Can anyone explain to me why the gaussian white noise term is multiplied by the square root of the time differential when we turn the Langevin differential equation into a finite difference equation for the purposes of integration?
http://pre.aps.org/pdf/PRE/v50/i6/p4404_1
The step I...
Hello,
I've read through several sources about the EPR Paradox but I'm not sure I'm understanding everything. I know that:
-the paradox in question seems to be due to a violation of the principle of locality
-there is no useful transferred faster than c regardless of which axes the two...
Hi all,
My understanding is that biology is mostly an empirical science. This is perhaps due to the fact that biological systems are very complex, heterogeneous, highly modularized. My vague idea is: Is it possible to do for biological systems what physics has done for condensed matter...
I know when u take a measurement of an observable, the state vector collapses into one of the eigenvectors of the observable's operator.
So what happens if I try to localize the particle within some delta_x, using a projection operator for example. Let's say the particle exists previously in...
Hi,
I thought about what I wanted to ask and decided to rewrite my question more concisely.
Has anyone had any experience with an applicant to physics grad school, who applied in a field almost totally unrelated to his undergrad research? Particularly, in applying to high-end schools? Any...
Thanks mfb,
What I'm saying is that the time interval between reception of signal A and reception of signal B is dependent on O' 's location. An intelligent observer could deduce the time interval between when the two signals are emitted and this interval as you say is dependent only on O'...
This #94 from the 2008 GRE:
An observer O at rest midway between
two sources of light at x = 0 and x = 10 m
observes the two sources to flash simultaneously.
According to a second observer O′, moving at a
constant speed parallel to the x-axis, one source of
light flashes 13 ns before the...
I think things are making more sense now after reading your last comment.
The splitting of these lines into separate ones dependent on m_j would be a result of the Zeeman effect which we the diagram neglects so we can we neglect the m_j rule as well. I'm curious about the delta(s) rule you...
j = m_l + m_j.
I don't think that's how the total angular momentum J works although I could be wrong. I think J:m_j just like L:m_l or S:m_s. So for each J value you have a sequence of m_j just as is the case for L and S. The correct expression would be m_j=m_s+m_l, the possible z components...
With j=3/2 or 1/2 we have m_j=3/2,1/2,-1/2,-3/2 or m_j=1/2,-1/2 respectively. For transition B then we could potential have delta (m_j ) greater than 1 if m_j=3/2->m_j=-1/2 for example.
Thanks for help.
The solutions say transitions B and C are allowed. Does anyone know why we can neglect the rule about delta(m_j)=-1,0+1? I don't see any way to deduce the value of m_j values.
Also if anyone could clarify what is meant by the small "l" and big "L" rules for the electric dipole that would be...
I have a couple of questions about selection rules for the hydrogen atom.
When we talk about these rules in an undergraduate context we are usually assuming LS coupling where we ignore spin orbit coupling so orbital and spin angular momentum are essentially independent. Is that correct...
Thanks Simon,
I'm not really following. The mean-relative-velocity would be 0 since velocity is a vector. I think I meant to say mean-relative-speed. I would expect the mean-relative-speed to be less than the rms-relative-speed but that's about it.
Thanks