific method to
A.   Define new theories.
B.   Make hypotheses.
C.   Set up experiments.
D.   Gain new scientific knowledge.
  
   

Science has existed since
A.   The beginning of human history.
B.   The time of Galileo.
C.   The time of the ancient Greeks.
D.   The time of Newton.
   

A scientific hypothesis is
A.   An educated guess.
B.   A well-established set of results that has been tested over and over by experiments.
C.   A random set of assumptions scientists make before starting an experiment.
D.     An educated guess that tentatively answers a question or solves a problem in the physical world which can be tested by experimentation.
   

What is the difference between a law and a theory?
A    A law is a natural phenomenon about which competent observers can agree; a theory is a general statement about the relationship of natural quantities that has been tested over and over again and has not been contradicted.
B    A law is the synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world; a theory is a general hypothesis that has been tested over and over again and has not been contradicted.
C    A law is a general hypothesis that has been tested over and over again and has not been contradicted; a theory is the synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world.
D    A law is the synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world; a theory is an educated guess which can be tested by experiment.

Science and technology are
A   The foundation of all modern economic success.
B   Share no common traits whatsoever.
C   The same thing.
D   Related to one another in that technology allows humans to apply the organized knowledge of science for practical purposes and provides the instruments scientists need to conduct their investigations.
  

Science and technology are
   
A.      The foundation of all modern economic success.
B.      Share no common traits whatsoever.
C.      The same thing.
D.      Related to one another in that technology allows humans to apply the organized knowledge of science for practical purposes and provides the instruments scientists need to conduct their investigations.
Science, art and religion do not contradict one another because
   
A.       Only science matters, not religion or art.
B.       All three have different domains, and seek to answer different questions about the world.
C.       Only art matters, not religion or science.
D.       If you focus on one of the three, you can disregard the other two.

In science, facts
   
A.       May change over time.
B.       Are irrelevant.
C.       Are absolute.
D.       Are the result of theories.

Pseudoscience can be described as
   
A.      A theory or practice that purports to use the methods of science but actually has no scientific foundation.
B.      The study of physics, chemistry, earth science, and astronomy, and their relationship to one another.
C.      Science on a small scale.
D.      The science of mythical creatures.      

I was reading the Feynman lectures in physics and after thinking about it for a while it seems particularly unreasonable to talk about hidden variables. Let us say that the electron has some internal variables as yet unknown which determine its trajectory given a set of initial conditions just like in classical mechanics. But since these hidden variables are unobserved, coupling it with a classical system should make their effect unchanged. This is what Feynman says, I think, in the last paragraph of Ch1 Vol 3, that if in the double slit experiment, if these inner variables dictate that the electron goes through the upper slit and land at a particular place on the opposite screen, and some other place for the lower screen, then the probability must neccesarily be the sum of two Gaussian like peaks, which does not agree with experiment.

So if I concluded that inner workings of an electron had some additional hidden variables, then it should yield, as they should be independent of the classical apparatus, mutually exclusive probabilities that do not quiet add up the way as observed. But then I do a hidden variables search on the archive and a lot of smart guys still write about it, as late as Feb 2011.

So the argument I have used might be somehow incomplete, can anyone explain how?

EDIT: Sorry for editing this question almost three years later. I tried to locate the exact reference from the Feynman lectures I was referring to and this is the updated source, Sec 7 Ch 1 Vol 3

We make now a few remarks on a suggestion that has sometimes been made to try to avoid the description we have given:

According to the reports, the shutdown procedures at all the Fukushima reactors were successful, and all the control rods were fully inserted.

So - if there was a meltdown, would the control rods also melt and blend into the resulting material (corium)? If so, would that have the effect of "diluting" the corium in radioactive terms and stabilising it to some extent? (I guess it would depend on the relative melting points of the fuel and the control rods: if the rods are of boron, the melting point is a lot higher than that of uranium.)

In all the discussions about how the heavy elements in the universe are forged in the guts of stars and especially during a stars death, I usually hear that once the star begins fusing lighter atoms to produce Iron (Fe) that's the end of the star's life and the whole system collapses onto itself and based on how massive the star was initially it has different outcomes like a white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole.

I have rarely heard a detailed explanation of how the elements heavier than Iron are produced. I would appreciate a convincing explanation of this process.

A high school kicker makes a 34.0yd field goal attempt (in American football) and hits the crossbar at a height of 12.0ft . What is the magnitude of the net displacement of the football from the time it leaves the ground until it hits the crossbar? What is the direction of the net displacement of the football from the time it leaves the ground until it hits the crossbar? Assuming the football took 2.70s to hit the crossbar, what was the magnitude of its average velocity? What was the direction of its average velocity? Explain why you cannot determine its average speed from these data.

A high school kicker makes a 34.0yd field goal attempt (in American football) and hits the crossbar at a height of 12.0ft .

What is the magnitude of the net displacement of the football from the time it leaves the ground until it hits the crossbar?

What is the direction of the net displacement of the football from the time it leaves the ground until it hits the crossbar?

Assuming the football took 2.70s to hit the crossbar, what was the magnitude of its average velocity?

What was the direction of its average velocity?

Explain why you cannot determine its average speed from these data.

I recently bought some buckyballs, considered to be the world's best selling desk toy. Essentially, they are little, spherical magnets that can form interesting shapes when a bunch of them are used together.

After playing around with these buckyballs for a while, I wondered: "Can these guys ever lose their magnetism?" Then I went a step further and thought, "How are magnets affected by the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"

So, how are magnets affected by the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do they break down and lose their magnetism over time (like iron rusts over time)?

Assume a length of axon membrane of about 0.10 m is excited by an action potential (length excited = nerve speed

Given a stream of random binary numbers(*)

Is there any way to differentiate if they came from a Truly Random or from a formula/algorithm ? how?

if there is no way to decide this, then, I can't find any basis, to keep denying that behind the "truly random" of quantum mechanics can be a hidden algorithm.

I know I am talking about the posibility of a "hidden variables" theory, but I can't find any other explanation.

(*) Is known that is possible to create computable normal numbers from which first is possible to extract an infinite random binary stream, second, it tell us that a finite logic expression (again a binary stream) can contain a rational, and even an irrational number, so there is no big difference within a bit stream and the measurement of a random outcome, (and even less if we consider the accuracy) I say this, because the argument that obtaining bits is not the same as answer the complex question that can be made to quantum experiments, I think that "random" results can be perfectly read from a random stream of bits

A wire coil of 35 turns has a cross-sectional area of 12 cm2. The coil is placed in a uniform field of a large magnet with B = 0.32 T. The coil is suddenly rotated 90 o from an orientation parallel to the field to one perpendicular to the field. The time to flip the coil is 0.47 s. What is the magnitude of the average emf produced?

What will be the average current produced if the circuit of the coil is closed and the resistance is 80 ohm?

I would like to test my hardware under vibration that can appear on a highway gantry. If someone has a model of such vibration. i.e period and amplitude.

In my lab I have a motor that can be regulated according to its RPM.

According to Rindler the geodetic effect can be considered as consisting of Thomas precession combined with the effect of moving through curved space.

Wolfgang Rindler (2006) Relativity: special, general, and cosmological (2nd Ed.) p234

However according to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 1118, Thomas precession does not come into play for a freely moving satellite.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geodetic_effect

I think that although a freely moving satellite doesn't feel gravity, it's relation to an observer is still subject to lorentz transformations and hence Thomas precesssion.

So who is right ? Rindler or Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler ?

Every orbiting of a satellite around a mass is nothing else but a constant fall - and therefore acceleration - towards this mass. In a way it is a "falling around" that mass.

My question
Is it possible to measure this acceleration on earth due to its "falling around" the sun?