Recent content by thariya

Thank you for that reference! And thank you for the offer of further discussion! I will take some time to go through your paper and will definitely take you up on that offer.

Happy to help! I don't quite recall a textbook for this. I see a couple of suggestions have come in for that. Hopefully one of them will suit your need!

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-02-multivariable-calculus-fall-2007/ This is where I first learned it close to 10 years ago. The lectures are a tad old but I think they are excellent assuming you would have the patience to go through it all. It is quite worth it if you do. I have...

Thanks for this! I think I will go the Gaussian approximation route. Wick's theorem doesn't quite help me since my operators(ladder operators) are actually already normal ordered and their individual operator expectations are not zero. I don't see how I could reduce that using Wick's theorem...

Yes, my bad. I did it in my head and forgot an extra factor. ##m_B## shouldn't cancel out in this case. Sorry about that fellas. It actually does depend on the ratio of the two masses.

First, I would mark down the directions of the accelerations of the two objects along with the force diagram. As you said earlier, the ice block would move horizontally(with respect to the floor) so you can mark that off with an acceleration value quite easily(which would be an unknown in your...

Hi! I want to know under what conditions the operator expectation values of a product of operators can be expressed as a product of their individual expectation values. Specifically, under what conditions does the following relation hold for quantum operators (For my specific purpose, these are...

Sorry but can't seem to be able to view the image you've uploaded.

Thanks for that. I wrote down the derivation and I see what you mean. It basically depends on whether the cosine or sine waveform is used to describe the oscillating field.

Thank you very much for the reply! Do the conventions vary based on the redefinition of the field operators ##b_k^\dagger## and ##b_k##? If what I think is correct, in one convention, the ##b_k^\dagger,b_k## is proportional to the quantized vector potential, while in the other, it's the...

Hi all, I've always regarded the coupling Hamiltonian for a bosonic cavity mode coupled to a two-level fermionic gain medium chromophore to be of the form, $$H_{coupling}=\hbar g(\sigma_{10}+\sigma_{01})(b+b^{\dagger})$$, where ##b## and ##b^{\dagger}## and annihilation and creation operators...