My impression is that UK universities include very much less physics (and maths) in (non-physics) science and engineering degrees than many other countries. They may even include less physics in physics degrees!SY said:
Most UK EE graduates may not have been told that a magnetic field is just a Lorentz-transformed electric field; those that have been told may not understand what they have been told. EEs do a module on solid-state physics, yet they may not have solved Schrodinger's equation for a periodic potential so don't know why energy levels turn into bands.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, nearly half of the teaching staff in my old EE department had physics as their first degree.
I believe I read a few years ago that ICI had stopped recruiting UK chemistry graduates, but would still take overseas ones. It would still take UK PhDs.
I seem to recall that my EE Masters' course did mention the connection between SR and EM, but this was presented as 'interesting information to know' rather than 'required knowledge to calculate with'.
I seem to recall that my EE Masters' course did mention the connection between SR and EM, but this was presented as 'interesting information to know' rather than 'required knowledge to calculate with'.
Does EE refer to Electrical Engineering? If so, wouldn't the kinds of high level theoretical issues you two are talking about really only apply at the doctoral level (and not the level of a basic engineering degree, where most students are typically instructed in what works, not why it might work)?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Imagine our sun inside a toothpick. Now keep pushing more suns inside that toothpick.
Is there really a mathematical consensus on this.
You have no argument with me. I wont' say more as it becomes both political and religious.
Where in all the universe man's brain resides? ...Not physically, but spatially in the infinite emptiness... And is it expanding? ...Or else?
EE refers to Electrical Engineering or Electronic Engineering.
I have a few EE's in my family and I'm an enthusiast. Personally I think it's quite theoretical and you need quite a lot of spatial imagination.
Then again, mathematics experts may not need theory or imagination at all, and simply number crunch their way to success in any situation.
Last edited:
Yes, "electrical engineering." I was a chemist (with a physics orientation, my specialty was quantum mechanics of molecules), and never had an engineering course, so couldn't really speak to the EE curriculum. I encountered special and general relativity as an undergraduate.
Neutrinos are not faster than light.
Objects don't increase in mass when traveling at speed relative to an observer, they simply behave as they are heavier relative to an observer ie. they need more energy to accelerate relative to that observer and they will impact a stationary target with greater force. Isaac Newton would think that the object was heavier than it was if he worked out the energy and forces involved using his laws
When we talk about velocity in a relativistic sense it's important to understand that the observer is not moving. Even if he is on a fast train going a thousand miles per hour, relative to himself he is not moving at all 😉
Objects don't increase in mass when traveling at speed relative to an observer, they simply behave as they are heavier relative to an observer ie. they need more energy to accelerate relative to that observer and they will impact a stationary target with greater force. Isaac Newton would think that the object was heavier than it was if he worked out the energy and forces involved using his laws
When we talk about velocity in a relativistic sense it's important to understand that the observer is not moving. Even if he is on a fast train going a thousand miles per hour, relative to himself he is not moving at all 😉
More recent data indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and will not stop or collapse. The researchers received the 2011 Nobel prize.
Yes, objects do in fact increase in mass when moving relative to an observer.
However, this fact means that mass is not a fundamental quantity.
It's a question of semantics more than anything, in the past objets were said to increase in mass, nowadays they are said not to
It is not a matter of semantics.
The orbiting satellite delivering this message has more mass right now then it does on Earth.
This is why despite us having accurate "atomic" clocks on Earth, the satellite's clocks have to constantly be compensated, because the exact same atomic clock will run slower due to it's speed relative to Earth. (By about 6 microseconds per day)
A larger effect is the weaker gravity causes the clock on the satellite to run faster, (By about 45 microseconds per day) regardless the net result of these two time dilations results in differences of almost 40 microseconds per day.
The orbiting satellite delivering this message has more mass right now then it does on Earth.
This is why despite us having accurate "atomic" clocks on Earth, the satellite's clocks have to constantly be compensated, because the exact same atomic clock will run slower due to it's speed relative to Earth. (By about 6 microseconds per day)
A larger effect is the weaker gravity causes the clock on the satellite to run faster, (By about 45 microseconds per day) regardless the net result of these two time dilations results in differences of almost 40 microseconds per day.
I understand that the satellites for all intensive purposes behave as they have extra mass or have the equivalent of extra mass, but depending on how mass is defined it could be said that the mass has not increased, more specifically if the mass is defined as the amount of matter the satellite contains then the mass remains the same
We could say that an object with a mass of 1Kg accelerated to 0.866% the speed of light would have 2kg's of mass
Or, we could say that an object with a mass of 1Kg accelerated to 0.866% the speed of light is 1Kg with a lorentz factor of two
Six of one half a dozen of the other
We could say that an object with a mass of 1Kg accelerated to 0.866% the speed of light would have 2kg's of mass
Or, we could say that an object with a mass of 1Kg accelerated to 0.866% the speed of light is 1Kg with a lorentz factor of two
Six of one half a dozen of the other
- Status
- Not open for further replies.