Recent content by TheDestroyer

You're saying this as if not having an infinite precision number is the only problem of having a perfect circle. I think many students do this and confuse physics with math. There's a very thick line separating physics from math, and that's where you're wrong. A circle is a mathematical...

@bigfooted Thank you very much. Your message made me feel much better. Would you provide me some help on the personal level? Since you work at a very similar thing as I do, you would know what I need to do to get started, and what I need to focus on. I'd appreciate it a lot. Can I PM you?

Dear readers: I would like to share my story with you, and I really appreciate your advice. I graduated last year from ETH Zürich as a PhD in physics. Now I'm doing a Postdoc in a group as my first step in a "science" career. The Problem: As much as I love research and enjoy doing science...

@vanhees71 I agree the asker asked an ambiguous question. The probability to be in state j is P_j=\langle \psi | o_j \rangle I would say. I think people learning QM always get confused because the concept of preparation of states isn't clear. I guess a logical question for a new learner is...

@vanhees71 I see. You're talking about the eigenvalues of the density matrix itself. I think the asker meant the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian, which explains why he provided eigenvalues -1 and 1.

@vanhees71 Although this is an old post, but I really have to ask: Why are you constructing the density matrix using the eigenvalues and not the probabilities? This makes it like if the eigenvalue has units of energy, the density matrix will have units of energy too... isn't the density matrix...

Thank you for your response, though I would like to tell you that definitely googling it is the first thing I have done, but it doesn't help, because apparently EMU has many different conventions and I'm looking for something specific used for magnetometer sensitivity. Magnetometer sensitivity...

In many, many articles about the SQUID magnetometer, I see people referring to the sensitivity of the magnetometer in units of EMU, as in this article: http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/26/6/064006 or this http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02570388 Could someone please explain...

Thanks to the people who've helped, though the problem was pointed to me by my Professor. The problem was in the definition of raising and lowering operators with respect to spherical basis...

Thank you for your response. As reasonable as what you're saying sounds, I verified the signs like 5 times in different times to make sure there's no mistake, and I can't find any. Let me give an example. Let's talk about the z equation. The equation is...

Thanks for your response. I checked it and I found no sign error; though maybe I'm wrong, but this is a secondary problem, since even if a sign error is there, this won't resolve the problem I'm facing where those equations have nothing to do with Bloch equations the way we know them. Any...

In that line k=1,q=0, which makes the \omega_0 term vanish because it's muliplied by q. Best regards.

This question was on Stackexchange, and no one was able to solve it. So now I'm posting it here, and I wish someone could help. I'm trying to derive the Bloch equations[1] from the Liouville equation[2]. This should be possible according to this paper[3], where it discusses higher order Bloch...

Thank you for your answers, guys. Like Kith said, I need to add components and not have the product. A 63*63 matrix is redundant, where it gives me, for example, a state | F=3,F=4,m_F=3,m_F=-4 \rangle, which is definitely wrong. What I'm doing is adding components... please consider...

If I do this product the result's side length will become 7*9=63 elements... while my combined system from F=3 and F=4 has only 7+9=16 elements, since F=3 has side-length 2*3+1=7 and F=4 has 2*4+1=9. So here's the problem right now.