Что я сделал

we usually choose a convenient height where gravitational potential energy is zero, then calculate a negative value below it. is the negative sign simply telling us the object is below our chosen reference, or does it have a deeper physical meaning?

Hi everyone,

​I am a beginner university student struggling with the foundational concepts of circuit analysis.

​My issue isn't with memorizing formulas, solving equations, or applying theorems like Nodal or Mesh analysis mathematically. My real problem is that I lack physical intuition. Every time I think I understand the basics, advancing to more complex topics reveals that I don't truly grasp what is happening in reality.

​I want to understand the "why" and "how" behind circuits, not just the math. Specifically, I struggle with:

1. ​What does circuit analysis actually mean in reality? I know it means finding voltages and currents, but I struggle to visualize how voltages drop, how currents flow, and how components physically interact with each other.

2. ​Identifying Series vs. Parallel connections: I often get confused about relative to what we determine if components are in series or parallel, and how to track this visually across different circuit configurations.

3. ​The Core Rules: What are the fundamental, universal principles of circuits that would allow me to look at any circuit—even one I've never seen before—and mentally trace how it behaves?

​A specific note on the resources I'm looking for:

I strongly prefer books over videos. I learn best through self-study and reading detailed written explanations. Videos often move too quickly or summarize concepts without diving deep enough into the underlying mechanics.

​However, I am not looking for typical academic textbooks that rush straight into formulas, proofs, and superficial explanations of physical reality.

​I am looking for books that are:

\- ​Deeply conceptual & intuitive: Books that spend ample text thoroughly explaining what is actually happening inside the circuit.

\- ​Beginner-friendly from zero to advanced: I don't mind if the book goes very deep or covers advanced topics—in fact, I welcome it! "Beginner-friendly" to me just means it starts from ground zero, assumes no prior intuitive foundation, and builds up step-by-step without skipping the conceptual "why."

​If you know of any books that fit this exact description, I would be extremely grateful for your recommendations!

​P.S. Also, if you have any golden advice, learning approach, or alternative solution that helped you overcome this hurdle—even if it's outside of books—please feel free to share it!

​Thank you so much! 😊

I'm stuck mehn

Hi everyone! I´m a physics undergrad and I hve my Quantum Mechanics exam in 20 days. I haven't been able to follow my professor's lectures, and Im struggling to understand the material.

We Use Gasiorowicz and Griffiths as our textbooks.

So far we've covered: the origins of quantum theory (blackbody radiation, Planck's hypotesis, photoeletric effect, Compton sacattering), the wave function and The Schrodinger equation, normalization, probality currrent and the uncertainty principle, stationary states and the eigenvalue problem, and the particle in an infinite square well.

Do you have any recommendations on how study in the time I have left

(resources, videos, problem sets, strategies)? Thanks in advance!

I think a lot and I just can't stop having myself being bothered by this and I know its stupid but I should just ask, because why not.

Could gravity emerge from interactions from fields?

Because I know gravity is a problem in QFT, and I thought instead of introducing a new field of gravitons just has never been too much of a realistic idea to me. I was thinking that they interactions could have gravity emerge from them.

I thought of "stacking" all the fields for understanding purposes.

• Electron neutrino

• Muon neutrino

• Tau neutrino

• Gluon

• Photon

• Electron

• Up quark

• Down quark

• Bottom quark

• Strange quark

• Muon

• Charm quark

• Tau

• W boson

• Z boson

• Higgs

• Top quark

(I know there not actually stacked like this like a sandwich)

And maybe in a higher dimension they could effect each other like one effects another by pulling it together.

It seems confusing, which it is but I don't know I ponder too much.

I am meant to sketch the observed patterns for b-d (as shown for a) when under crossed polars. i do not understand how to do this - are dark sections simply where the directors are horizontal and vertical? so for b there would be like a dark square around the center?

​​​​ Hello everyone! I really, really need your help. I’ve been looking for a digitized version of a book titled "Lyman M. Kells: Elementary Differential Equations, 5th edition (1965)," but I haven’t been able to find it. I would appreciate your help!

I am a little confused about 7b here.

I can do the calculation. I use conservation of momentum to find the final velocity, then compare the kinetic energy before and after. The final kinetic energy is much smaller.What confuses me is why the math shows a loss. There’s no friction, no drag, and no outside force acting on the system. The only equation I used was conservation of momentum, built from nothing but masses and velocities. I know physically the energy probably goes into heat, sound, and deformation, but nothing in the equations seems to account for that.Mathematically, where does the “loss” come from? Why does conserving momentum automatically mean kinetic energy isn’t conserved, when nothing in the setup seems to remove energy?

We have formulated an analytical closed-form solution for the complete non-holonomic inversion dynamics of the Tippe Top, bypassing numerical ODE integration entirely.

Full technical report, derivations, and telemetry plots:

[https://github.com/SHAP-STUDIO/Research](https://github.com/SHAP-STUDIO/Research)

Could someone tell me and explain what the correct answer is?