Heh, well, actually all of those are superpositions of sine waves. For example, the square wave is actually a superposition of all the odd-numbered sine wave multiples of the fundamental frequency of the square wave, with descending amplitudes as the frequency increases. But that has nothing to...
Ha! I'm glad I could give you a Eureka Moment.
Not quite sure what you mean by "strange." They need not be orthogonal, nor symmetric around zero (though they still have symmetries).
It produces a photon; it's the photon that has the wave nature, not necessarily the thing it was produced by. Photons are energy and carry momentum, and provided their momentum and energy (and some other things) are accounted for, i.e. all the conservation laws are obeyed, they can be freely...
Not exactly. The photon itself is always associated with an oscillating EM field, in fact that's what a photon essentially is, but the field that requires its creation need not be oscillating. Charged particles that experience momentum changes without momentum transfer have a convenient way of...
In plain English, the Fourier transform of the wavefunction in position gives the momentum because position and momentum are conjugate under uncertainty. The Fourier transform of the wavefunction of one therefore gives the wavefunction of the other. This is the underlying meaning of the math...
No. There are other ways that light (photons) can be generated by a charge; @Garlic was correct to note that bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation are two of those ways (they are not the same; synchrotron radiation and its close neighbor cyclotron radiation are technically both subtypes of...
I agree. What's really happening is Heisenberg uncertainty and resolution of a superposed parameter, along with de-resolution (technically, decoherence) of all complementary parameters.
First, @Nugatory, pillow/table duality may not be very useful, but I found it quite amusing, particularly when applied to sheep.
Mmmmm, it's actually more a matter of them treating spin states in a particle-like manner, specifically, as having discrete values. To treat them in a wave-like manner...
I'll add a public link to Lineweaver/Davis (2003) which I found quite readable (if a bit of a slog): http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808v2.pdf
It's good to have both the popular science treatment and the underlying paper, I think.
My experience with filters for visual is that you need to have really good dark adaptation (an hour or more with as near as possible zero light) for your eyes to be sensitive enough for them to make a big difference. I own a UHC, an Hβ, and a couple others. Also note that they are by far most...
What we really want to know about is in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser of Kim and Scully et alii. Since I have the links I'll post them:
Kim et al. (2000): https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047
The original Scully/Druhl (1982) paper (unfortunately not open access)...
I think the choice here is between a low-power wide field telescope, in the 4- to 5-inch class, plus 2 or 3 eyepieces, and a pair of high quality 8x50mm binoculars. In either case a tripod is a necessity; a moderate photo tripod with a simple pan head (and a mounting bracket for the binoculars)...
This one makes two I know of, one old one added to one I just found out about; the old one is the infinite probabilities when attempting to accomplish the first quantization of gravity. Are there yet others?
This is actually pretty definitive, I've had some conversations back when it wasn't...