Reputation
8,037
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
1 8 26
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~340k people reached

Jan
16
awarded  Yearling
Jan
7
comment Showing that $\lambda$ is the probability per unit time that one particle will decay in 1 second
@rob: It is the definition of probability - it concerns one single particle. For ensembles one writes numbers of decayed or "alive" particles (see eq.(A) of OP, for example).
Jan
7
revised Are parts of objects part of that object's mass?
added 138 characters in body
Jan
7
answered Are parts of objects part of that object's mass?
Jan
7
answered Showing that $\lambda$ is the probability per unit time that one particle will decay in 1 second
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: You again pretend that I say something contradicting to or not supported with experiments. In reality I am referring to a typical QM calculation with no hypotheses at all.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: And you may want to read my statements about pointlikeness and smearing in QM here: aiscience.org/journal/paperInfo/pj?paperId=2156
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: You said that a point-like bare electron exists in QED, but it anyway gets a structure from "the induced distribution of virtual photons and electrons"... and I just seconded it underlying that photons also belong to the particle zoo.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: Ha! Now, according to you, I am against QM. Funny you are. What I was responding to was your "bit of intellectual nonsense" where I included photons on equal footing with your Higgs.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: Don't think of my (mis)understanding; better think of the geometric optics, which is relevant to the question.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: I disagree with you about it, but let's stop our discussion.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: Quantum (photon) caries away some energy-momentum and angular momentum, so what the difference are you talking about? In QM all particles (excitations) are treated on equal footing.
Jan
4
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: "Quanta" means "particles". Whatever.
Jan
3
comment Why doesn't a Gaussian beam converge to a point?
@CuriousOne: And below 1 MeV we still have plenty of particles - photons - in scattering processes.
Nov
30
comment Interpretation of QED gauge freedom
@RobinEkman; I understand your worry, but if you know what the magnetic field is "inside", there is no reason to think that the electron is unaware about this magnetic field. Because you too are a "source" of the electron. Do not forget - the boundary conditions are solutions (simplified, though) to the complete set of all equations.
Nov
30
comment Interpretation of QED gauge freedom
@RobinEkman: In the Aharonov-Bohm effect the vector-potential is expressed via magnetic field. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is a sensitivity to the magnetic field, not to the vector potential.
Nov
27
comment Interpretation of QED gauge freedom
Any variable change, not only a "gauge" one, is possible and may be useful in QED if it is reversible. New equations may have a quite different look without harming physics. There are gauge-invariant formulations of QED where everything is expressed via electromagnetic fields rather than potentials.
Sep
23
awarded  Popular Question
Aug
20
answered Two definitions of Green's function
Aug
15
comment doubts regarding the classical electron radius
There is no justification, as a matter of fact. The electron is point-like and its electrostatic energy is discarded entirely.