Recent content by woody stanford

OK, I double-checked and this is incorrect, the magnetic field has to be modeled with sin(x) as well (to get the phases right...)

OK, question, if photons are particles of light, then can you have an RF photon? I mean its "light" (EM radiation) right? I'm pretty sure there are gamma and x-ray photons, so why not RF ones? And if there isn't where is the cut off point (and I want it down to one decimal place of...

The electrical component (I think). Interestingly you can model the magnetic component with cos(X) which places it at the right phase for the model. Here is a very cool equation I found: f(x) = y = A sin (kx+d) To use it you realize that A affects amplitude, k inversely affects wave length...

OK, got some more question. Still working on my program to compute the time invariant version of SE. Here is that equation: Ok, here is my question. The E here I believe can have a Hameltonian substituted in BUT I'm interested in the classic interpretation of the E term here. Is it system...

See that's why I come here...get a few opinions...a few facts...a few points of view. Thank you sir. Basically what I was thinking but wanted to bounce it off the ole colleagues. Means I'm not nuts (comforting to know). lol

I have to agree with Dr. Claude here Tiago. Bohr and De Broglie were available in QM 98 Service Pack 3 but are no longer supported. I would suggest activating your compatibility mode in QFT 2010 and downgrade your screen resolution down to 640x480 and then you might get some play on these...

I'm uncomfortable with the application here of a probability amplitude being applied to the relationship between the electrical and magnetic field in a beam of light. I'll be honest with you. I'm not saying it isn't so, I'm just saying I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that it applies here...

The question I have is regarding the time-variant form of schrodinger's equation. Can I just put a complex number of form c=a+bi where the i is in it or can I just literally put sqrt(-1) where the i is: addendum: sorry forgot the t in the right-hand term, it should read (r,t) instead of (r)...

Even getting this equation from WIkipedia I think it would be a good idea to work it out manually one's self to both verify and understand what it means. The part about the force being imparted to the whole sale being proportional to the distance away from the Sun is common sense and follow the...

Being a former street fighter and practitioner of physics, I think I can shed some light on the subject. You might be right about it making physics sense that knocking a tall person down might be mathematically easier. However I would point out that physics is merely a subdiscipline of Truth...

I'd have to agree with the mods. Maybe it has to do with the phrasing of it? While I realize that a large volume of an ideal gas does have a quantum state, there is a subtle implication I think that it should be solvable (ie. changing the question perhaps to "100-500 molecules of in a gaseous...

How about a guess? The answer to your first question: a particle (I think I'm on firm physics ground with this one). But, we do know about wave/particle duality, so I suppose the visualization of it in your first diagram (a classic in 20th century physics and true) is the best, most accurate...

Look all I need is some URL's of download locations. Most of the crap on the net is just bits and pieces of Fenyman diagrams (I know I've checked). And if there is all (and all I mean most common diagram including like lowest flavor quark diagrams) in one spot, I'd be interested in fining out...

Back again. This time I'm looking to build a small catalog of Feynman diagrams for my own use (and when I'm done to put it on the Internet in PDF format). I need your help to get a list of URLs together that I can download the required PDF's off the internet, bring them into Illustrator and have...

Thanks vanhees for the link (busy these days, so can use all the help I can get). Have a guilty secret I have to admit when I first read the article/paper, was that I was hoping they were going to announce something like seeing a particle's position and momentum at the same time or something...