Answer the following questions:Show all your work. Include formulae and units! EVERY TIME! Be sure to include meaningful,relavant diagram Don't try to squeeze everythingWrite down any formula used before plugging any numbers into it.

1.Eleven grams of Argon gas is used as the operating gas in a Carnot engine (an engine that uses the Carnot cycle to do work.The specifics of the cycle are:

a.The initial temperature of the gas is 300 K.

b.During the isothermal expansion, the volume of the gas increases from 0.0066 m³ to twice that volume.

c.During the adiabatic expansion, the gas temperature decreases to 200 K.

d.During the isothermal compression, the volume of the gas decreases from 0.0150 m³ to 0.0127 m³.

e.The adiabatic compression then takes the gas back to its initial state.

Note: The 2 temperatures given above are the operating temperatures of the Argon, NOT the temperatures of the reservoirs!

From this information determine:

I) The amount of energy that the engine absorbs from the hot reservoir during one complete cycle.

II) The amount of energy expelled to the cold reservoir for each cycle.

III) The net amount of work done by the engine per cycle.

IV) The engine

Is it energy?

Is it energy per unit volume?

Is it energy per unit time i.e power?

What is it?

I have just started looking into special relativity and I have come up with an intriguing gedanke, as Einstein himself called such theoretical thought experiments.

Imagine a space shuttle traveling through space at a constant velocity close to c. As the shuttle passes earth, a previously set-up camera starts broadcasting from earth to the shuttle. Since radio waves travel at the speed of light, the shuttle is receiving a constant transmission feed, assuming the camera is broadcasting 24/7.

Now, from what I have understood of special relativity so far, time will flow slower for the astronaut than for the earthlings. Hence, assuming v=0.8c, the astronaut will after 30 years have received a video transmission 50 years long!

Is my reasoning correct, that even though the transmission is live, the astronaut would actually be watching things that happened many years ago, while still receiving the "live" feed, which would be stored/buffered in the shuttles memory, thus making it possible for the astronaut to fast-forward the clip to see what happened more than 30 years after passing the earth?

My second question is, what happens when we consider the space shuttle to be at rest and the earth to be moving instead? If that would imply that it has been 50 years from the astronauts point of view, while only 30 years have passed on earth, then the astronaut would run out of video material after the first 30 years of watching the broadcast. Then what?

I hope it makes sense. Thank you!

At a flat gold course, a golfer hits a golf from the ground. The velocity of the bal immediely after being hit is 18.5 m/s at a derection of 38.0 degrees above the orizontal. The ball reaches the highest point of its projectile motion, and later, during the downward part of its motion the ball hits a branch of a tree. The branch is 3.00 m above the ground.

A) How much time elapses between the golfer hitting the ball and the ball hitting the branch?

B) How far does the ball travel horizontally before it hits the branch

C0 what is the velocity vector of the ball just before it hits the branch ?

There have been some very nice discussions recently centered around the question of whether gravity and the geometry and topology of the classical world we see about us, could be phenomena which emerge in the low-energy limits of a more fundamental microscopic theory.

Among these, @Tim Van Beek's reply to the question on "How the topology of space [time] arises from more fundamental notions" contains the following description of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem:

It describes "action at a distance" in a mathematically precise way. According to the Reeh-Schlieder theorem there are correlations in the vacuum state between measurements at an arbitrary distance. The point is: The proof of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem is independent of any axiom describing causality, showing that quantum entanglement effects do not violate Einstein causality, and don't depend on the precise notion of causality. Therefore a change in spacetime topology in order to explain quantum entanglement effects won't work.

which is also preceded with an appropriate note of caution, saying that the above paragraph:

... describes an aspect of axiomatic quantum field theory which may become obsolete in the future with the development of a more complete theory.

I had a bias against AQFT as being too abstract an obtuse branch of study to be of any practical use. However, in light of the possibility (recently discussed on physics.SE) that classical geometry arises due to the entanglement between the degrees of freedom of some quantum many-body system (see Swingle's paper on Entanglement Renormalization and Holography) the content of the Rees-Schilder theorem begins to seem quite profound and far-sighted.

The question therefore is: Does the Rees-Schlieder theorem provide support for the idea of building space-time from quantum entanglement? or am I jumping the gun in presuming their is some connection between what the theorem says and the work of Vidal, Evenbly, Swingle and others on "holographic entanglement"?

What is a virtual ground? I would like to know what it is

What variables affect the damping of a spring executing simple harmonic motion?

What are the independent variables, and what variables would need to be controlled in an experiment?

I'm attempting to complete an investigation where I measure the decrease in amplitude of a damped spring, and to prove the relationship between variables in the motion.

Thanks!

Select the answers which complete the statements below (e.g., if answer A completes the first statement, and answer B the others, enter ABBBB). A) positive B) negative C) neutral D) cannot tell

A positively charged glass rod repels an object suspended by a non-conducting thread. The charge on the object is ____ .

A positive point charge is brought near the outside surface of a neutral conducting sphere and released. The initial position of the point charge is on the positive x axis and the sphere is centred on the origin. The point charge moves in the ____ x direction. (If the point charge does not move, select answer C.)

A negatively charged glass rod attracts an object suspended by a non-conducting thread. The charge on the object is ____ .

A positively charged ball is brought close to a neutral isolated conductor. The conductor is then grounded, while the ball is kept close. If the ground connection is first removed and then the ball is taken away, the conductor has a ____ charge.

Two neutral metal spheres are mounted on insulating supports. They are connected by a wire. A positively charged glass rod is brought near sphere 1. The wire connecting the spheres is removed and the charged rod is then taken away. Now the charge on sphere 1 is ____ .

Why do electrons (and other very small particles) sometimes behave as particles (i.e. when we are not looking at them) where as other times they behave as waves?

Suppose that an electron with spin up emits a photon in the field of an ion (bremsstrahlung). What is the spin of the emitted photon? Is it correct to say that the photon is circularly polarized if the spin of the electron flips down and linearly polarised if it remains up?

This questions started with a question I had about gravity. If two objects of different weights fall to the earth at the same rate of acceleration, then it seems to me that gravity is in some ways 'calculating' the weight of each item and applying the appropriate force to each item so as to have it fall at the same rate of acceleration. Is this true (or at least close to the truth)?

This got me think that perhaps this is what all of the mathematical equations of physics are really saying - namely that there are mathematical equations that are getting applied to the real world in one way or another.

Is this right? If not, why not?

A point charge of -4.00nC is at the origin, and a second point charge of 6.00nC is on the x axis at x = 0.830m . Find the magnitude and direction of the electric field at each of the following points on the x axis.

a. x= 16.0 cm

b. x = 1.20m

c. x = -22.0cm

find the electric field a distance r from a line of a positive charge of infinite length and constant charge per unit length lambda ?

From Michael on Skeptics Stackexchange:

How about a wire that's grounded? Safe to touch, right? WRONG.

________________ 30 amps -> ________________
| |
+ |
220V Load
- |
|______(YOU ARE HERE)______<- 30 amps________|
|
Ground

The wire you touched was not only at 0 volts, but also grounded, and yet, you are feeling pretty shitty in this diagram. You have ceased to be as a human, and you are now a part of a circuit, functioning as part of a return leg (pictured above) or as a "parallel path to ground" (not pictured above.)

I don't get how this can work. If the wire is at 0 volts and you are at 0 volts, then there is no potential difference and hence I'd expect no current. Is this physics correct?

My physics teacher explained the difference between voltage and current using sandwiches. Each person gets a bag full of sandwiches when they pass through the battery. Current = the number of people passing through a particular point per unit time. Voltage = the (change in) number of sandwiches per person. In a parallel circuit the number of people (current) is divided between the two paths, but the number of sandwiches per person (voltage) remains the same. In a series circuit the number of people passing through a particular point remain the same, but they drop off a certain percentage of their sandwiches at every resistor. Therefore, there is a voltage drop that occurs between the points before and after every resistor.

This analogy naturally leads to the question: how do the electrons "know" that they are going to have to share their voltage between two resistors before they reach the second one? (In other words, not drop off all their sandwiches at the first resistor they find)