Playing around with summations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hazzattack
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the summation of the series Ʃn^n from 0 to infinity, which is stated to equal 1 in the context of quantum optics. The user seeks clarification on the meaning of 'average' values in this context and questions whether the index of the sum affects the average value of n. It is noted that the sum represents photon distribution, leading to confusion about the appropriateness of summing over average photon numbers. The user ultimately realizes the answer to their question after engaging with the topic. This highlights the complexities of series expansions and their applications in quantum optics.
Hazzattack
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, I'm hoping someone could explain this for me... and was also hoping that some decent literature could be suggested to help me get more comfortable with series expansions of things etc...

So i was playing around with the Q function (its used in quantum optics) and in the book they say that;

For the sum from 0 to infinity Ʃn^n = 1

(the bold case n's represent 'average' values - not sure if that makes a difference?)

Why is this the case ?

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Can you explain what you mean by average values? Is n totally independent of n here?
 
I think the index of the sum only applies to the power and not to the average value. (which i think is what you mean by them being independent?

In this case the sum represents the photon distribution where n represents the average photon number, so I'm assuming it doesn't make sense to sum over that?

Sorry if that isn't very clear...
 
Never mind I've realized why. Thanks for anyone who took a look.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top