A series connection has the same electric current through each element, so complex impedances add:For $R>0$, define $\varphi =\arg \tilde{V}-\arg \tilde{I}=\arg Z_{\mathrm{s}}$. ThenAbove resonance, the circuit is inductive and electric potential difference leads current; below resonance it is capacitive and electric potential difference lags current. Atthe inductive and capacitive reactances cancel and $Z_{\mathrm{s}}=R$ is purely resistive. The same resonance condition holds for an ideal series circuit independent of the drive amplitude.

Inside the uniformly charged slab, its own electric field is $\rho (z+d/2)\hat{\mathbf{z}}/{ϵ}_0$: it vanishes at the slab's midplane and has derivative $\rho /{ϵ}_0$. Everywhere below the negative sheet, that sheet adds $+\sigma \hat{\mathbf{z}}/(2{ϵ}_0)$. ThereforeIts magnitude is the absolute value of this scalar coefficient. The field changes direction atFor $z<z_0$ it points downward; for $z>z_0$ it points upward, towards the negative sheet. Thus it is neither uniform nor directed upwards throughout the slab. The derivative and the field at the lower slab boundary also agree with Gauss's law and the previously found outside field.

Below the slab, its own field is downward, $-\rho d/(2{ϵ}_0)\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. The negative sheet attracts a positive test charge upwards and contributes $+\sigma /(2{ϵ}_0)\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Adding the fields givesThe magnitude equals the above-sheet value, but the direction is downward. This equality of outside magnitudes describes the zero-background solution for the given infinite charge planes; adding an externally imposed uniform field would constitute extra boundary data not specified here.

Choose $z=0$ at the sheet, positive $z$ upwards, so the uniformly charged slab occupies $-d<z<0$. Use the usual isolated-plane superposition convention, with no imposed uniform background field. The slab alone produces $+\rho d/(2{ϵ}_0)\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ above it, while the negatively charged sheet produces $-\sigma /(2{ϵ}_0)\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ there. ConsequentlySince $\rho d>\sigma$, the field is upward, away from the net positive charge distribution, with magnitude $(\rho d-\sigma )/(2{ϵ}_0)$. The equal halves in the separate infinite-sheet fields follow from their reflection symmetry before superposition.

The slide adds an optical path length $\Delta =(n-1)t=50\mu \mathrm{m}$ in the covered path. If the covered slit is at positive transverse position, its geometric path to $y>0$ is shorter, giving total path difference $\Delta -by/D$. The zero-difference fringe therefore moves toward that slit:This is about $94$ fringe periods. The leading grating-angle correction, $b\sin \theta =\Delta$ and $y=D\tan \theta$, gives $50.06$ mm, consistent with the paraxial result. In a strictly monochromatic periodic pattern, identifying the continuously tracked central order is essential: the final intensity pattern determines displacement only modulo one fringe spacing.

Let $I_s$ be the intensity that either narrow slit would produce alone, and let $y$ measure screen displacement from the perpendicular bisector. The optical path difference is approximately $\delta =b\sin \theta \simeq by/D$. Equal coherent field amplitudes then giveThe maxima are at $y_m=m\lambda D/b$; the minima are halfway between them. HereThe expression uses the paraxial approximation and neglects the slowly varying single-slit diffraction envelope because the slit widths are unspecified.

A holonomic constraint can be expressed as $f(q_1,\dots ,q_n,t)=0$, rather than as a genuinely nonintegrable relation among velocities. A fixed rod length is an example. Rolling along a single straight incline also gives an integrable relation $s+R\theta =\text{constant}$ with the sign convention used below; arbitrary rolling in more dimensions need not be holonomic.

A cyclic coordinate is absent from the Lagrangian itself: $\partial L/\partial q_i=0$. Its conjugate momentum $p_i=\partial L/\partial {\dot{q}}_i$ therefore obeys ${\dot{p}}_i=0$. In the rolling-wedge calculation, the cyclic horizontal translation gives conservation of the system's horizontal momentum.

Keep the signs of part i. The tension has horizontal component $T\cos \theta$ but still has counterclockwise torque $Tr$, since it is tangent to the axle. ThusSolving these equations gives the critical pulling angle of a rolling spool lawThe zero-acceleration angle is thereforeAt this angle the line of action of the pull passes through the ground contact, so its torque about that point vanishes. A spool initially at rest stays at rest while the contact constraints hold; one already rolling has zero acceleration, rather than being brought to rest.

For equilibrium the vertical normal force is $N=Mg-T\sin {\theta }_c$ and $|f|=T\cos {\theta }_c$. The static friction inequality $|f|\le \mu N$ becomesHence, for $0<r<R$,At this limit the normal force is still nonnegative; for finite $\mu$ and positive $r$ it is positive. For ${\theta }_c<\theta \le \pi /2$, the numerator of $a$ is negative. Released from rest, the spool rolls leftward, away from the pulling hand, with counterclockwise rotation, provided the assumed rolling without slipping and ground contact remain possible. The nonzero acceleration is not obtained by assuming that friction simply opposes the centre's motion.

Take rightward translation as positive and counterclockwise angular acceleration $\alpha$ as positive. Let $f$ denote signed ground friction, positive to the right. The source's lower-tangent winding makes the tension exert counterclockwise torque $Tr$. For a horizontal pull, translation and rotation obeyThe final relation is the rolling without slipping constraint. Eliminating $f$ and $\alpha$ givesThus the requested magnitude of static friction isIt acts leftward. Released from rest, the spool accelerates rightward, toward the pulling hand, and rotates clockwise. There is no contradiction between leftward friction and rightward motion: static friction prevents slipping of the contact point, and the horizontal tension is larger than $|f|$ because $r<R$.

For the initial radius $r_0=l/2$ to be circular, the radial equation requiresConsider a small radial perturbation at fixed conserved angular momentum $J$. Using $J^2/(m{r}_0^3)=Mg$ and $r=r_0+ϵ$ in the radial equation givesConsequently the linearized radial motion is simple harmonic motion:The positive curvature of the effective potential establishes radial stability. This is the small-amplitude limit, not an exact finite-amplitude sinusoid. A perturbation that changes $J$ shifts the circular radius; its radial oscillations are about the new radius to the same order. A radial displacement or radial impulse preserving $J$ gives the stated oscillations about $l/2$.

The initial angular momentum is $J=ml{v}_0/2$, and the initial total energy isWhen the hanging mass reaches the table, $r=l$. Conservation of angular momentum fixes the tabletop tangential speed there to $J/(ml)=v_0/2$. At the limiting case of just reaching, radial velocity is zero. Equating the two energies,yieldsMore generally, the boundary radial kinetic energy isso reaching requires $v_0^2\ge 4Mgl/(3m)$, with equality for just reaching and strict inequality for nonzero outward radial speed at contact. This condition is also sufficient: $U_J$ is strictly convex, and the allowed interval connecting the initial radius to $l$ has no intervening higher effective potential barrier. At the threshold the initial radial acceleration is outward and $r=l$ is the outer turning point.

Initially $r_i=l/2$, ${\dot{r}}_i=0$ and ${\dot{\theta }}_i=v_0/r_i$, so the conserved angular momentum is $J=ml{v}_0/2$. For $v_0\ne 0$, the effective potential contains the centrifugal barrierThe finite conserved energy therefore forbids the hole from being reached:The exceptional case $v_0=0$ has no centrifugal barrier. Then $J=0$ and $\ddot{r}=-Mg/(M+m)$; starting at rest at $l/2$, the tabletop mass reaches the hole after $t=\sqrt{(M+m)l/(Mg)}$. The model ends at that event. Thus the usual nonzero initial tangential speed assumption matters.

At the threshold found in i, both products are stationary in the centre-of-momentum frame, so they have the same velocity in the laboratory frame. Take the energetic incident photon along $+x$. The total energy is $E+\epsilon$ and total momentum is $(E-\epsilon )/c$, so the centre-of-momentum frame moves atFor the numerical threshold,This is extremely close to, but strictly below, the speed of light. Each product has energy $(E+\epsilon )/2$ in the laboratory frame. Above threshold the same ratio of total momentum to total energy determines the motion of the pair's centre-of-momentum frame, but the individual electron and Positron need not have a common velocity.

Let the incident photon energies be $E$ and $\epsilon$, meeting at angle $\psi$ in the laboratory frame. Add their four-momenta; because each is null, the squared total invariant energy isFor photon-photon pair production, its threshold value is $(2m_e{c}^2{)}^2$: the electron and Positron have zero relative momentum in their centre-of-momentum frame. The minimum possible $E$ occurs for a head-on collision, $\psi =\pi$, soWith $m_e{c}^2\simeq 0.511\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\epsilon =10^{-3}\mathrm{eV}$,The quoted background photon energy is used directly, without substituting a different characteristic value of the cosmic microwave background. A less opposed collision has a higher threshold; parallel photons cannot produce this massive pair.

For the forward ray of i, the ultrarelativistic longitudinal Doppler factor follows from the exact expression in terms of the Lorentz factor:Indeed, $\gamma \beta =\sqrt{{\gamma }^2-1}$ for a positive boost. If $\beta =1-ϵ$, the exact formulas and their consistent asymptotic expansions areEquivalently,The printed equality is not exact. For a concrete ultrarelativistic example, $\gamma =10$ gives the correct $D=10+\sqrt{99}\simeq 19.949874$, whereas $\sqrt{4{\gamma }^2-1}=\sqrt{399}\simeq 19.974984$. The latter expands as $2\gamma -1/(4\gamma )+O({\gamma }^{-3})$, with the wrong first correction.

One can obtain the printed expression by using $D^2=2/ϵ-1$ but replacing ${\gamma }^2$ by only its leading approximation $1/(2ϵ)$. This retains a constant term in the first equation while discarding a same-order term in the second. Thus $D\approx \sqrt{4{\gamma }^2-1}$ is admissible only as a leading relative-accuracy estimate, of the same order as $D\sim 2\gamma$; it is not the stated identity or a correct next-order approximation.

Let $S^{\prime }$ move at $+v$ along $x$ relative to $S$. The Lorentz transformation of energy and momentum, from primed to unprimed components, isThe inverse equations have $v$ replaced by $-v$ and the primes interchanged. A photon making angle ${\theta }^{\prime }$ with $+x$ in $S^{\prime }$ has $p_x^{\prime }=(E^{\prime }/c)\cos {\theta }^{\prime }$. Thus its general Doppler factor isThe requested blueshifted expression assumes propagation parallel to the boost, ${\theta }^{\prime }=0$:The propagation-direction assumption matters: for an oppositely travelling photon, $D=\gamma (1-\beta )$, the reciprocal of the displayed factor. Relative frame speed alone does not select the longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect.

Choose particle 1's incoming velocity positive and particle 2's negative. The final particle is stationary, so four-momentum conservation requires zero total incoming momentum:It follows that ${\gamma }_1{\beta }_1=1/\sqrt{2}$. Squaring gives ${\beta }_1^2/(1-{\beta }_1^2)=1/2$, henceThe initial total energy becomes the final rest energy. ThereforeThe extra invariant mass is the incoming kinetic energy retained as internal energy of the merged particle: $(M-3m)c^2$. It does not violate conservation of energy or four-momentum conservation; the sum of the separate rest masses is not a conserved quantity in an inelastic collision.

For a massive free particle with rest mass $m$ and velocity $\mathbf{v}$,The relativistic energy-momentum relation follows directly:This is the squared Minkowski norm of the four-momentum multiplied by $c^2$. The Lorentz transformation preserves that norm, so it has the same value in every inertial frame. In the particle's rest frame, the momentum is zero and the total energy is its rest energy $m{c}^2$.

If $y^{\prime \prime }=0$ over the subsequent segment, its slope is a constant $s$ and the equation of motion reduces toThere is uniform horizontal acceleration, not generally zero acceleration. Starting that segment at $(t_0,x_0,{\dot{x}}_0)$,For a downhill straight track with $s=-\tan \theta$, this gives $\ddot{x}=g\sin \theta \cos \theta$, agreeing with b. Only $s=0$ gives constant horizontal velocity.

The condition $y^{\prime \prime }\to 0$ must describe an actually straight limiting segment, with bounded velocity, for that subsequent constant-acceleration conclusion. If $y^{\prime \prime }$ vanishes only at an isolated inflection point, the boxed expression describes the instantaneous acceleration there; it does not make the rest of the track straight. Likewise, a vanishing $y^{\prime \prime }$ alone does not make the product $y^{\prime \prime }{\dot{x}}^2$ negligible in a limit where $\dot{x}$ diverges.