Timeline for How do I correctly interpret $\rho = \psi_1^* \psi_2$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2011 at 5:28 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2011 at 5:22 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2011 at 3:19 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 463 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2011 at 3:08 | history | bounty ended | yayu | ||
| Apr 22, 2011 at 17:49 | answer | added | Vladimir Kalitvianski | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 21, 2011 at 19:36 | answer | added | Aldo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 21, 2011 at 15:43 | answer | added | Godfrey Miller | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 19:17 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2011 at 15:28 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body; added 36 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2011 at 15:26 | history | bounty started | yayu | ||
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:50 | comment | added | yayu | @David actually i corrected that factor after seeing your comment. I was copy pasting my intitial equation's latex to be quicker, and I had left the $i\hbar$ factor sticking to the $\partial_t(\cdots)$ so thanks :-P | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:48 | comment | added | David Z | And never mind again, I missed that you divided through by $i\hbar$ :-P | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:26 | comment | added | yayu | @David yup.. done! | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:26 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:08 | comment | added | David Z | Ah, I missed a sign when I was doing it... never mind. (Though you do seem to have an extra $i$ in the denominator of $\hbar^2/2mi$) | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 3:04 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 888 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2011 at 2:47 | comment | added | yayu | @David Ok. I will work out the steps for full scrutiny in another edit. | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 2:46 | comment | added | David Z | @yayu: I don't think the math leading to $i\hbar\partial_t(\psi_1^*\psi_2) + \cdots = 0$ is valid. Are you sure about that? | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 2:34 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 116 characters in body; added 7 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2011 at 2:29 | history | edited | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 731 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2011 at 17:07 | vote | accept | yayu | ||
| Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44 | answer | added | Marek | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 14, 2011 at 8:03 | history | edited | user68 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 14, 2011 at 7:24 | history | asked | yayu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |