Generally speaking, B would be faster, A would be more precise (lower energies). This is because your completing more calculations for the extra basis functions, but the density in A would be more realistic.
i linked you to david tongs qft course, he says ripple for a quick mental picture for the reader in the intro, this is an analogy. In the course he says excitation, because there's a consensus amongst physicists about what this means in a mathematical sense (see p 29). It doesn't matter what...
Where is there an analogy in post 24?
Honestly, these questions aren't just to annoy. I have a problem with the wording you have used from a technical standpoint and i need to clarify what you mean with the terms that you are using. As others have said, the fields in qft are not a mental picture...
Also your understanding of force only works for constant accelerations.
constant a and constant m:
The force equation is F=ma, we could know the change in velocity Δv and the amount of time it took for that change to occur Δt. Then acceleration is a constant a=Δv/Δt. You could them formulate...
1. Particles are excitations of a field.
2. Electrons are excitations of the electron field.
3. These Excitations display themselves as physical phenomena that we can observe.
4. How can you move a single electron?
5. What observations do you mean?
Also QFT is deeply layered, and doesn't...
Buy a laser where they tell you the frequency on the box. I think the calculations you want to do are very complex. But there may be simpler method that I've missed.
Just focusing on the one important particle for magnetic fields out of those, electrons are excitations of an electric field. Interacting electrons exchange photons between each other and even themselves because the dynamics of the electron field is coupled with the electromagnetic field in a...
easier to measure it by observing the color of the laser light. Or more quantitatively, measuring the distance between fringes in an interference pattern
I'm asking you what particles the 'magnet', e.g. an iron bar magnet, is made of? its electrons, which are not excitations of the magnetic field, but they do 'cause' the magnetic field in some physical sense.
I do not mean sloppy thinking, just a sloppy description in an academic sense, i.e. not very pedantic or precise. I'm saying that when these things are more clear and defined, the chicken and egg problem goes away in my view.
two fields do not describe the magnetic field. the magnetic field is ONE field, the magnetic field. however, with your taking about a magnet and a magnetic field: particles are electron* and photon, fields are electron and electromagnetic respectively.
*for example
the green triangle can change shape if plank B is pushed up and A rotates around the bottom star.
i think they're trying to show little notches on the planks that you can slide through the stars. But they should say this in the question.
If you replace in 2. "rate of change of velocity of a particle" with "acceleration" .OR. replace in 1. "velocity of" with "rate of change of displacement of". Do you still have the same conceptual problem?
thats the simple physics definition. If you then have an issue with the math... v=dx/dt, a=dv/dt, they are the same mathematical objects: a derivative w.r.t a variable t; where x, v, and a are the vector quantities displacement, velocity and acc respectively.
when you first get in your car, a=0. You turn the key, a=0. You start to move, a=10 (pick any unit you want) then a few seconds later now the wheels are going faster a=40, then the wheels can't really go any faster so a=20, and at top speed when you can't get any faster a=0. It's useful to...
the graph on left of pg198 shows y0 vs x, for every different yi(ki) sinusoidal wave you are using to create your wave packet. Say we have a wave packet that is a superposition of 7 different sinusoidal waves having ki=18pi + 2i where i=1 to 7. As you can see from the graphs, the wave with the...