Recent content by Marco_84

Usually it mean that inside the cylinder and on its boundaries the field is null. Think about electrostatics ;) MM

use also cilndric coordinates ;)

It is a consequence of the su(2) representation dimension, you can chek it bye direct calculation on tensors formalism ;) here a forum https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=91769

what is the definition of potential function?? or in a more matematicl sense what is an exact differential? use the knowledge you have on integral and derivatives ;) Marco

First i think you should specify which phisycal quantities hide behind those letters :-), in any case The specific heat capacity of a material is: c={\partial C \over \partial m} In absence of phase transition you have c=E_ m={C \over m} = {C \over {\rho V}} where...

but is what you have don actually ;) marco

I bet you wanted to say proton not H ;) Well now the question changed a little bit, in any case follow what zapper z is suggesting to you, search there (high energy physics).. To answer you question you nedd more than QM, actually the most recent (and confirmed theory) is QFT more properly...

I'm sorry but my english is not so good :D. What I'm trying to say is more general than just talking about H atom. I said 19 century because during that period Hamilton developed his mathematical tools such Hamilton equations and so on... Obviously not only him. Systems that we observe...

In fact, i wrote: It is an assumption already made during the XIX century. It just states that the world we observe isn't collapsing on his-self. "This is the physical mechanism behind". marco

Having hamiltonian operators bounded from below (i.e. we can have stables ground states) it isn't a quantum mechanical necessity. It is an assumption already made during the XIX century. It just states that the world we observe isn't collapsing on his-self. I hope i was clear. Marco

check perturbation theories ;)

right... but i f you want to go deeper... see the rapresentations of angular momentu in QM, see what are the wieight of a reprs ;)

i think you shold solve it in "routherford" way, not relativistically... so try to think how to get the velocity from the kinetic energy, then use all the theorem you know, such as conservations of energy and momentum ;)

very good question... this is a simple paradigm to study whene you meet lagrangian mechanics, the system is not solvable analitically! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

try to us the chain rule, mathematically, lorentz transf... is a common change of coordinates... and are not so difficult... they are linear ;D