meta user
network profile
| bio | website | scholar.google.com/… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Czech Republic | |
| age | 23 | |
| visits | member for | 8 months |
| seen | 3 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 125 |
Master student in physics with particular interest in theoretical quantum optics and quantum information processing. Currently, I am working on some aspects of transformations of entangled continuous-variable states of light.
|
4h |
reviewed | No Action Needed What happens when a ball stops bouncing? |
|
8h |
comment |
Why do prisms work (why is refraction frequency dependent)? @BenCrowell It certainly is an unusual explanation for dispersion but I guess it could still work. You'd just need to do the calculations in detail to check it. And there is one more thing - it explains dispersion only in crystals, not in, e.g., glass. |
|
12h |
reviewed | No Action Needed If time stops at the speed of light is a photon 'everywhere' at once? |
|
13h |
reviewed | Reviewed How long does it take an iceberg to melt in the ocean? |
|
13h |
reviewed | No Action Needed Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin? |
|
15h |
answered | How to draw a ray diagram from focal length, object and image heights? |
|
16h |
comment |
Why do prisms work (why is refraction frequency dependent)? @fffred Yes, $k$ comes from the dipole oscillations of the electron. I thought that the basic meaning was clear from the text and I don't want to go into much detail concerning finding specific values of the constants. I am certain one can find more details in the literature; this is just to give the main idea. |
|
16h |
revised |
Why do prisms work (why is refraction frequency dependent)? Corrected minor errors in mathematics |
|
16h |
answered | Why do prisms work (why is refraction frequency dependent)? |
|
1d |
comment |
Zero point fluctuation of an harmonic oscillator You could also argue that when defining zero point fluctuations in terms of variance of the position, the value will be smaller than the amplitude. I bet you would find that the variance (or its square root) will be exactly $\sqrt{2}$ times smaller. |
|
1d |
awarded | Revival |
|
1d |
answered | Zero point fluctuation of an harmonic oscillator |
|
2d |
reviewed | Reviewed Current in AC circuit |
|
2d |
reviewed | No Action Needed Boundary Condition for Perfect Conductor in Uniform Magnetic Field |
|
2d |
comment |
Magnitude of a photon? @annav I know that. What I mean is that they probably mean splitting its probability amplitude among several modes. It's not the same thing and the term "splitting a photon" is definitely not a suitable one, but this is where I think the core of the statement might be. |
|
2d |
comment |
Magnitude of a photon? Maybe they mean that they send the photon on a beam splitter (or a set of them) so that, technically, the photon is "split" into all the output modes. The formulation is not ideal but that might also depend on the context in which the whole formulation is used. |
|
May 22 |
reviewed | No Action Needed Can we apply de Broglie's relations to sound waves? |
|
May 22 |
comment |
Quantum mechanics and everyday nature @joshphysics I agree with you that once you accept that light beam is made of particles, you need quantum physics to explain Young's experiment. But the problem here is the acceptance bit. If you try and explain this to someone who knows nothing about quantum physics, they'll ask why you assume light is made of particles and how they can see it. So you get nowhere and still need a convincing everyday phenomenon that illustrates the importance of quantum physics. |
|
May 22 |
comment |
Quantum mechanics and everyday nature Sure, you can explain Young's experiment with macroscopic light intensities using quantum physics. But the question asks for phenomena that can be explained only using quantum mechanics. Therefore you need single photons interfering to have the need to turn to quantum mechanics. Otherwise, you do not even need Maxwell's equations and are perfectly happy with a wave-optical explanation. |
|
May 21 |
comment |
Quantum mechanics and everyday nature Young's experiment actually just demonstrates wave nature of light. If you wanted to show its quantumness, you would need to show wave-particle duality using single photon sources and single photon detectors which I doubt people usually have lying around. |
