in this page of A&M, they say theres also a longitudinal magnetoresistance, but naively, id guess it's $\frac{E_y}{j_y}$ but in Hall effect there's no $j_y$, so this seems problematic. what am i missing/how is this thing defined?
@Relativisticcucumber you have to read the footnote carefully: The longitudinal m.res. is still the same equation as (1.14), but with the magnetic field parallel to the current, while here the magnetic field is orthogonal to it
All the text is saying that if you have an electric field (i.e. a voltage source) and you add a magnetic field in the same direction as that of the electric field/current, you might observe that the effective resistance (i.e. the resulting current) changes
this effective resistance as a function of the magnetic field parallel to the electric field is called "longitudinal magnetoresistance", in contrast to the Hall effect where the magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field and hence the effective resistance observed is called "transversal magnetoresistance"
nothing about these definition is really specific to the Hall effect or anything else - you just observe that there is a relation $\vec J = \sigma \vec E$. In general $\sigma$ is a matrix/rank-2 tensor called the (inverse of) resistivity, and if there is also an external magnetic field $\vec H$ one observes that $\sigma$ depends on $\vec H$
@ACuriousMind Not the inverse of resistivity; that's a mouthful, but rather the conductivity. Of course, the conductivity matrix is the matrix inverse of the resistivity matrix and vice versa, but of course you know that too.
@ACuriousMind mainly because the format is conducive to multiple streams of asynchronous dialogue, channels and threading; so seems to be easier to follow when dropping in and out and also to avoid interrupting conversations. especially for more off-topic chat. i don't find discord hard to search myself.
@naturallyInconsistent no, that was my point: I say the resistivity varies with the magnetic field, so that's called magnetoresistance. If I had called it conductivity then the name magnetoconductance would have seemed more appropriate :P
@qwerty SE chat has channels of sorts, too, but the feature is underused: everyone can create new chat rooms, after all
Some good ideas are raised in the debate like pan-proto-psychism. But overall, Carroll showed a good attitude, was prepared to change his mind. But Chalmers almost never lets him speak as if he is the only one who understands the topic
> The attempt to explain the abstraction process leading to the "cardinal number" by conceiving the cardinal number as a "set made up of nothing but ones" was not a successful one. For if the "ones" are all different from one another, as they must be, then they are nothing more than the elements of a newly introduced set that is equivalent to the first one, and we have not made any progress in the abstraction that is now required.
Combinatory logic is a notation to eliminate the need for quantified variables in mathematical logic. It was introduced by Moses Schönfinkel and Haskell Curry, and has more recently been used in computer science as a theoretical model of computation and also as a basis for the design of functional programming languages. It is based on combinators, which were introduced by Schönfinkel in 1920 with the idea of providing an analogous way to build up functions—and to remove any mention of variables—particularly in predicate logic. A combinator is a higher-order function that uses only function...
in this answer physics.stackexchange.com/a/743740/337317 what is meant by "kinetically limited" in "Furthermore, the periodic state may be thermodynamically favorable but kinetically limited; this is the general reason why we see amorphous solids around us. These so-called glasses want to be crystals."
In mathematical logic and computer science, homotopy type theory (HoTT) refers to various lines of development of intuitionistic type theory, based on the interpretation of types as objects to which the intuition of (abstract) homotopy theory applies.
This includes, among other lines of work, the construction of homotopical and higher-categorical models for such type theories; the use of type theory as a logic (or internal language) for abstract homotopy theory and higher category theory; the development of mathematics within a type-theoretic foundation (including both previously existing mathematics...
@Qmechanic, sorry to bother you, in this answer of yours, when you compute the expectation value of $K$, shouldn't there be a laplacian instead of a gradient?
@Relativisticcucumber Somewhat disappointingly, "kinetically limited" is a chemistry term that means little more than that a reaction is "not thermodynamically limited", i.e. in this case the crystal state would be globally the minimum of the relevant thermodynamic potential, but there is some local obstruction, e.g. a potential barrier so that the glass state is a local minimum and there is not sufficient energy supplied to the reaction to overcome this barrier
it's more common as the opposite of "diffusion-limited" for chemical reactions, where a kinetic-limited reaction is one where in principle diffusion could supply more reactants to the reaction site for faster reaction but something else is limiting the reaction rate
I'm having even more difficulties: this is equal to, in the $\{|\mathbf{r}\rangle\}$ representation to: $\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d^{N}r \psi^{\ast}(\mathbf{r}) \psi(\mathbf{r'}) (2\pi \hbar)^{-N/2}\mathcal{F}^{-1}[\mathbf{P}^2](\mathbf{r-r'})$
@imbAF Well, at the end of the day what you learn in your physics courses is what is most important. But it is true that the more math you learn, the more deeply you will understand those concepts
It ultimately comes down to what your goals are. If you want to be an experimentalist, you might only need the math directly necessary for your everyday work
If you want to be a theorist, a mathematical physicist, or are just interested in getting a deeply fundamental understanding of what goes on in physics, keep learning more math
You could also mainly prioritize the math that you'll use in your field, and then keep learning new math on the side as a hobby. Could be a satisfying way of changing how you see the world
regarding the isotropic HO, why does Townsend assert that the differential equation $$ u^{''}(\rho)-\frac{l(l+1)}{\rho^2}u(\rho)+(\lambda-\rho^2)u(\rho) = 0$$ becomes, for $\rho \to \infty$: $$ u^{''}(\rho) = \rho^2u(\rho)$$
why does $\lambda = 2E/(\hbar\omega)$ go to zero???
The Fradkin tensor, or Jauch-Hill-Fradkin tensor, named after Josef-Maria Jauch and Edward Lee Hill and David M. Fradkin, is a conservation law used in the treatment of the isotropic multidimensional harmonic oscillator in classical mechanics. For the treatment of the quantum harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics, it is replaced by the tensor-valued Fradkin operator.
The Fradkin tensor provides enough conserved quantities to make the oscillator's equations of motion maximally superintegrable. This implies that to determine the trajectory of the system, no differential equations need to be solved...
In mathematics, a superintegrable Hamiltonian system is a Hamiltonian system on a
2
n
{\displaystyle 2n}
-dimensional symplectic manifold for which the following conditions hold:
(i) There exist
k
>
n
{\displaystyle k>n}
independent integrals
F
i
{\displaystyle F_{i}}
of motion. Their level surfaces (invariant submanifolds) form a fibered manifold
F
:...
In mathematics, the method of Frobenius, named after Ferdinand Georg Frobenius, is a way to find an infinite series solution for a linear second-order ordinary differential equation of the form
z
2
u
″
+
p
(
z
)
z
u
′
+
q
(
z
)
u
=
0
{\displaystyle z^{2}u''+p(z)zu'+q(z)u=0}
with...
Below (C-28-b) he's just telling you that you're supposed to plug (C-26), (C-28-a) and (C-28-b) into (C-24), when you do that you should immediately get (C-31) maybe after re-labelling
That's it as far as I can see, your sum accidentally started from $c_1$ near the bottom when you evaluated everything because you relabelled things to match one of the derivatives you took, you should have brought it back to start at $c_0$
so its possible to have transverse and longitudinal resistivities. furthermore, the scattering time is related to the resistivity by $\tau = \frac{m}{\rho ne^2}$. in the case of transverse and longitudinal resistivity, this would imply two unique scattering times, but this does not make sense. what am i missing here?