Recent content by Paintjunkie

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1627/1c6fce3564ee4e2882c6729a7167714da2c5.pdf This helped me

to be a little more clear I get the same answer for equation 2.26, Waxman has a negative in the wrong place, but it does not matter. The answer in 2.26 is correct

Well I don't know what to do... because when follow Allen and do my own calculations to arrive at what Waxman has as equation 2.28, I am off by a factor of 2. I think its cause of this inconsistency.

Ok I think I was misunderstanding, probably still am. so Waxman definition in equation 2.11for V01 is consistent with equation 2.16? or should there be a factor of 2 in equation 2.16?

hmmm ok. seems to make sense maybe. If I look at this online thesis "http://www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip/Theses/Amir_Waxman_MSc_2007.pdf" starting on page 12 and going to page 13. He defines his rabi frequency in equation 2.16, and that's because his energy difference, stated at the top of page 12...

This might not really be that tuff a question, so the Rabi frequency... the definition that I seem to find in multiple locations seems to be in agreement with what's on wiki here: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabi_frequency" but when I am reading a book by L. Allen "optical resonance and two...

good eye, seems to be a typo to me, quick look in QM Griffiths tells me it should be minus. The MOT should not matter, I don't think... the magnetic coils for the MOT should be turned off when the microwaves are perturbing the atom. In my lab, we use an anti-Helmholtz config (I think all MOT's...

To add to this, my confusion comes when the Bloch Sphere is finally derived from it. It seemed like the pseudospin vectors that were derived in both cases were the same, and that led to the same Bloch vector. But if I expose my system to an on resonance magnetic pulse from t0 to t1 and then at...

I am reading a PHD thesis online "A controlled quantum system of individual neutral atom" by Stefan Kuhr. In it on pg46, he has a Hamiltonian I am also reading a book by L. Allen "optical resonance and two level atoms" in it on page 34 he starts with a Hamiltonian where the perturbation is...

well.. i think i thought of a valid reason that first integral can go away. (R2π+ Rπ) R ̂=R ⃗-R ⃗ still slightly troubled over the (-R,0,Z) thing... attached is my updated work..

ok thank you for your time

I just wanted to do it in cylindrical coordinates cause to me it feels like it should be done that way... I do see that derivation and I could put that down in my lab report instead I guess dl would end up being (rsin(theta), 0, rcos(theta)) or something like that

damn yea huh idk I guess that's not right either! soab I need that first integral to go away. it has to cancel itself out somehow...

that almost makes more sense to me. that the source point is on that circle. attached is an updated derivation.

is it ok for me to make my source point on the circle that dl is on?