Recent content by malasti

Yes, he mentioned something about comments from the referees. However, I have not received any word other than that the paper is awaiting editorial decision, so I don't know what I can expect from the journal. (My supervisor does not know the procedures for this journal well.)

I've been thinking about it. That would mean that I would have to talk to my supervisor about it, or simply ignore his advice (I don't know how he'd feel about that). If my supervisor hadn't told me to lay low I would have contacted the editor already.

I want nothing more than to "own up" and correct my mistake. My first thought was to correct the mistakes (minimal adjustments) and contact the journal immediately with the corrections and an apology. However, my supervisor advised me to wait for the proof and then follow the proof correcting...

I recently submitted a paper to a respectable journal. After submission, I discovered a few errors in my paper, one of which is quite serious. I have the corrected expressions and plots and I've checked that they are in agreement with the overall theory (as presented in other papers). My...

Ok, actually, this was way simpler than I though. I had the right expression, I just misinterpreted others' notation. uii2=uiiujj=(uxx+uyy)2 , including the cross term.

Now I wrote the "canonical" isotropic expression in the same "matrix-vector-vector"-form, and for it the matrix looks different, but not diagonal. My matrix: ½λ+μ 0 0 ½λ 0 ½μ ½μ 0 0 ½μ ½μ 0 ½λ 0 0 ½λ+μ The "standard" matrix: ½λ+μ 0 0 0 0 μ μ 0 0...

Okay, here's a better idea. The initial expression can be written as a matrix of constants (the moduli) times a column vector with the components uxx, uxy, uyx, uyy, times a row vector with the same components (I checked that it sums up to the right thin). Since it's a scalar, it's invariant...

Could it possibly have something to do with the definitions of the axes or something? I really suck at tensors, but if I viewed Cijkluijukl as a four-component tensor and then presented it as a 4x4 matrix (I'm not entirely sure how legit this is), i.e. with the rows (columns), starting from the...

I'm looking at the free energy of a body (theory of elasticity) but I can't really square the general expression with the one usually used for isotropic bodies. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_energy), Landau & Lifgarbagez etc the general expression for the free...

Okay, I think I figured it out. I misunderstood the problem, at least somewhat. What was needed was to realize that 1. I should restrict myself to an isotropic medium 2. the elastic modulus tensor ("a" here) is VERY restricted for an isotropic medium (of course) 3. I should not precisely get the...

I think it would be okay to assume that the medium is isotropic in my case. Then λ is just a number and we drop all the indices. Also, I think I might have messed up some indices, not sure, however I currently arrive at (λ/2)*Ʃmkl ∂2um/∂xk∂xl=m ∂2tui, i=1,2 (or x,y, whatever) Now I can look...

No, I think that's pretty much it. I want to derive the 2D wave equation (which should be possible by diagonalizing it to get the polarization vectors). I know "a" will need some hefty restrictions, yes. Preferably I would like to be able to motivate those. Looking at the 2D Hamiltonian, and...

I'm beginning to think that this should be viewed as a tensor equation. I could use that "a diagonal tensor can always be diagonalized at any point by changing coordinate axes to the tensors principal axes" (found that in a book). However, I'm not quite sure how exactly to do this. The...

Homework Statement I've just derived the 1D wave equation for a continuous 1D medium from a classical Hamiltonian. I simply wrote Hamilton's equations, where the derivatives here must be functional derivatives (e.g. δ/δu(x)) since p and u are functions of x, and I got the wave equation (see...