Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Prof: So, I've got to start by telling

  • you the syllabus for this term--not the detailed one,

  • just the big game plan.

  • The game plan is: we will do electromagnetic

  • theory.

  • Electromagnetism is a new force that I will introduce to you and

  • go through all the details.

  • And I will do optics, and optics is part of

  • electromagnetism.

  • And then near the end we will do quantum mechanics.

  • Now, quantum mechanics is not like a new force.

  • It's a whole different ball game.

  • It's not about what forces are acting on this or that object

  • that make it move, or change its path.

  • The question there is: should we be even thinking

  • about trajectories?

  • Should we be even thinking about particles going on any

  • trajectory?

  • Forget about what the right trajectory is.

  • And you will find out that most of the cherished ideas get

  • destroyed.

  • But the good news is that you need quantum mechanics only to

  • study very tiny things like atoms or molecules.

  • Of course the big question is, you know, where do you draw the

  • line?

  • How small is small?

  • Some people even ask me, "Do you need quantum

  • mechanics to describe the human brain?"

  • And the answer is, "Yes, if it is small

  • enough."

  • So, I've gone to parties where after a few minutes of talking

  • to a person I'm thinking, "Okay, this person's brain

  • needs a fully quantum mechanical treatment."

  • But most of the time everything macroscopic you can describe the

  • way you do with Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics.

  • You don't need quantum theory.

  • All right, so now we'll start with the brand new force of

  • electromagnetism.

  • But before doing the force, I've got to remind you people

  • of certain things I expect you all to understand about the

  • dynamics between force, and mass, and acceleration that

  • you must have learned last term.

  • I don't want to take any chances.

  • I'm going to start by reminding you how we use this famous

  • equation of Newton.

  • So you've seen this equation, probably,

  • in high school, but it's a lot more subtle than

  • you think, certainly a lot more subtle

  • than I thought when I first learned it.

  • So I will tell you what I figured out over these years on

  • different ways to look at F = ma.

  • In other words, if you have the equation what's

  • it good for?

  • The only thing anybody knows right away is a stands

  • for acceleration, and we all know how to measure

  • it.

  • By the way, anytime I write any symbol on the board you should

  • be able to tell me how you'd measure it,

  • otherwise you don't know what you're talking about as a

  • physicist.

  • Acceleration, I think I won't spend too much

  • time on how you measure it.

  • You should know what instruments you will need.

  • So I will remind you that if you have a meter stick,

  • or many meter sticks and clocks you can follow the body as it

  • moves.

  • You can find its position now, its position later,

  • take the difference, divide by the time,

  • you get velocity.

  • Then find the velocity now, find the velocity later,

  • take the difference, divide by time,

  • you've got acceleration.

  • So acceleration really requires three measurements,

  • two for each velocity, but we talk of acceleration

  • right now because you can make those three measurements

  • arbitrarily near each other, and in the limit in which the

  • time difference between them goes to zero you can talk about

  • the velocity right now and acceleration right now.

  • But in your car, the needle points at 60 that's

  • your velocity right now.

  • It's an instantaneous quantity.

  • And if you step on the gas you feel this push.

  • That's your acceleration right now.

  • That's a property of that instant.

  • So we know acceleration, but the question is can I use

  • the equation to find the mass of anything.

  • Now, very often when I pose the question the answer given is,

  • you know, go to a scale, a weighing machine,

  • and find the mass.

  • And as you know, that's not the correct answer

  • because the weight of an object is related to being near the

  • earth due to gravity, but the mass of an object is

  • defined anywhere.

  • So here's one way you can do it.

  • Now you might say, "Well, take a known force and find the

  • acceleration it produces," but we haven't talked about how

  • to measure the force either.

  • All you have is this equation.

  • The correct thing to do is to buy yourself a spring and go to

  • the Bureau of Standards and tell them to loan you a block of some

  • material, I forgot what it is.

  • That's called a kilogram.

  • That is a kilogram by definition.

  • There is no God-given way to define mass.

  • You pick a random entity and say that's a kilogram.

  • So that's not right and that's not wrong.

  • That's what a kilogram is.

  • So you bring that kilogram, you hook it up on the spring,

  • and you pull it by some amount, maybe to that position,

  • and you release it.

  • You notice the acceleration of the 1 kilogram,

  • and the mass of the thing is just one.

  • Then you detach that mass.

  • Then you ask--Then the person says, "What's the mass of

  • something else?"

  • I don't know what the something else is.

  • Let's say a potato.

  • And you take the potato or anything, elephant.

  • Here's a potato.

  • You pull that guy by the same distance, and you release that,

  • and you find its acceleration.

  • Since you pulled it by the same amount, the force is the same,

  • whatever it is.

  • We don't know what it is, but it's the same.

  • Therefore we know the acceleration of 1 kilogram times

  • 1 kilogram is equal to the unknown mass times the

  • acceleration of the unknown mass.

  • That's how by measuring this you can find what the mass is.

  • In principle you can find the mass of everything.

  • So imagine masses of all objects have been determined by

  • this process.

  • Then you can also use F = ma to find out what forces

  • are acting on bodies in different situations,

  • because if you don't know what force is acting on a body you

  • cannot predict anything.

  • So you can go back to the spring and say,

  • "I want to know what force the spring exerts when it's

  • pulled by various amounts.

  • Well, you pull it by some amount x.

  • You attach it to a non-mass and you find the acceleration,

  • and that's the force.

  • And if you plot it, you'll find F as a

  • function of x will be roughly a straight line and it

  • will take the form F = -kx,

  • and that k is called a force constant.

  • So this is an example of your finding out the left hand side

  • of Newton's law.

  • You've got to understand the distinction between F =

  • -kx and F = ma.

  • What's the difference?

  • This says if you know the force I can tell you the acceleration,

  • but it's your job to go find out every time what forces might

  • be acting on a body.

  • If it's connected to a spring, and you pull the spring and it

  • exerts a force, someone's got to make this

  • measurement to find out what the force will be.

  • All right, so that's one kind of force.

  • Another force that you can find is if you're near the surface of

  • the earth, if you drop something,

  • it seems to accelerate towards the ground,

  • and everything accelerates by the same amount g.

  • Well, according to Newton's laws if anything is going to

  • accelerate, it's because there's a force on it.

  • The force on any mass m must be mg,

  • because if I divide by m I've got to get g.

  • So the force on masses near the earth is mg.

  • That's another force.

  • Something interesting about that force is that unlike the

  • spring force where the spring is touching the mass,

  • you can see it's pulling it, or when I push this chair you

  • can see I'm doing it, the pull of gravity is a bit

  • strange, because there is no real

  • contact between the earth and the object that's falling.

  • It was a great abstraction to believe that things can reach

  • out and pull things which are not touching them,

  • and gravity was the first formally described force where

  • that was true.

  • And another excursion in the same theme is if this object

  • gets very far, say like the moon over there,

  • then the force is not given by mg,

  • but the force is given by this law of gravitation.

  • For every r near the surface of the earth,

  • if you put r equal to the surface of the earth you

  • will get a constant force that is just mg,

  • but if you move far from the center of the earth you've got

  • to take that into account, and that's what Newton did and

  • realized the force goes like 1 over r^(2).

  • So every time things accelerate you've got to find the reason,

  • and that reason is the force.

  • Many times many forces can be acting on a body,

  • and if you put all the forces that are acting on a body and

  • that explains the acceleration, you're done,

  • but sometimes it won't.

  • That's when you have a new force.

  • And the final application of F = ma is this one.

  • If you knew the force, for example,

  • on a planet, and here's a planet going

  • around the sun and it is here.

  • This is the sun, and you know the force acting

  • on it given by Newton's Law of Gravity you can find the

  • acceleration that will help you find out where it will be one

  • second later, and you repeat the calculation,

  • you will get the trajectory.

  • So F = ma is good for three things,

  • that's what I want you to understand: to define mass,

  • to calculate forces acting on bodies by seeing how they

  • accelerate, and finally to find the

  • acceleration of bodies given the forces.

  • This is the cycle of Newtonian dynamics.

  • And what I'm going to do now is to add one more new force,

  • because I'm going to find out that there is another force not

  • listed here.

  • I'm going to demonstrate to you that new force,

  • okay?

  • Here's my demonstration.

  • The only demonstration you will see in my class,

  • because everything else I've tried generally failed,

  • but this one always works.

  • So, I have here a piece of paper, okay?

  • Then I take this trusty comb and I comb the part of my head

  • that's suited for this experiment,

  • then I bring it next to this, and you see I'm able to lift

  • that.

  • Now, that's not the force of gravity because gravity doesn't

  • care if you comb your hair or not, okay?

  • And also when I shake it, it falls down.

  • So you're thinking, "Okay, maybe there is a new force but

  • it doesn't look awfully strong because it's not able to even

  • overcome gravity, because it eventually yielded

  • to gravity and fell down," but it's actually a mistake to

  • think so.

  • In fact this new force that I'm talking about is 10 to the power

  • of 40 stronger than gravitational force.

  • I will tell you by what metric I came up with that number,

  • but it's an enormously strong force.

  • You've got to understand why I say it is such a strong force

  • when, when I shook it the thing fell down.

  • So the reason is that if you look at this experiment,

  • here's the comb and here's the paper,

  • the comb is trying to pull the paper,

  • but what is trying to pull it down?

  • What is trying to pull it down?

  • So here is me, here is that comb,

  • here's the paper.

  • The entire planet is pulling it down: Himalayas pulling it down,

  • Pacific Ocean, pulling it down,

  • Bin Laden sitting in his cave pulling it down.

  • Everything is pulling it down, okay?

  • I am one of these people generally convinced the world is

  • acting against me, but this time I'm right.

  • Everything is acting against me, and I'm able to triumph

  • against all of that with this tiny comb.

  • And that is how you compare the electric force with the

  • gravitational force.

  • It takes the entire planet to compensate whatever tiny force I

  • create between the comb and the piece of paper.

  • To really get a number out of this I'll have to do a little

  • more, but I just want to point out to

  • you this is a new force much stronger than gravitation.

  • So I want to tell you a few other experiments people did

  • without going into what the explanation is right now,

  • but let me just tell you if you go through history what all did

  • people do.

  • So one experiment you can do: You take a piece of glass and

  • you rub it on some animal that's passing by, water buffalo.

  • That's why I cannot do all the experiments in class.

  • You rub it on that guy, then you do it to a second

  • piece of glass, and you find out that they

  • repel each other, meaning if you put them next to

  • each other they tend to fly apart.

  • Then you take a piece of hard rubber and you rub that on

  • something else.

  • I forgot what, silk, Yeti, some other thing.

  • Then you put that here.

  • So I'll give a different shape to that thing.

  • That's the rubber stick.

  • And you find when you do that to this, these two attract each

  • other.

  • Sometimes they repel, sometimes they attract.

  • Here's another thing you can do: Buy some nylon thread.

  • You hang a small metallic sphere, and you bring one of

  • these rods next to it.

  • It doesn't matter which one.

  • Initially they're attracted and suddenly when you touch it and

  • you remove it, they start repelling each

  • other.

  • What's going on?

  • That's another thing you could do.

  • Last thing I want to mention is if you took two of these things

  • which are repelling each other, let's say.

  • Let's say they're attracting each other like this.

  • Then you connect them with a piece of nylon and you take it

  • away, nothing happens.

  • If you connect them with a piece of wire and take away the

  • wire, they no longer attract each other.

  • So these are examples of different things.

  • I'm just going to say, you do this,

  • you do this, you do that,

  • then finally you need a theory that explains everything.

  • So that's the theory that I'm going to give you now.

  • That's the theory of electrostatics.

  • And I don't have time to go into the entire history of how

  • people arrived at this final formula,

  • so I'm just going to tell you one formula that really will

  • explain everything that I've described so far,

  • and that formula is called Coulomb's Law.

  • Even though Mr. Coulomb's name is on it,

  • he was not the first one to formulate parts of the law,

  • but he gave the final and direct verification of Coulomb's

  • Law that other people who had contributed.

  • So Coulomb's Law says that certain entities have a property

  • called charge.

  • You have charge or you don't have charge, but if you have

  • charge the charge that you have, you meaning any of these

  • objects, is measured in coulombs.

  • Remember, that was not Coulomb's idea to call it

  • coulomb.

  • Whenever you make a discovery, you're breathlessly waiting

  • that somebody will name it after you,

  • but it's not in good taste to name to after yourself,

  • but it carries Coulomb's name.

  • So he didn't say call it coulomb, okay,

  • but he certainly wrote down this law.

  • The law says that if you've got one entity which has some amount

  • of charge called q_1,

  • and there's another entity that has some amount of charge

  • q_2 they will exert a force on each other

  • which is given by q_1q

  • _2 times this constant which is somehow

  • written as 1 over 4Πε

  • _0.

  • That's 1 over r^(2).

  • But r is the distance between them,

  • and you can ask in this picture, what do you mean by

  • distance?

  • I mean, is it from here to there, or is it from center to

  • center?

  • We're assuming here that the distance between them is much

  • bigger than the individual sizes.

  • For example, you say, how far am I from Los

  • Angeles, well, 3,225 miles,

  • but you can say are you taking about your right hand or your

  • left hand?

  • Well, I'm a point particle for this purpose so it doesn't

  • matter.

  • So here we're assuming that either they're mathematically

  • point charges or they're real charges with a finite size but

  • separated by a distance much bigger than the size,

  • so r could stand, if you like,

  • for center to center.

  • It doesn't matter too much.

  • So this is what Coulomb said.

  • Now, if you look at this number here,

  • 1 over 4Πε _0,

  • its value is 9 times 10 to the 9^(th).

  • What that means is the following: If you take one body

  • with 1 coulomb of charge, another body with 1 coulomb of

  • charge and they're separated by 1 meter,

  • then the force between them will be this number,

  • because everything else is a 1.

  • It'll be 9 times 10 to the 9 newtons.

  • That's an enormous force, and normally you don't run into

  • 1 coulomb of charge, but the reason why a coulomb

  • was picked is sort of historical and it has to do with currents

  • and so on.

  • But anyway, this is the definition.

  • But if you want to be more precise, I should write a

  • formula more carefully because force is a vector.

  • Also I should say force on whom and due to what.

  • So let's say there are two charges,

  • and say q_1 is sitting at the origin and

  • q_2 is sitting at a point whose position is the

  • vector r.

  • Then the force on 2 due to 1 is given by q_2q

  • _1 over 4Πε_0

  • times 1 over r^(2).

  • That's the magnitude of the force, but I want to suggest

  • that the force is such that q_1 pushes

  • q_2 away.

  • So I want to make this into a vector, but I've got the

  • magnitude of the vector.

  • As you know, to make a real vector you take

  • its magnitude and multiply it by a vector of unit length in that

  • same direction.

  • The unit vector we can write in many ways.

  • One is just to say e_r,

  • e_r_ is a standard name for a

  • vector of length 1 in the direction of r.

  • But I'll give you another choice.

  • You can also write it as r divided by the length

  • of r.

  • That also would be a vector of unit length parallel to

  • r.

  • So there are many ways to write the thing that makes it a

  • vector.

  • And F_21 is minus of F_12.

  • Now, how do we get attraction and how do we get repulsion?

  • We get it because q_1 and

  • q_2, if they're both positive and

  • you if you use the formula, you'll find they repel each

  • other, but if they're of opposite signs,

  • you'll do the same calculation, but you'll put a minus sign in

  • front of the whole thing.

  • That'll turn repulsion into an attraction.

  • So you must allow for the possibility that q can be

  • of either sign; q can also be 0.

  • There are certain entities which don't have any electric

  • charge, so if you put them next to a million coulombs nothing

  • happens.

  • So some things have plus charge.

  • Some things have minus charge.

  • Some things have no charge, but they're all contained in

  • this Coulomb's Law.

  • Now, again, skipping all the intermediate discoveries,

  • I want to tell you a couple of things we know about charge.

  • First thing is - q is conserved.

  • Conserved is a physics terms for saying--does not change with

  • time.

  • For example, when you say energy is

  • conserved, it means particles can come and

  • collide and do all kinds of things,

  • but if you add that energy before, you'll get the same

  • answer afterwards, and whenever that happens,

  • the quantity is conserved.

  • The claim is electrical charge is conserved.

  • So electrical charge may migrate from A to B or B to A,

  • but if you add up the total charge,

  • say the chemical reaction of any process,

  • including in big particle accelerators where things

  • collide and all kinds of stuff comes flying out,

  • the charge of the final products always equal to the

  • charge of the incoming products.

  • But charge conservation needs to be amended with one extra

  • term, extra qualification.

  • It's called local.

  • Suppose I say the number of students in the class is

  • conserved?

  • That means you count them any time, you've got to get the same

  • number.

  • Well, here's one possibility.

  • Suddenly one of you guys disappears and appears here at

  • the same instant.

  • That's also consistent with conservation of student number

  • because the number didn't change.

  • What disappeared there, appeared here.

  • But that is not a local conservation of charge because

  • it disappears in one part of the world and appears in another

  • one.

  • And it's not even a meaningful law to have in the presence of

  • relativity.

  • Can any of you guys think of why that might be true,

  • why a charge disappearing somewhere and appearing

  • somewhere else cannot be a very profound principle?

  • Yes?

  • Student: >

  • Prof: Yep?

  • Student: Well, if it's in the same instant

  • disappearing from one place and appearing another place,

  • it's traveling faster than light?

  • Prof: Well, we don't know that it was the

  • same thing that even traveled.

  • It may not have traveled.

  • It may even be--Here's another thing.

  • Suppose an electron, suppose a proton disappears

  • there and a positron appears here.

  • That still conserves charge, but we don't think that the

  • proton traveled and became the positron, right?

  • So it is not that it has traveled.

  • You are right.

  • I hadn't thought about that.

  • It's a good point that it implies it traveled infinitely

  • fast, but that's not the reason you object to it.

  • Yep?

  • Student: It's not necessarily simultaneous.

  • Prof: That is the correct answer.

  • The answer is it is not simultaneous in every frame of

  • reference.

  • You must know from the special theory that if two events are

  • simultaneous in one frame of reference,

  • if you see those same two events in a moving train,

  • or plane, or anything they will not be simultaneous.

  • Therefore, in any other frame of reference,

  • either the charge would have been created first and then

  • after a period of time reappeared somewhere,

  • I mean, destroyed somewhere and appeared after a delay,

  • or the appearance could take place before the destruction,

  • so suddenly you've got two charges.

  • So conservation of charge, which is conserved non-locally,

  • cannot have a significance except in one frame of

  • reference, but if you believe that all

  • observers are equivalent and you want to write down laws that

  • make sense for everybody it can only be local.

  • So electrical charge is conserved and it is local,

  • locally conserved.

  • In other words, stuff doesn't just disappear.

  • Stuff just moves around.

  • You can keep track of it, and if you add it up you get

  • the same number.

  • The second part of q, which is not necessary for any

  • of these older phenomena, is that q is quantized.

  • That means the electrical charge that we run into does not

  • take a continuum of possible values.

  • For example, the length of any object,

  • you might think at least in classical mechanics,

  • is any number you like.

  • It's a continuous variable, but electric charge is not

  • continuous.

  • As far as we can tell, all the charges we have ever

  • seen are all multiples of a certain basic unit of charge,

  • which turns out to be 1.6 times 10 to the -19 coulombs.

  • Every charge is either that or some multiple of it.

  • Multiple could be plus or minus multiple.

  • So charge is granular, not continuous.

  • Okay, so I'm going to give you a little more knowledge we have

  • had since the time of Coulomb that sort or explains these

  • things.

  • I mean, what's really going on microscopically?

  • We don't have to pretend we don't know.

  • We do, so we might as well use that information from now on.

  • What we do know is that everything is made up of atoms,

  • and that if you look into the atom it's got a nucleus,

  • a lot of guys sitting here.

  • Some are called protons and some are called neutrons,

  • and then there are some guys running around called electrons.

  • Of course we will see at the end of the semester that this

  • picture is wrong, but it is good enough for this

  • purpose.

  • It's certainly true that there are charges in an atom which are

  • near the center and other light charges which are near the

  • periphery, are outside.

  • All things carrying electric charge in our world in daily

  • life are either protons or electrons.

  • You can produce strange particles in an accelerator.

  • They would also carry some charge which would in fact be a

  • multiple of this charge, but they don't live very long.

  • So the stable things that you and I are made of and just about

  • everything in this room is made of, is made up of protons,

  • neutrons and electrons.

  • The charge of the neutron, as you can guess,

  • is 0.

  • The charge of the electron, by some strange convention,

  • was given this minus sign by Franklin.

  • And the charge of the proton is plus 1.6 times into -19

  • coulombs.

  • There are a lot of amazing things I find here.

  • I don't know if you've thought about it.

  • The first interesting thing is that every electron anywhere in

  • the universe has exactly the same charge.

  • It also has exactly the same mass.

  • Now, you might say, "Look, that's a tautology,"

  • because if it wasn't the same charge and if it wasn't the same

  • mass you would call it something else.

  • But what makes it a non-empty statement is that there are

  • many, many, many, many electrons which are

  • absolutely identical.

  • Look, you try to manufacture two cars.

  • The chance that they're identical is 0,

  • right?

  • I got one of those cars so I know that.

  • It doesn't work.

  • It's supposed to.

  • So despite all the best efforts people make, things are not

  • identical.

  • But at the microscopic level of electrons and protons,

  • every proton anywhere in the universe is identical.

  • And they can be manufactured in a collision in another part of

  • the universe.

  • This can be manufactured in a collision in Geneva,

  • the stuff that comes out identical.

  • That is a mystery, at least in classical mechanics

  • it's a mystery.

  • Quantum Field Theory gives you an answer to at least why all

  • electrons are identical, and why all protons are

  • identical.

  • The fact that they're absolutely identical particles

  • is very, very important.

  • It also makes your life easy, because if every particle was

  • different from every other particle, you cannot make any

  • predictions.

  • We know that the hydrogen atom on a receding galaxy is

  • identical to the hydrogen atom on the Earth.

  • That's why when the radiation coming from the atom has a

  • shifted wavelength of frequency, we attributed to the motion of

  • the galaxy.

  • From the Doppler Shift we find out its speed.

  • But another explanation could be, well, that's a different

  • hydrogen atom.

  • Maybe that's why the answer's different.

  • But we all believe it's the same hydrogen atom,

  • but it's moving away from us.

  • Therefore, one of the remarkable things is that all

  • electrons and all protons are equal,

  • but a really big mystery is why is the charge of the electron

  • exactly equal and opposite the charge of the proton.

  • They are not the same particle.

  • Their masses are different.

  • Their other interactions are different.

  • But in terms of electrical charge these two numbers are

  • absolutely equal as far as anybody knows.

  • That's another mystery.

  • Two different particles, not related by any manifest

  • family relationship, have the same charge,

  • except in sign.

  • And there are theories called Grand Unified Theories which try

  • to explain this, but certainly not part of any

  • standard established theory, but it's key to everything we

  • see in daily life because that's what makes the atom electrically

  • neutral.

  • Okay, now we can understand the quantization of charge,

  • because charge is carried by these guys and these guys are

  • either there or not there, so you can only have so many

  • electrons.

  • We cannot have a part of an electron, or part of a proton.

  • Now, let's try to understand all these experiments in terms

  • of what we know.

  • First of all, when you take this piece of

  • glass, and you rub it, the atoms in glass are neutral.

  • They've got equal number of protons and electrons,

  • but when you rub it, the glass atom loses some

  • electrons to whatever you rubbed it on.

  • Therefore, it becomes positively charged,

  • because some negative has been taken out.

  • In the case of the rubber stick, it gains the electrons

  • and whatever animal you rubbed it on, it loses the electrons.

  • So actually real charge transfer takes place only

  • through electrons.

  • Protons carry charge, but you are never going to rip

  • a proton out unless you use an accelerator.

  • It's really deeply bound to the nucleus.

  • Electrons are the ones who do all the business of electricity

  • in daily life.

  • The current flowing in the wire, in the circuit,

  • it's all the motion of electrons.

  • So from this and Coulomb's Law, can you understand the

  • attraction between these two?

  • How many people think you can, from Coulomb's Law,

  • understand the attraction between these two rods?

  • Nobody thinks you can?

  • Well, why do you think you cannot?

  • You know why?

  • Student: Because they're not point charges?

  • Prof: Okay, any other reason why Coulomb's

  • Law is not enough?

  • Well, how will we apply Coulomb's Law to understand the

  • attraction between these two rods?

  • What will you have to do?

  • Student: You'd have to apply it to F = ma.

  • Prof: No.

  • Once you got the F, the a will follow,

  • but can you compute the force between two rods?

  • One of them has got a lot of positive charge.

  • One of them has a lot of negative charge given Coulomb's

  • Law.

  • Yes?

  • Student: You don't know the exact quantities of the

  • charges..

  • Prof: Pardon me?

  • Student: You don't know the exact quantities of the

  • charges.

  • Prof: Suppose I tell you.

  • I tell you how many charges there are.

  • Yes?

  • Student: You don't which direction the attraction

  • is.

  • Prof: No, we do know, because the plus

  • and minus will be drawn towards each other.

  • Okay, I'll tell you what it is.

  • It's an assumption we all make, but you're not really supposed

  • to make it.

  • It's not a consequence of any logic.

  • Coulomb's Law talks about two charges, two point charges.

  • What if there are three charges in the universe?

  • What is the force this one will experience due to these two?

  • This is q_1.

  • This is q_2.

  • This is q_3.

  • Coulomb's Law doesn't tell you that.

  • It tells you only two at a time, but we make an extra

  • assumption called superposition which says that if you want the

  • force on 3 (should read 1), when there is

  • q_1 and q_2,

  • you find the force due to q_2 and you

  • find the force due to q_3 and you add

  • them up.

  • The fact that you can add these two vectors is not a logical

  • requirement.

  • In fact, it's not even true at an extremely accurate level that

  • the force between two charges is not affected by the presence of

  • a third one.

  • But it's an excellent approximation,

  • but you must realize it is something you've got to find to

  • be true experimentally.

  • It's not something you can say is logical consequence.

  • Logically there is no reason why the interaction between two

  • entities should not be affected by the presence of a third one.

  • But it seems to be a very good approximation for what we do,

  • and that's the reason why eventually we can find the force

  • between an extended object, another extended object by

  • looking at the force on everyone of these due to everyone of

  • those and adding all the vectors.

  • Okay, so superposition plus Coulomb's Law is what you need.

  • Then you can certainly understand the attraction.

  • How about the comb and the piece of paper?

  • That's a very interesting example and it's connected to

  • this one.

  • See, the piece of paper is electrically neutral.

  • So let me do paper and comb instead of this one.

  • It's got the same model.

  • Here's the piece of paper.

  • Here's the comb.

  • The comb is positively charged.

  • The paper is neutral.

  • So anyway, there's nothing here to be attracted to this one,

  • but if you bring it close enough, there are equal amount

  • of positive and negative charges,

  • but what will happen is the negative charges will migrate

  • near these positive charges from the other end,

  • leaving positive charges in the back,

  • so that the system will separate into a little bit of

  • negative closer to the positive, and the leftover positive will

  • be further away.

  • Therefore, even though it's neutral the attraction of plus

  • for this minus is stronger than the repulsion of this plus with

  • this plus.

  • That's called polarization.

  • So polarization is when charge separates.

  • Some materials cannot be polarized, in which case no

  • matter how much you do this with a comb it won't work.

  • Some materials can be polarized.

  • The piece of paper is an example of what can be

  • polarized.

  • We can understand that too.

  • And in this example, if you bring a lot of plus

  • charges here, and you look at what's going on

  • here, the minus guys here will sit

  • here and the plus will be left over in the back,

  • and then this attraction between plus and minus is bigger

  • than this repulsion, so it will be attracted to it.

  • But once it touches it, this rod touches that,

  • then what you have is a lot of plus charges here.

  • They repel each other.

  • They want to get out.

  • Previously they couldn't get out.

  • They were stuck on the rod, but now that you've made

  • contact, some of them will jump to that one.

  • Then when you separate them, you will have a ball with some

  • plus charges, and you will have a rod with

  • more plus charges, and they will repel each other.

  • And finally I said if you take two of these spheres,

  • suppose one was positively charged, one was negatively

  • charged, they're attracting each other.

  • If you connect them with a nylon wire or a wooden stick

  • nothing happens, but if you connect them with an

  • electrical wire, what happens is that the extra

  • negative charges here will go to that side,

  • and then when you are done they will both become electrically

  • neutral.

  • Okay, so that's why.

  • So the point of this one is: electric charges can flow

  • through some materials, but not other materials.

  • If it can flow through some materials, it's called a

  • conductor.

  • If it cannot flow through them, it's called an insulator.

  • So real life you've got both.

  • So when you're changing the light bulb,

  • if you don't want to get an electric shock you're supposed

  • to stand on a piece of wood before you stick your finger in,

  • unless you've got other intentions.

  • Then, you will find that you don't get the shock because the

  • wood doesn't conduct electricity.

  • But if you stand on a metallic stool, on a metallic floor and

  • put your hand in the socket, you'll be part of an electrical

  • circuit.

  • The human body is a good conductor of electricity,

  • but what saves you is that it cannot go from your feet to the

  • floor.

  • Now, there are also semiconductors,

  • which are somewhere in between, but in our course either we'll

  • talk about insulators, which don't conduct

  • electricity, and perfect conductors,

  • which conduct electricity.

  • Okay, so a summary of what I've said so far is that there's a

  • new force in nature.

  • To be part of that game you have to have charge.

  • If you have no charge, you cannot play that game.

  • Like neutrons cannot play this game.

  • Nothing's attracted or repelled by neutrons and neutrons cannot

  • attract or repel anything.

  • So you've got to have electric charge.

  • It happens to be measured in coulombs.

  • So let me ask you another question.

  • Suppose I tell you, here is Coulombs Law.

  • Let me just write the number 1 over 4Πε

  • _0.

  • How are we going to test that this law is correct?

  • Okay, I'm giving you a bonus.

  • You don't have to discover the law.

  • I'm giving you the law.

  • All you have to do is to verify it, and don't use any other

  • definitions other than this law itself.

  • How will you know it depends on q_1 and

  • q_2 in this fashion?

  • How will you know it depends on r in that fashion?

  • That's what I'm asking you.

  • Can anybody think of some setup, some experiment you will

  • do?

  • Let me ask an easier question.

  • How will you know it goes like 1 over r^(2)?

  • Yep?

  • Student: Vary the distance between them,

  • and show that the force falls off.

  • Prof: Well, you're right that if you vary

  • the distance between them and show the force falls like that,

  • but how do you know what the force is?

  • Yes?

  • Student: Could you use a spring here?

  • Prof: What was your plan?

  • Student: Observe acceleration.

  • Prof: You are right.

  • Both of you are right.

  • You can maybe hold this guy fixed, and let this go,

  • and see how it accelerates.

  • And if you knew the mass of this guy then you know the

  • force.

  • Then you can vary the distance to another distance,

  • maybe half the distance.

  • At half the distance if you get four times the force you

  • verified 1 over r^(2 )law.

  • The other one is with the spring.

  • You can take a spring.

  • Say maybe there are two metals, uncharged objects,

  • then you dump some charge on this and some charge on that,

  • and then the spring will expand, and you can see what

  • force the spring expands, exerts, and see if it is

  • proportional to 1 over r^(2).

  • That's how Newton deduced the 1 over r^(2) force law.

  • He found the acceleration of the apple is 3,600 times the

  • acceleration of the moon towards the earth,

  • and the moon was 60 times further than the apple,

  • and 60 squared is 3,600.

  • That's how he found 1 over r^(2).

  • Now, he was very lucky.

  • It could have been 1 over r to the 2.110 or 1.96,

  • but it happens to be exactly 1 over r^(2).

  • Anyway, that's how we can find even if it's not 1 over

  • r^(2).

  • If it's 1 over r^(3), or 1 over r^(4),

  • whatever it is you can find by taking two charges.

  • See, we don't have to know what q_1 and

  • q_2 are.

  • That's what I'm trying to emphasize here.

  • If all you're trying to see is does it vary like 1 over

  • r^(2), keep everything the same except

  • r.

  • Double the r and see what happens.

  • And best way is what you said.

  • Watch the acceleration, and if it falls to one fourth

  • of the value for doubling the distance, it is 1 over

  • r^(2).

  • All right, suppose I got 1 over r^(2).

  • I want to know it depends on the charges as the first power

  • of q_1 and the first power of

  • q_2.

  • So how should we do that?

  • And don't say put 10 electrons once and then 20 electrons

  • because you cannot see electrons that well.

  • In the old days people did not even know about electrons,

  • and yet they managed to test this.

  • So how will you vary the charge in a known way?

  • Yep?

  • Student: You could have many identical spheres,

  • and maybe keep touching them to each other.

  • Prof: Ah!

  • Okay, many identical spheres.

  • Student: And then put charge on one and then touch it

  • to the second one and you'll get half as much.

  • Prof: Very good.

  • Let me repeat what she said.

  • First you take many identical spheres.

  • Well, I not going to even try to draw identical spheres

  • because I haven't learned how to draw spheres,

  • but let's imagine you've got a whole bunch of these guys.

  • You put some charge on this.

  • You don't know what it is, okay?

  • We don't know what q is.

  • We're trying to find out.

  • You don't have to know what q is.

  • So let this be one of the objects.

  • That's my q.

  • For the other object, keep a fixed-object containing

  • some other q.

  • This has got charge q.

  • Don't vary the r.

  • Question is, can you change q to

  • q/2, and her answer was:

  • if it's got some charge, maybe a plus,

  • bring it in contact with the second identical sphere.

  • If it really is identical, you have to agree that when you

  • separate them they must exactly have half each.

  • That's a symmetry argument.

  • Because for any reason you give me for why one of them should

  • have more, I will tell you why the other one should have more.

  • You cannot, so they will split it evenly and therefore charge

  • will split evenly to q/2 here and q/2 here.

  • Then you can take this and put it there--you've got q/2.

  • Then you can do other combinations.

  • For example, you can take this q/2

  • and connect it to the ground so it becomes neutral.

  • So this has got 0 again.

  • You can touch that with the q/2 and separate them.

  • Then each will have q/4.

  • So in this way you can vary the charge in a known way,

  • maybe half of it, double it.

  • I give you some homework problem where you want to get

  • 5/16 of a coulomb.

  • By enough spheres you can do that.

  • Again, what I want you to notice is that you did not know

  • what q was, but all you knew is that

  • q went to q/2 when you brought two identical

  • spheres and separated them.

  • That's how we can find that it depends linearly on

  • q_1.

  • Of course, it also depends linearly on q_2

  • because it's up to you to decide who you want to call

  • q_1, and who you want to call

  • q_2.

  • Okay, so I want you people to understand all the time that you

  • should be able to tell me how you measure anything,

  • okay?

  • That's very, very important.

  • That's why you should think about it.

  • If you think in those terms you'll also find you're doing

  • all the problems very well.

  • If you're thinking of pushing symbols and canceling factors of

  • Π you won't get the feeling for what's happening.

  • So everything you write down you should be able to measure.

  • If you say, "Oh, I want to measure the

  • force," you've got to be sure how you'll measure it,

  • and one way is like you said, find m times a.

  • If you knew the m you can measure the force.

  • For everything make sure you can measure it.

  • If I give you a sphere charged with something,

  • then of course we've got to decide.

  • Suppose I give you a sphere.

  • It's got some charge, and I want you to find how much

  • charge is on that sphere.

  • This time I want you to tell me how many coulombs there are.

  • What will you do?

  • What process will you use?

  • Well, then you have a problem because you are not able to

  • figure out, but if I tell you here's an

  • object, it is 3 meters long,

  • you can test it because you'll go and bring the meter stick

  • from the Bureau of Standards and measure it three times.

  • I'm asking you, if I give you a certain charge

  • and say how much charge is there, by what process can we

  • calibrate the charges?

  • Yep?

  • Student: Put it in the vicinity of a reference charge

  • and then measure the acceleration.

  • Prof: That's correct.

  • If you knew one standard charge, somehow or other we knew

  • its value, then bring the unknown one next to it,

  • put it at a known distance, right?

  • You know the r.

  • You know the 4Π.

  • You know the ε _0.

  • You find the force, you can find this charge.

  • So all we need to know is how to get a reference charge,

  • right?

  • So how do I know something has a coulomb?

  • How do I get 1 coulomb of charge just to be sure?

  • You know what you could do, because you haven't defined yet

  • the reference, so you should think about how

  • will I get a coulomb charge, or any other charge?

  • So I could take these two spheres that she talked about,

  • each with the same charge q.

  • We don't know what it is.

  • I put them at 1 meter distance and I measure the force,

  • namely how hard should I hold one from running away to the

  • other one.

  • Once I got the force, the only thing unknown in the

  • equation is q times q.

  • I know r.

  • I know 1 over 4Πε _0.

  • I can get q.

  • So every time you write something think about how you'll

  • measure it, because in that process you're learning how the

  • physics is done.

  • If you try to avoid that you'll be just juggling equations,

  • and that doesn't work for you and that doesn't work for me.

  • Anybody who wants to do good physics should be constantly

  • paying attention to physical phenomena,

  • and not to the symbols that stand for physical objects.

  • All right, so the final thing I want to do in this connection is

  • to give this number I mentioned, F_gravity over

  • F_electric.

  • I said gravity is 10 to the -40 times weaker.

  • Well, you have to precise on how you got the number.

  • See, it's not like selling toothpaste where you can say it

  • is 7.2 times whiter.

  • I don't know how those guys measure whiteness in a unit with

  • two decimal places, but that's a different game.

  • It's not subject to any rules, but here you have to say how

  • you got the number.

  • In what context did you make the comparison?

  • It turns out the answer does depend on what you choose.

  • There'll be some variations, but those tiny variations are

  • swamped by this enormous ratio I would get.

  • So what you could do is take any two bodies,

  • and find the ratio of gravity to electric force.

  • One option is to take two elementary particles,

  • whichever two you like.

  • So I will take an electron and a proton, but you can take an

  • electron and a positron, or a proton and a proton.

  • It doesn't matter.

  • These two guys attract each other gravitationally and

  • electrically.

  • So I will write the force of gravitation,

  • which is G, mass of the proton,

  • mass of the electron, over r^(2 )divided by

  • q_electron, q_proton over

  • 4Πε _0 times 1

  • over r^(2).

  • Notice in this experiment, in this calculation,

  • r^(2 )does not matter, so you don't have to decide how

  • far you want to keep them, because they both go like 1

  • over r^(2 ),so you can pick any r.

  • So whatever you pick is going to cancel and you will be left

  • with this number.

  • A q_1, q_2 and the 1

  • over 4Πε_0

  • is 9 times 10 to the 9^(th).

  • So now we put in some numbers.

  • So G is 10 to the -11 with some pre-factors,

  • maybe 6 in this case.

  • I'm not going to worry about pre-factors.

  • But the mass of the proton is 10 to the -27 kilograms,

  • the mass of the electron 10 to -30 kilograms.

  • So don't say how come they all have these nice round numbers.

  • They are not.

  • There are factors like 1 and 2.

  • I'm not putting them because I'm just counting powers of 10.

  • q_1 is 1.6 times 10 to the -19,

  • so two of those q's is 10 to the -38.

  • Then 9 times 10 to the 9^(th) is roughly 10 to the 10^(th).

  • If you do all of that you will find this is 10 to the -40,

  • if it is some typical situation that you took,

  • and you found this ratio of forces.

  • If there are two elementary particles,

  • which are like the building blocks of matter,

  • and you brought them to any distance you like you compare

  • the electric attraction to the gravitational attraction.

  • So one question is: if gravity is so weak,

  • how did anyone discover the force of gravity?

  • If all you had was electrons and protons, you'd have to

  • measure the force between them.

  • Suppose you knew only about electricity, didn't know about

  • gravitation.

  • One way to find there is an extra force is to measure the

  • force to an accuracy good to 40 decimal places,

  • and in the 40th decimal place you find something is wrong.

  • You fiddle around and figure out the correction comes from

  • m_1m_2 over r^(2),

  • but that's not how it was done, right?

  • You guys know that.

  • So how did anyone discover the force of gravity when it's

  • overwhelmed?

  • Yes?

  • Student: Most things are neutral?

  • Prof: Yes.

  • Most things are electrically neutral.

  • In other words, electric force,

  • even though it's very strong, comes with opposite charges.

  • It can occur with a plus sign or with a minus sign.

  • Therefore, if you take the planet Earth,

  • it's got lots and lots of charges in every atom,

  • but every atom is neutral.

  • You've got the moon, ditto, lots and lots of atoms,

  • but they're all neutral.

  • But the mass of the electron does not cancel the mass of the

  • proton.

  • So mass can never be hidden, whereas charge can be hidden.

  • Mass never cancels.

  • That's the reason why, in spite of the incredible

  • amount of electrical forces they're potentially capable of

  • exerting, they present to each other

  • neutral entities.

  • Therefore, this remaining force which is not shielded is what

  • you see, and has a dramatic role in the structure of the

  • universe, force of gravity.

  • But in most cosmological calculations you can forget

  • mainly the electric force.

  • It's all gravitational force.

  • That's because electricity can be neutralized.

  • So you cannot hide gravity.

  • Everything has mass.

  • Even photons which have no mass have energy.

  • They're also attracted by gravitation.

  • So gravity cannot be hidden, and that's the origin of

  • something called dark matter.

  • So how many of you guys heard about dark matter?

  • Okay?

  • Anyone want to volunteer?

  • Someone whose name begins with T, anybody's name begins with T

  • and also knows the answer to this?

  • The trouble is, you people are plagued with one

  • quality which is not good for being in physics,

  • namely you're modest.

  • So you don't want to tell me the answer.

  • So I have to give an excuse for whoever gives the answer.

  • If your seat has a number 142, anybody in seat 142?

  • Maybe they're not even numbered.

  • Look, anybody with a red piece of clothing knows the answer to

  • this--go ahead.

  • Yes?

  • Student: >

  • Prof: Pardon me?

  • Student: >

  • Prof: Right.

  • Basically there's no way you can see it, and there's dark

  • matter right in this room, okay?

  • And there's dark matter everywhere, but the reason,

  • the way people found out there is dark matter,

  • do you know how that was determined?

  • Yep?

  • Student: The rotation of galaxies didn't line up with

  • the matter that was visible, so...

  • Prof: So yes.

  • Maybe one example I can talk is about our own galaxy.

  • So here's our visible galaxy, okay, the old spiral.

  • Now, if something is orbiting this galaxy just by using

  • Newtonian gravity, by knowing the velocity of the

  • object as it goes around, you can calculate how much mass

  • is enclosed by the orbit.

  • That's a property of gravitation--from the orbit,

  • you can find out how much mass is enclosed.

  • So what you will find is, if you found something orbiting

  • the center of the galaxy at that radius, you'll enclose some

  • mass.

  • If you take objects at bigger and bigger radius,

  • you'll enclose more and more mass, until you find orbits as

  • big as the galaxy.

  • Then the mass enclosed as a function of radius should come

  • and stop, because after that the orbit's getting bigger,

  • but not enclosing any more mass.

  • But what people found, that even after you cross the

  • nominal size of the galaxy, you still keep picking up mass,

  • and that is the dark matter halo of our galaxy.

  • So it's dark to everything, but you cannot escape gravity.

  • That's what I meant to say.

  • You cannot avoid gravitational force.

  • So people are trying to find dark matter.

  • People at Yale are trying to find dark matter.

  • The thing is, you don't know exactly what it

  • is.

  • It's not any of the usual suspects, because then they

  • would have interacted very strongly.

  • So you're trying to find something not knowing exactly

  • what it is.

  • And you've got to build detectors that will detect

  • something.

  • And you go through it everyday in your lab,

  • and you're hoping that one of these dark matter particles will

  • collide with the stuff in your detector,

  • and trigger a reaction.

  • Of course there will be lots of reactions everyday,

  • but most of them are due to other things.

  • That's called background.

  • You've got to throw the background out,

  • and whatever is left has got to be due to dark matter.

  • And again, how do you know it's dark matter?

  • How do you know it's not something else?

  • Well you can see that if you're drifting through dark matter in

  • a moving Earth, you will be running into more

  • of them in the direction of motion and less in the other

  • direction, because you're running into the

  • wind.

  • So by looking at the direction dependence, you can try to see

  • if it's dark matter.

  • Anyway, dark matter was discovered by simple Newtonian

  • gravitation.

  • The particles that form dark matter are very interesting to

  • particle physicists.

  • There are many candidates in particle theory,

  • but the origin of the discrepancy came from just doing

  • Newtonian gravity.

  • All right, the final thing today before we break is that

  • there's one variation of Coulomb's Law.

  • By the way, I do not know your mathematical training and how

  • much math you know, so you have to be on the

  • lookout, say, if I write something that looks

  • very alien to you, you've got to go take care of

  • that, in particular,

  • how to do integrals in maybe more than one dimension.

  • Anyway, what I wanted to discuss today is the following:

  • we know how to do Coulomb's Law due to any number of point

  • charges.

  • So if you put another charge q here you want the force

  • on this guy due to all these.

  • You draw those lines, you take the 1 over r^(2

  • )due to that, 1 over r^(2 )due to

  • that, add all the vectors.

  • That's very simple.

  • But we will also take problems where the charges are

  • continuous.

  • So here's an example.

  • Here's a ring of charge.

  • The ring has some radius.

  • You pick your radius r, and the charge on it is

  • continuous.

  • It's not discrete, or it could be in real life

  • everything is discrete, but to a coarse observer it

  • will look like it's continuous.

  • So we can draw some pictures here, charges all over the ring,

  • and λ is the number of coulombs per meter.

  • Let me see, if you snipped one meter of the wire it'll have

  • λ coulombs in it.

  • And you want to find the electric force on some other

  • charge q due to this wire.

  • So you cannot do a sum.

  • And you have to do an integral.

  • That's what I'm driving at, and I'm going to do one

  • integral, then we'll do more complicated ones later.

  • So I want to find the force on a charge q here.

  • So what I will do is, I will divide this into

  • segments each of length, say dl.

  • Then I will find the force of the charge here,

  • dF.

  • I will add the forces due to all the segments.

  • The force of this segment will be the charge--

  • this segment is so small, you can treat it as a point

  • charge, and the amount of charge here

  • is λ times dl.

  • That's the q_1.

  • The q_2 is the q I put there.

  • Then there's the 4Πε

  • _0, r^(2),

  • r^(2 )will be this distance z times this

  • radius r will be-- maybe I shouldn't call it

  • r.

  • Let me call it capital R, and it's R^(2

  • )plus z^(2).

  • That's the distance.

  • But now that force is a vector that's pointing in that

  • direction, but I know that the total force

  • is going to point in this direction because for every guy

  • I find in this side I can find one in the opposite direction

  • pointing that way.

  • So they will always cancel horizontally.

  • The only remaining force will be in the z direction.

  • So I'm going to keep only the component of the force in the z

  • direction.

  • I denote it by dF in the z direction.

  • For that, you have to take this force and multiply by cosine of

  • that θ.

  • I hope you know how to find the component of a force in a

  • direction.

  • It's the cosine of the angle between them.

  • That angle is equal to this angle, and cosine of this is

  • z divided by R^(2 )plus z^(2 )on the

  • root.

  • That is the dF due to this segment,

  • and the total force in the z direction is integral of this,

  • and what that integrate.

  • λ, q, all these are

  • constant, R, z, everything is a

  • constant.

  • You have to add all the dl's, if you add all the

  • dl's you will get the circumference.

  • In other words, this is going to be

  • λqz divided by 4Πε

  • _0R^(2 )plus z^(2 )to the

  • 3/2 integral of dl.

  • Integral of dl is just 2ΠR.

  • In other words, every one of them is making an

  • equal contribution, so the integrand doesn't depend

  • on where you are in the circle, so you're just measuring the

  • length of the circle.

  • That's the answer.

  • The force looks like λ times

  • 2ΠR, what is that?

  • λ is the charge per unit length.

  • That, times the length of the loop, is the charge on the loop.

  • It's the charge you're putting there divided by

  • 4Πε _0 divided

  • by R^(2) plus z^(2) to the 3/2.

  • That's an example of calculating the force which will

  • be in this direction.

  • Now, once you've done this calculation you may think maybe

  • I missed a factor of Π or factor of e,

  • something.

  • Can you think of a way to test this?

  • What test would you like to apply to this result?

  • Yep?

  • Student: Put the z equal to 0 and have it

  • in the middle.

  • There should be no forces on it.

  • Prof: Very good.

  • What he said is, if you pick z equal to 0

  • you're sitting in the middle of the circle,

  • and you're getting pushed equally from all sides,

  • and you better not have a force, and that's certainly

  • correct.

  • This vanishes when z goes to 0.

  • Anything else?

  • Any other test?

  • Yep?

  • Student: You could put it underneath by negative

  • z.

  • The force should be negative.

  • Prof: Yes, it will point down and be

  • negative.

  • That's correct, but how about the magnitude of

  • the force itself, rather than just the direction?

  • Yep?

  • Student: If you go infinitely far away it should

  • look like a point charge.

  • Prof: Yes.

  • If you go very, very far, someone's holding a

  • loop, you cannot see that it's even a loop.

  • It's some tiny spec, and it should produce the

  • field.

  • So what field should it produce?

  • It should produce the coulomb force q_1q

  • _2, or 4Πε

  • _0 times distance squared.

  • And when z is much, much, much bigger than

  • R, this is one kilometer, this is two inches.

  • You forget this.

  • You get z^(2) to the 3/2 is then z cubed.

  • That means the whole thing here reduces to 1 over z^(2)

  • and it looks like the force between two point charges.

  • So I would ask you whenever you do a calculation to test your

  • result.

  • Okay, before going I've got to tell you something about those

  • who come late.

  • I realize that you guys come from near and far,

  • so when you come late let me give you my preference for

  • doors, okay?

  • Door number one is that one.

  • That's the least problematic.

  • Door number two is this one, because in the beginning of the

  • lecture I'm usually on that side of the board,

  • so you guys can come in.

  • Door number three is that one where Jude is taking the

  • picture, but do not stand in front of the camera and

  • contemplate your future.

  • If you do I will make sure you don't have a future,

  • okay?

  • So don't do that.

  • If you come fashionably late, never come through that door,

  • maybe this one.

  • In fact if you come through that door because I have reached

  • this side of the board, you are very,

  • very late, so I think you should take the day off and

  • start fresh next time, all right?

  • Okay, thank you.

Prof: So, I've got to start by telling

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

1.靜電學 (1. Electrostatics)

  • 123 10
    Cheng-Hong Liu 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字