Recent content by Dr_Nate

Are 0.1% of stellar mass objects now BHs, or will we in the future see 0.1% of them be BHs?

I think it's possible. You could extract k as a function of wavelength, and then fit a series of Lorentz oscillators to it. This would then give you n. Beware though, if you don't understand the physics of your material, then I'd say that you could end up with numbers that aren't a good match to...

I'll be honest. As a condensed matter physicist who worked at cryogenic temperatures, to me, temperature is what a thermocouple measures. But let me see if I can say a few things you might find helpful. In crystalline solids, temperature modifies the Fermi-Dirac distribution for the electrons...

Five? That's in two dimensions. Bravais lattices are mathematical constructions with applications in solid-state physics. They are an early step in understanding electron and phonon band structures.

I think your understanding is little bit off. The Sellmeier equation is an empirical fit to the tails of resonances outside the measured spectrum. Every material has excited electronic states.

Your sentence on visible light is basically correct (Why use the word contextually?). However, I do not understand why you are mentioning UV light and excited molecules. Visible light will transmit without any UV involvement.

To the final sentence, I would add somewhere "and no absorption inside the object".

Solid-state physics is an enormous and complicated subject. You need to start with the fundamentals. It's best if you ask specific questions on topics that trouble you. On the fundamentals, understanding a particle in a box is the first step towards understanding electronic band structure.

Hi @ruivocanadense. I'll give something closer to a high school-esque answer to understand the octet 'rule'. You can't understand it with one fundamental force. There are other rules of physics that are involved in chemistry. First, I am going to 'lie' to you for simplicity and then make a brief...

I know exactly what your teacher is trying to describe. And your teacher's explanation is rubbish. He is using the marching soldiers or the two wheels hitting the sand analogy you see here.

It doesn't seem like you included the coupling. But, even if you did, I know you could show similar looking equations. These equations would probably not explicitly show that there is a dispersion relation. I think we diverge on what an uncoupled HO is defined to be. For me, it is something...

You might want to search for "sharp principal diffuse fundamental series equations" or "alkali spectra". Here, here and https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/js_atomic/JS_atomic_lecture8_9.pdf might be useful links.

I believe earlier it was implied that there is consensus on this use of the term independent harmonic oscillators in second quantization. Going through many online course notes, I find that this isn't the case. I find that there is a spectrum of opinions that run from i) yes, it is a harmonic...

You were closest with this. But you didn't start with the quarks grouped into the pions as mfb said in post #7. You don't need any more lines.

1) You could try calculating the wavenumbers for both and comparing them to experiment. 2) Eq. 2.15 seems to show you that Eq. 2.12 is a typo. 3) Each of those equations has a ##\beta## with a different subscript, so they are going to give different results.