Recent content by univox360

That seems reasonable. What if we had a system of three conductors? If I were to set, say conductor one to potential zero, would the coefficient C22 still correspond to the capacitance between conductor two and the conductor held at zero? Also, what would the term C23 correspond to? Is...

This might help you think about it :) http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/reflect/reflect.html

According to Jackson the potential energy of a system of conductors is W=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n C_{ij} V_{i}V_{j} He calls the coefficients C_{ii} coefficients of capacitance and C_{ij} coefficients of induction. I want to derive from this formula the well known result for...

For example what's the difference between sigma up up and sigma down up?

If you look up the second quantization spin operator, you'll notice that there are two indices on the pauli vector for two possible spins. The operator sums over these two indices. Since the pauli vector is an unchanging quantity what do these indices physically correspond to?

Well, yes they must eventually come to the same answer. But I am more concerned with whether or not the order of operations is important.

I transformed the 4-vector potential due to both charges, not the electric field directly.

I am wondering about the order of operations concerning the Lorentz transformation of fields and the superposition of fields. I was given a problem: Two positively charged electrons start at the origin and then travel along the x-axis at a constant speed v in opposite directions. Calculate...

I am wondering how one would construct the grand partition function of a composite system of solid and gas with the same chemical potential energy. I would think to begin with the partition function for a single particle and sum over it's energy states (available in the solid and the gas)...

Yes, using that theorem this works. Thanks so much!

I understand, but is this identity valid since r and p do not commute? This identity is constructed using B(AC)-C(AB) which seems to change order of operation...

In Baym's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics he derives the following formula [n.L,L]=ih L x n (Where n is a unit vector) I follow everything until this line: ih(r x (p x n)) + ih((r x n) x p) = ih (r x p) x n I can't seem to get this to work out. What properties is he using here?