For an object in uniform circular motion, what can you say about the directions of the velocity, acceleration, and net force vectors? for an object in uniform circular motion, what can you say about the directions of the velocity, acceleration, and net force vectors? the velocity vector is perpendicular to the acceleration vector; the acceleration vector is parallel to the net force vector. the velocity vector is parallel to the acceleration vector; the acceleration vector is parallel to the net force vector. the velocity vector is perpendicular to the acceleration vector; the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the net force vector. the velocity vector is parallel to the acceleration vector; the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the net force v

The velocity vector is perpendicular to the acceleration vector; the acceleration vector is parallel to the net force vector.

Explanation:

In a uniform circular motion, the meaning of "uniform"is the same as for an uniform straight motion, i.e., the module of the velocity vector (its speed) is constant.

Now, if the object were not describing a circular trajectory, it should move at constant speed, in a straight line, provided no external forces acted upon it.

If there is an external force acting on it, making it to follow a circular trajectory, this force doesn't change the instantaneous value of the velocity, but it changes his direction instead.

While the direction is changing, it always keep tangential to the trajectory, due to if at any moment the force disappears, the body must continue in a straight line at constant speed, following a line tangent to the circle.

It can be showed, that the acceleration vector, defined as the change in velocity over time, always aims towards the center of the circle, and is perpendicular to the velocity vector.

As the only net force acting on the object (assuming a horizontal trajectory), is the one that causes the acceleration, the acceleration vector has the same direction as the net force.

quantum mechanics or quantum physics is physics of very small objects (particles) and physical entities.

quantum physics has some parallels to our macro world and some pretty unique ideas which theoretically and mathematically proven to be true even though we will never be able to access them because of our size.

there are many types of particles: subatomic, elementary etc.

subatomic means they are smaller than atom, elementary means they are at the very basis of everything.

subatomic particles are for eg. protons, neutrons but not electrons.

elementary particles are categorised into 3 groups by what they do.

these 3 groups are quarks, leptons and bosons.

light for example is a particle more precisely a photon a part of leptons.

proton (subatomic particle) is made out of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark each of these has a fractional charge like . (i crazy)

most famous scientist who contributed to this physics are:

the topic itself us understand a lot and will probably be vastly used in the future (quantum computers, understanding the big bang,

we also must not forget quantum effects like:

and there is more. but probably too much for this answer to be consistent due to my average understanding of this topic.

hope this you understand quantum mechanics a little more. i'm not an expert in the topic (so don't be like wth if you are an expert) but i'm very interested in it.

anyways quantum physics is a very hard topic (harder than physics (perhaps)) therefore searching for every information there is about it and learning it is unfortunately impossible (you can only specialise into 1 - 3 things or more (perhaps

have fun and i wish you luck!

r3t40

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: