Recent content by accountkiller

Thank you so much for your reply! One of my classmates suggested using the Helmholtz Theorem but I wasn't sure how it explicitly worked out (as the appendix on it in my textbook is quite short). You make the steps much clearer; I think I can get it now. I really, really appreciate your help!

Homework Statement Develop the potential formulation for electrodynamics with magnetic charge. Use the Lorenz Gauge. You will need two scalar potentials (V_e and V_m) and two vector potentials (A_e and A_m). Write Maxwell's equations in terms of the potentials, write the electric and magnetic...

Ahhh so the delta is the missing piece! I took a quick read over you comment and everything makes great sense, thank you so much! I'm going to go practice constructing more matrices soon and hopefully all will go well then but I'll post back if I'm still hung up. Thanks so much to everyone...

Sorry about being sloppy, I just wanted to get it all quickly posted. Ok here's what I'm doing: For \ell = 1 and m=-1, that means <-1|L+|-1> = <\ell^{'}=1,m^{'}=-1|L_{+}|\ell=1,m=-1> So what I understand from that is that I plug in m=-1 into the original L+ equation, but I don't...

Hey, thanks for responding! Ok, here's my hang-up: I did the same thing you said, plug in m' = -1 and m=-1 into the L+ equation. That gives me: L+ = sqrt[l(l+1)-m'(m+1)] = sqrt[1(1+1)-(-1)(-1+1)] = sqrt(2-0) = sqrt(2). So this tells me that the very first spot of the matrix, the m'=-1, m=-1...

Homework Statement We just started matrix representation of operators. For the life of me I can't figure out how to construct any of the matrices. For example, the L+ matrix for l=1 (which gives m=-1,0,1). I plug in the 3 values of m into the L+ equation and get sqrt(2), sqrt(2), and 0. Then I...

jtbell: Ahh, thank you for that clear image! That's what I was looking for. Sonderval: That is a pretty great blog you have there - I love that it's full of animations. I haven't gotten a chance to sit down and read it but I did skim over it and have added it to my Bookmarks to review when I...

Oh and similarly, another thing I don't quite understand and that I can't find on the internet is: Where does the (kx-ωt) term come from in the wave function equation ψ(x,t) = ∫ A(k) e^i(kx-ωt) dk ? Essentially, I'm looking for a derivation of the wave function (typing that into Google...

This isn't a homework question per se but it's a question that I had while reading through my textbook so I think it's appropriate here. I just started studying Quantum Mechanics and so am getting familiarized with the meaning of wave functions and their behavior. One question I can't seem to...

When a classmate asked me for help with this question and I showed him my work, he brought up a good point: If x<<1 then wouldn't it mean that in my equation P=RTx the x there <<1 too so the RT is negligible as well?

Ah, perfect. Thank you so much for all the help with this problem! :)

OH yep there it is in the question. I think I'm just trying to go through it too quickly that I'm missing important things like that. Thank you!

Is it that when x << 1 then the b is negligible so it's basically (1+bx) = 1?

Wait... I went too quickly, I skipped something in my head. What happens to the b? P=RTx(1+bx)-ax^{2} If I have just P=RTx if I drop the ax^2 then I do get PV=nRT. That's what I wrote down after I read your reply but I don't know why I dropped the bx term too.

Ok so if I take out the higher order terms including the ax^2 and make the appropriate x=1/v and v=V/n substitutions I do get the PV=nRT like I'm supposed so thank you - problem solved! :) But I guess the part of it that is still confusing to me is the x << 1 part. Why do I take x << 1? Is...