Reputation
1,874
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
7 20
Impact
~207k people reached

Jan
12
comment Clarification on hawking radiation
Already asked and answered: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/106882/… ... Also, I would avoid the use of "negative energy", I don't know who uses that notion, but it is a misnomer for what really occurs (and is understandably creating you confusion). Point is, a particle and anti-particle have energy, and one flies away from the black hole (could be either one), so the total energy remaining at the black hole is less than what it was originally.
Jan
9
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
20
accepted Search for unpublished note on Magnetic Monopole Detection
Nov
20
awarded  Curious
Nov
19
asked Search for unpublished note on Magnetic Monopole Detection
Nov
14
awarded  Yearling
Oct
23
awarded  Popular Question
Aug
28
comment Rigourous Treatment of Antenna Theory/Physics
Staelin's Electromagnetic Waves, I've used this before, as did a physics course at Cornell, and it was rigorous. A book I haven't read, but downloaded because it looked like I need to read it, is Electromagnetic Waves and Antennas by Orfanidis... this might be more for what you what.
Aug
9
comment Ramsey pulse versus optical pumping: what's the difference?
This optical pumping, by definition, only hits the $|e_1\rangle$ state. If you want to "shine a laser" elsewhere, you are no longer describing the same phenomenon. I can pick up a soccer ball and start bouncing it, but I'm no longer playing soccer.
Aug
8
comment Ramsey pulse versus optical pumping: what's the difference?
The difference is that Ramsey-pulsing describes oscillations of the atom-photon interaction that occurs in a 2-level system, whereas optical pumping is a technique to get actual lasing from a 3-level system (since it is not classically possible with a 2-level system). The pumping field does not hit the $|e_2\rangle$ state, so there is no "oscillations" going on between it and the ground state.
Aug
3
comment Is an electron a superconductor?
I am arguing that it does exhibit such an effect, based on a vacuous description. There is no "inside" to the electron, hence no B-field "in the bulk". The B-field also doesn't attract the electron, if anything it directs the movement of the electron.
Aug
3
comment Is an electron a superconductor?
It comes down to semantics. If a superconductor is defined in terms of the Cooper pair quasiparticle, then the electron is not a superconductor. If a superconductor is defined by the two stated phenomena, then I think an electron is a superconductor -- an electron has no "bulk" to it, and its movement in a B-field is perpendicular to the direction of the field (i.e. not "attracted" to it). The point is that it's vacuously true and meaningless.
Aug
3
comment Is an electron a superconductor?
This is an irrelevant answer. You are only summarizing superconductivity, which anyone can read on Wikipedia. To me, you haven't addressed the question. For instance, the "critical temperature" might be infinite, i.e. the electron could always be superconducting. Since there is no "bulk" to the material here, it's vacuously true that there is no B-field "inside it" (which is what expulsion of the field means here). To me, what really makes an electron obviously not a superconductor, is that there is only one electron, whereas superconductor requires two electrons to form a Cooper pair.
Jun
29
awarded  Custodian
Jun
29
reviewed Reject What is the magnetic field inside hollow ball of magnets?
Jun
27
comment I know light's speed in vacuum is constant, but what about its velocity?
@JohnRennie You're not fixing the vacuum, an accelerated observer is the same as a stationary one in a gravitational field. The question refers to the object of light itself, which implicitly assumes you have a fixed observer. If you make an edit which clarifies this, I would gladly remove my downvote.
Jun
27
comment I know light's speed in vacuum is constant, but what about its velocity?
@JohnRennie Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense to me, and you have yet to explain it despite multiple people asking. I don't think you have an explanation, because light itself does not change in vacuum.
Jun
27
comment I know light's speed in vacuum is constant, but what about its velocity?
@JohnDuffield your answer is wrong because "vacuum" requires the absence of gravity.
Apr
12
comment Destroying currents in superconducting rings by vortex tunneling
Do you have a reference for details concerning your last paragraph?
Apr
9
revised Seiberg-Witten theory and Superconductivity
added 693 characters in body