Recent content by deep838

Yeah I understand the interpretation regarding velocities... What's bothering me is the one regarding wavelengths.

According to WKB approximation, the wave function \psi (x) \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{p(x)}} This implies that the probability of finding a particle in between x and x+dx is inversely proportional to the momentum of the particle in the given potential. According to the book, R. Shankar, this is...

Hi, I am currently in my 3rd and final year of B.Sc Physics. Soon I'll have to start applying for a Masters degree. Is it true that you need 4 years of bachelor degree to get admitted for Postgraduate via GRE exam? If so, is there any university outside India which will accept my 3 year course...

I see... thank you for replying so early... Yes I kind of knew that ## \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=0 ## is wrong... but in that short period of time I didn't even try to think... please don't start criticizing me for that...

Okay, here goes... Our teacher set a question in the last test which asked us to show that if a system initially be in a stationary state, it will remain in a stationary state even if the system evolves according to the time dependent Schrödinger equation. What I did was show that the...

Okay. That was helpful. Thank you everyone for helping me with this. I have a better understanding now.

. I agree to that and have understood this part. . This is what I'm talking about. Of course we have polarization charges on the surface and its the normal component of P... So why do we not bring it in the divergence equations?

This part is alright, what's bothering me is that we are nowhere bringing the surface charge density in this derivation. Why is that? Or is it hiding somewhere!

This is what we have in text-books and in Wikipedia: ρ=ρb+ρf and from there we get ∇.D=ρf. But I am unable to understand why we are not considering the bound surface charge in deriving this equation. Can anyone explain this to me.

Yes, but is that value strictly different for two different bodies? Or can two mass distribution have the same moment of inertia?

I mean to say that the bodies are not 2 dimensional, they only have length.. Like a rope. Only the distribution is not continuous, it is made of a number of masses

I would like to know if there is any proof as to whether the moment of inertia for two bodies (the masses of each body are distributed on a line) about their respective center of masses, is strictly different. If not, can anyone provide me a link to where the work is computed.

how does that reduce the scattering of light.?

Why is it that the width of a wire grid polarizer has to be less than the wavelength of the wave which I want to polarize? What would happen if the width was a little bit more?

Ok... Now I understand what's going on! The fact that nothing is perfectly neutral is being exploited here. That's pretty clever actually... :D