Optical simulations of gravitational effects

bartrocs
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I'm preparing a poster presentation on the following paper for a physics course:
http://t.co/xiCLV7Y0ZH

I do not understand how figure 4 tells us about the red/blue shift. Just from the deflections of the peaks of the airy beam, as well as the deformation, how are we able to infer that there is a red shift effect?

I tried explaining this to myself by the spatial frequency of the observed peaks, however I realized that a beam that is escaping from a gravitational well should appear red shifted, yet this seemed to imply the opposite. I then realized that we are looking at an intensity distribution, so now I am confused as to how we can infer that a red shift type effect is present
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This seems quite deep so I'm not sure, but I take figure 4 as the combination of blue shift then red shift which varies in a complex manner relative to beam intensity so the apparent shift would be the difference between the 2? The bottom c,d shows "centered" on 0 shift meaning no displacement, no shift, both high and low intensity beams are not shifted. I'm going to let it sink in for a while and read it again! Quite interesting!
 
In the bottom two, they've just shifted the peaks so that they line up to make stretching and squashing effect more apparent.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top