Anyone care to explain the TA's note?

[Shackleford]

Omega here is frequency.

I used lambda = c/f. Why is it (2*pi*c)/omega and not c/f or c/omega?

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-10-04203213.jpg?t=1286245112

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/2010-10-04203118.jpg?t=1286245065

 

[fzero]

It looks like the formula you used was derived as

\omega_{ij} = \frac{E_j - E_i}{\hbar},

which is an angular frequency as can be seen from the presence of \hbar rather than h.

 

[Shackleford]

It looks like the formula you used was derived as

\omega_{ij} = \frac{E_j - E_i}{\hbar},

which is an angular frequency as can be seen from the presence of \hbar rather than h.

Yeah. But h-bar is already in the denominator in the formula I used to calculate omega_{ij}.

 

[fzero]

The wavelength is still 2\pi c/\omega.

 

[cristo]

Why not ask your TA for clarification?

 

[Shackleford]

The wavelength is still 2\pi c/\omega.

Why is lambda = c/f not valid?

 

[Shackleford]

Why not ask your TA for clarification?

I forgot. I already bugged him about two other problems. I did poorly on this damn homework.

 

[fzero]

Why is lambda = c/f not valid?

It is, but \omega = 2\pi f.

 

[Shackleford]

It is, but \omega = 2\pi f.

Well, that's my mistake. I wasn't taking omega to be an angular frequency. Why? I don't know. Son of a *****.