what lorentz force law states???
476628
In physics, the Lorentz force is the force exerted on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field. The particle will experience a force due to electric field of qE, and due to the magnetic field qv × B. Combined they give the Lorentz force equation (or law):\n\n F= q(E + v x B)\nwhere\n\nF is the force (in newtons) \nE is the electric field (in volts per meter) \nB is the magnetic field (in webers per square meter, or equivalently, teslas) \nq is the electric charge of the particle (in coulombs) \nv is the instantaneous velocity of the particle (in meters per second) \nand × is the cross product. \nThus a positively charged particle will be accelerated in the same linear orientation as the E field, but will curve perpendicularly to the B field according to the right-hand rule.
83355
Okay, you know the right hand rule. Good.\nFirst consider the effect of only the e-field: The e-field is pointing in the +x direction. Therefore, the force it exerts on the proton will also be in the +x direction.\nSecond, consider the effect of only the magnetic field: The magnetic field is pointing in the +y direction; therefore, the force it exerts on the proton will be in the -x direction (you use the rule you described to figure this part out). It so happens, that in the first scenario, the force exerted on the proton by the magnetic field exactly balances that exerted by the electric field. Therefore, the movement of the proton is unaffected.\n\nHowever, in the second case, the proton is accelerated through a potential difference of 2V. Therefore, it will be moving faster (think about it: a higher potential difference has greater "potential" to pull the proton.  Also, the equation F = qvB where q is the charge of the proton, v is its velocity, and B is the magnetic field strength, states that the faster the proton is moving, the greater will be the force exerted on it.  So, compared to the first case with only a 1V potential difference, the magnetic field here will exert a greater force on the proton. But, the force exerted by the electric field is unchanged. So, the net force on the proton will be in the -x direction.
52144
Here are the postulates:\n\n(1) The laws of physics are the same as viewed from the perspective of any observer moving at a constant speed.\n(2) The value of the speed of light (denoted "c") is the same in every reference frame.\n\nThe first condition isn't very strange: You'd expect physics to be the same if you were on a very smoothly moving train as you would if you were standing on the Earth.\n\nThe second condition is very strange: Suppose you have two people moving with respect to each other.  One of them is moving at 1/2 the speed of light and the other is moving at 1/4th the speed of light.  Now, a beam of light is passing by them.  They'll both measure the speed of that beam RELATIVE TO THEIR VELOCITY to be c.  \n\nNote that this is a big contrast between what we'd normally expect.  Suppose you were moving at 7 miles per hour and I threw a ball past you at 10 miles per hour.  You'd see the ball moving away from you (another way of saying "moving relative to you" at 3 miles/hour because 10 mph - 7 mph = 3 mph).\n\nIn our light example we just saw that both observers measure the velocity of light relative to their own velocity to be the same.  It'd be like if your friend was moving at 5 miles per hour and you were moving at 3 miles per hour and you both claimed the ball was moving away from you at the same rate.\n\nAt any rate, what this is meaning is that neither time nor space is an absolute quantity.  If you were to observe a rocketship moving near the speed of light (as measured with respect to you), you would observe:\n\n(a) That the rocket appears to contract (shrink) in it's direction of motion, and\n(b) Events aboard the spaceship would appear to occur more slowly.\n\nHowever, they would measure the same things happening to you and the events along the spaceship to be proceeding normally.\n\nThat is only a very brief introduction.  If you'd like a better, but still accessable to a non-scientist, account of this I suggest you consider reading http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/sr.shtml .
552530
Newtons 3 laws of motion say:\n1) An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.\n2)F=MA or force = mass times acceleration. It describes how an unbalanced force acts in the first law. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN ALL THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE!!!!!\n3) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.\n\nNewton also discovered that gravity is a force of attraction between two masses that is equal to the product of the two masses times the gravitational constant divided by the square of the distance between them. Or F=GMm/R^2.\n\nThe combination of all of the above explains all orbits, rocket propulsion, life the universe and everything!\n\n\nThen Einstein comes along and messes it all up. He says that there is a small error in Newton's laws that depends on the speed. For stuff going really fast, Newtons laws are just totally wrong. Gravity isn't even a force at all, it is a curvature in space time.\n\nBut for every day applications, like designing a 747 or computing the path of an artillery shell or a zillion other things, Newtons laws are still used as is because the errors are vanishingly small under normal conditions.
782591
a)an object allways accelerates in the direction of the net force\n--- u dint tell us u had to do it as a well proven question or for basic understanding? never mind....if they ask u this in school then follow the explaination----\nby newtons first law of motion,...(i'm assuming u know it)...'unless and untill a force acts on it' ---so a body would move if adequate force was applied(that overcame its friction and inertia)\n\nas u know...forces cancel each other as well.\nthis happens according to the law of vectors.\nthus if two forces are acting in different directions, then the resultant force is always in another direction depending on how they cancel each other and according to their magnitude which is the resultant direction.\nso finally,...there be only one force left...with a particular direction and a particular magnitude....and now..applying newton's forst law of motion...it is proved that an object allways accelerates in the direction of the net force(newton's 2nd law states that force causes acceleration---u can also explain this by saying that,velocity changes hence acceleration occurs)\n\n\n(b)A lower net force is needed to accelerate an object from rest to 10m/s than is required to accelerate it from rest to 20m/s irrespective of the time take.-----\nthe answer is NO.\nwe have to take the time into consideration. if we  have to stop such a high speed in less time...then we have to apply a lot of force....remember---force causes acceleration..it causes a change per unit time...if u want more change per unit time...u have to apply more force\nso thats it
602069
Newton's first law: The force of the car, an unbalanced force, pushes the car forward and the car keeps moving until another unbalanced force stops it. \n\nNewton's second law: The car has mass and accelerates, so therefore it has force. Also, the car goes in the direction in which the force is pushing it.\n\nNewton's third law: The car pushes back on the track and the force of it pushing back sends it forward. This proves that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
1042891
They don't call it a Law for nothing you know.\nWherever you look, you will always see an action-reaction paired up.  Newton's 3rd Law fits nicely in with another law which we know holds true in all cases...the Law of conservation of momentum.
505249
no.its the force produced due to the movement of other particles(electrons).so..
684388
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot-Savart%27s_Law\n\nsee references at the end of the page
92221
Gravity and electromagnetic forces.  Gravity is an odvious answer.  Most other forces, including frictional forces, fall under electromagnetic forces.  The strong and weak force mentioned earlier can not be experienced directly.  They come into play when dealing with radiation and sub-atomic physics.
765636
Newton's first law states: A object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion (at a constant speed and direction) unless acted upon by an external force.\n\nThis is also known as the law of inertia.
901576
G'day Wolverine,\n\nThank you for your question.\n\nThe laws of physics, scientific laws or the laws of nature are based on observation of events both on earth and elsewhere in the universe. As far as we know, they apply wherever in the universe you go. if they don't they are not laws of science. That doesn't mean to say that things don't happen differently in zero gravity than they do on earth but that is covered within the law of physics.\n\nAs Scotty said on Star Trek "ye canna change the laws of physics". As far as we know, he was right.\n\nI have attached sources for your reference.\n\nRegards
79621
yeah, mass increases. the lorentz factor is:\n1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)  where sqrt is square root, v is the velocity of the object, c is the speed of light, and ^2 means squared.  you would plug in the velicity you wish to find out about to v.  time decreases for you by this factor, mass increases, and length decreases.(ive had to derive these formulas from simple mechanics formulas; they're correct.) If you would plug in velocities to this formula, you would notice that the effect is negligable for any velocities not very very close to the speed of light.  Well, we definately can't go the speed of light because if you look at the formula, then v^2 would be equal to c^2 so v^2/C^2 would be 1, and 1-1 is 0. this would mean that the denominator would be 0 which is impossible.  we also can't go faster because then v^2/c^2 would be greater than one, thus subtracting that from one would yield a negative answer which would then be under a square root sign.  this is also impossible.  that's how we know we can't go as fast or faster than light speed.  Now, as far as how fast we can actually go, that depends a lot on biology.  as we get faster and faster, our mass increases and our length(and therefore volume) decreases.  now, the formula for density is m/V(mass over volume,) so our bodies would get more and more dense the faster we went. this is why there would be a limit and we couldn't just go so close to the speed of light so that time would slow down for us but not for everyone else, thus basically traveling forward in time. The question of how fast we can go becomes a question of how dense our bodies can become before either the pressure builds up too much in our cells, or our blood gets so dense it can't properly carry oxygen to our cells. The thing is, you really have to be very close to the speed of light to feel this effect.  the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. that's close to 300 million meters per second.  now lets say we go 200 million meters per second.  that's pretty darn fast, and i dont even know if we could go that fast due to the enormous amount of energy it would require to produce such accelerations.  but lets say we do.  plugging this into the formula, we get 1.16. we multiply this by the original mass, giving an increase in mass of only 16%. this isn't really all that much, we could probably handle that increase in mass, but i really don't know, my expertise is not in biology.  Still though, 200 million meters per second is pretty damn fast, anything much less than that would most certainly be negligable. you can try out some speeds for yourself to see what kind of effect it would have(you need a graphing or good scientific calculator otherwise it will round to 1 in certain places and you won't get any change at all.)  We won't have to worry about them coming anywhere close to speeds that affect our mass anytime soon though.
281335
The law you are referring to is the law of inertia, which is directly related to the laws of gravity.  The heat from the sun and it's gravitational pull are what "make the earth go round"
38506
yikes, everyone is giving you the wrong formula. it's not e=mc^2. that would be converting energy into mass and back which is done like when subatomic particles crash into each other really fast and such... the mass dialation formula you are looking for is \nm'= m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\nwhere m' is the mass you would be not moving at the high velocities, m is the mass moving at the high velocities, v is the velocity you're traveling at, c is the speed of light, sqrt means we're square rooting everything in those parenthesis, and ^2 means squared. if you were to plug numbers in for velocity, you can see that this effect is absolutely neglagible unless you are moving very very close to the speed of light. and it is impossible to actually move at the speed of light, because then v^2/c^2 would be 1, and 1-1=0 so you would have a 0 in the denominator of that equation, which is impossible.  that equation is actually very interesting in that it is part of the lorentz factor which also effects time and length. in fact, as you increase speeds close to the speed of light, not only does mass increase, but time moves slower for you and length shrinks.  I've had to derive these equations in physics class, it's very interesting to do it yourself and come up with the equation proving that things like velocity, mass, and length are affected by velocity.  but again, you need to be going very very close to the speed of light for the velocity to have any effect on these things.\n\nas far as practicality, instances of the lorentz factor have been proven. there are these particles that have a certain lifespan before they disintigrate.  so now, we know how fast they are going and we know how long before they disintegrate, so theoretically, we should easily be able to figure out how much distance they cover before they disintigrate, right? but somehow, the particles go a lot farther than they should... if we plug their velocity into the lorentz transformation formula however, and put in how far they should travel (but don't), they we come up with how far they actually do travel.  this proves the validity of the lorentz factor.\n\nthere is no practical application of the mass increase since objects of great mass would require way too much energy to accelerate to speeds great enough to see this effect, so therefore it can't really happen.. if ever it did though, the only thing this mass expansion would serve to do would be to limit time travel. i mean, if time is slowing down for us at high speeds, technically we could make it slow down so much so that it would be going slower for you than everyone else and so you could basically travel forward in time. but if your mass was expanding and length shrinking, then either the pressure would kill you, or your blood would get so dense it couldnt carry oxygen to your cells and that would kill you, so there goes the time travel thing.
525267
Universal Law of Gravity.\nALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.\n\nWhere ever you are gravity has got you some way, however weak, something somewhere will be pulling you towards it.
147137
Newton's Law of motion\n----------------------\n\n"FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION"\n\nThis law is applicable in each and every day action like walking, firing bullets to lanching rockets.\n\nThe force we given to the floor while walking resulted in a opposite force from the floor which moves us forward.