Recent content by aimforclarity

ok, so can I say <e^{\phi(t)+\phi(t+\tau)}>=<e^{\phi(t)+\phi(t)+\phi(\tau)}> since W(t+\Delta t)=W(t)+W(\Delta t). Next we can say <e^{\phi(t)+\phi(t)+\phi(\tau)}>=<e^{2\phi(t)}><e^{\phi(\tau)}> because <\phi(t)\phi(\tau)>=0

Let \phi(t) be a Brownian Walk (Wiener Process), where \phi\in[0,2\pi). As such we work with the variable z(t)=e^{i\phi(t)}. I would like to calculate E(z(t)z(t+\tau)) This is equal to E(e^{i\phi(t)+i\phi(t+\tau)}) and I know that E(e^{i\phi(t)})=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t)}, where the...

This can be very useful, so I thought i'd share. If you edit the > Wolfram Research\Mathematica\8.0\SystemFiles\FrontEnd\TextResources\Windows\MenuSetup.tr file you can make Strl+Shift+C copy not plain but in LateX format. Very useful. Look for the line in the file that says "&LaTeX"...

this sounds like a question that should be answered somewhere, but i can't find it. how many quantum numbers does it take to specify the state of a spin 1/2? 1. if it points along z, then just 1: the eigenvalue of Sz will do (up to global phase) A. whether or not in a B field B. if...

im not sure that's any better. just because 200 years ago we could not "point to" or manipulate say cooper pairs or atoms, doesn't mean they don't exist and don't have an effect. this is a real problem in physics, how do we see and manipualte, people are discovering new ways every so often...

so i think it works for any function with a taylor expansion (~analytic), because conjugation carries through addition and multiplication and so through powers and thus exponents 1. (z1 +z2)* = z1*+z2* 2. (z1 z2)* = z1* z2* 3. (z1^n)* = z1*^n 4. \left(\frac{1}{\text{z1}}\right)^* =...

Thanks a lot!

yes, you are saying that information is a human construct and does not exit beyond us, like the alphabet or the idea of the color green. this is true, the concept of information is 'artifical' in the sense that as a concept it is not ontological (does not exist), but like all human concepts...

this is very good, that is what i was asking! Thank you, so it works almost all the time. do you know when, in what cases i should be careful when using it? ie anytime i don't use fractions and logs, and exponetnials and trig funcs?

see my post right above yours, i know that the complex conjugate is only equal to the complex # itself when the number is real, i am asking how to get the complex conjugate

i agree, i think this is the essence of heisengber uncertainty and infromation. for something to be ontological (that it can exist), it must have effect, and must be also epistomological (knowable), we must be able to know about it, to learn it is there. we can only deal with things we...

this is all true, and is a summary of grifits derivation, but it it doesn't tell you that the raising and lowering operators take you between nearest orthogonal states. what is they raised and lowered by two quanta of energy, how do you know what the smallest quanta of energy is?

this is basically the answer to my question, but i do need to unravel its meaning: 1. holomorphic - basically well behaved, has derivatives. 2. phi(z) is real for z in reals, this is a hard condition, because often the form of the expression is not such, but i have found that the trick...

to get a Complex Conjugate of a #, is it ok to just replace i by -i even in denominator or inside argument?

can you summarize that paper to answer the question? i do not directly find the answer in the paper