Recent content by newbee

OK. I think that it can be shown that if the contour includes a part that is outside the region of support and a part that is along the surface of the region of support then there will always be such a circulation that is nonzero.

Jano Thank you for the reply. Your proof depends upon the circulation of an arbitrary magnetization (your first integral) always being non zero for at least one contour. I do not see why that would be the case. Am I missing something? For a cylinder if the magnetization is spatially...

Can a magnetization density that is compactly supported be the gradient of a scalar field? This question relates to magnetic resonance imaging where the signal depends upon the curl of the magnetization density.

Dr. Rocket What do you mean by "atomic measure"? Is this an accepted mathematical term?

None of the above comments addressed the issue which is: When can one interchange a limit operation with an integration when the integrand involves a Dirac delta? Google Parseval's Theorem using Google Books and you will find many texts which do just this sort of thing and they do it without any...

If I were to ask you what the axioms of QM are would you just say read a book? If so then what are you doing on this site?

What does "partial collapse" mean? You either make the measurement and collapse or not. Right?

I find it distressing, to say the least, that nobody can satisfy my request. What is going on in QFT classes or the subject matter itself that such a simple request goes unfilled?

I understand that the formal structure of QFT has resisted axiomatization (so far) and that what formal structure presently exists is really a set of recipes. Can somebody outline the recipe please.

Thanks folks.

Hi Folks J. D. Jackson's last edition to his Classical Electrodynamics (3rd edition) was ten years ago. Are most graduate physics programs still using his text? It appears that some programs maybe using Schwinger's book. What other graduate level texts are in use? Thank you

LennoxLewis Your question is analogous to ask the following QM question: What is the "physical meaning" of a particular Hamiltonian? The answer is: That scalar field which makes Schrodinger's equation hold. Where by "hold" I mean "agree with experiment".

The phrase "an electron travels every possible trajectory simultaneously" is a phrase that people sometimes use to help the layman, in the absence of sufficient mathematical background or the understanding of the concept of the superposition of states, to develop a feel for QM. It usually fails...

You are grossly missing the point. The type of questions that make sense in the context of QM are different from those that make sense in the context of CM. Pointing this out isn't nitpicking. It is of the essence of QM. And what significance did the rest of your last post have in relation to...

I think the best answer to the OP is not an answer at all but rather a response. That response should be: In the context of QM your question makes no sense.