26,519 reputation
454122
bio website www3.imperial.ac.uk/…
location London, United Kingdom
age 27
visits member for 3 years
seen 8 mins ago

I'm a PhD student at the CDT in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College London. My research is on strong-field and ultrafast physics, and I mostly study tunnel ionization and high-harmonic generation.

Check out my papers - they're nice!

You can also check out my Master's dissertation, "Under-the-barrier electron-ion interactions during tunnel ionization" at arXiv:1307.7329 or on my CDT homepage.

I did my Bachelor's degree in Physics in Mexico at the Faculty of Science at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). I studied quantum optics for my dissertation with Eduardo Nahmad Achar, and I have some nice results on the Jordan-block structure of the annihilation operator (as well as what became the J Phys A paper). You can find it (in Spanish) in the UNAM thesis repository.


5m
comment Which one true in First law of thermodynamics: $Q = \Delta U \pm W = \Delta U \pm p\Delta V$ or $\Delta U= \Delta Q + \Delta W $?
I meant the sum in your statement of the law, Q = ΔE + W, which changes to Q = ΔE - W if you interpret W differently. You provide very little informaron as to how to distinguish and use the sign conventions consistently, which is the master at hand here.
7h
comment Which one true in First law of thermodynamics: $Q = \Delta U \pm W = \Delta U \pm p\Delta V$ or $\Delta U= \Delta Q + \Delta W $?
On the contrary, your answer does contain a + sign, which only holds true if one does remember that W is the work performed by, and not on, the system. Your answer does little to alleviate this confusion, which is the heart of the OP's question.
22h
comment Why isn't it obvious that a particle doesn't interact with its own field, classically?
Take your time - these are hard matters to digest. Do read Ribarič and Šušteršič's work (e.g. arXiv:1005.3943) - it can be a bit hard to take in but they are very upfront about the stuff that's nowhere near solved.
22h
comment Which one true in First law of thermodynamics: $Q = \Delta U \pm W = \Delta U \pm p\Delta V$ or $\Delta U= \Delta Q + \Delta W $?
Your points are all correct, but you seem to miss the spirit of the question. The sign of $Q$ and $W$ depend on the sign convention used, indeed, and the question is how to implement the different sign conventions, which you have not addressed. (Not my downvote btw.)
1d
comment Is a rope wave a perfectly transverse wave?
How do the displacements scale with the amplitude? Is it possible that the transverse displacement scales with the amplitude but the longitudinal one scales with its square? In that case, the wave would be 'completely transverse' in the low-amplitude limit.
1d
reviewed Leave Closed Quantum mechanical tunneling
1d
answered What's difference between C parity and charge?
1d
comment Can one submit/publish a paper between postdocs?
This sort of career-focused question is no longer really on-topic on this site, but will normally be well received at Academia.SE.
2d
answered Why isn't it obvious that a particle doesn't interact with its own field, classically?
2d
reviewed Leave Open A possible way to initiate a nuclear fusion reaction without a nuclear fission trigger
2d
reviewed Leave Open Connection of a rheostat
2d
reviewed Reopen Direct interaction theory
2d
reviewed Reopen what experiments can be used to distinguish between s-wave and d-wave superconductivity?
Apr
15
answered What exactly is meant by saying that two events had been “simultaneous in an inertial frame”?
Apr
15
answered Quantum Mechanics Notation
Apr
15
comment What does this mean: “Quantity of charge in one equivalent ”
The precise phrasing of the whole question is probably also just as crucial.
Apr
15
comment What does this mean: “Quantity of charge in one equivalent ”
Without the precise phrasing this will be tremendously hard to answer.
Apr
15
comment Is it possible to have frozen clouds floating in the sky?
Given the explicit reference, the question seems to be about ice clouds solid enough to put a dent in a spacecraft that flies into them.
Apr
15
comment Using creation and annihilation operators to prove the expression for the $n$th excited state in terms of the vacuum state
Yes, it's perfectly valid.
Apr
15
answered Using creation and annihilation operators to prove the expression for the $n$th excited state in terms of the vacuum state