phys.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_California_Davis/UCD%3A_Physics_9HE_-_Modern_Physics/06%3A_Emission_and_Absorption_of_Photons/6.2%3A_Selection_Rules_and_Transition_Times has some very good mentions:
So it appears that if a hydrogen atom emits a photon, it not only has to transition between two states whose energy difference matches the energy of the photon, but it is restricted in other ways as well, if its mode of radiation is to be dipole. For example, a hydrogen atom in its 3p state must drop to either the n=1 or n=2 energy level, to make the energy available to the photon. The n=2 energy level is 4-fold degenerate, and including the single n=1 state, the atom has five different states to which it can transition. But three of the states in the n=2 energy level have l=1 (the 2p states), so transitioning to these states does not involve a change in the angular momentum quantum number, and the dipole mode is not available.So what's the big deal? Why doesn't the hydrogen atom just use a quadrupole or higher-order mode for this transition? It can, but the characteristic time for the dipole mode is so much shorter than that for the higher-order modes, that by the time the atom gets around to transitioning through a higher-order mode, it has usually already done so via dipole. All of this is statistical, of course, meaning that in a large collection of hydrogen atoms, many different modes of transitions will occur, but the vast majority of these will be dipole.It turns out that examining details of these restrictions introduces a couple more. These come about from the conservation of angular momentum. It turns out that photons have an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) magnitude of , which means whenever a photon (emitted or absorbed) causes a transition in a hydrogen atom, the value of l must change (up or down) by exactly 1. This in turn restricts the changes that can occur to the magnetic quantum number: can change by no more than 1 (it can stay the same). We have dubbed these transition restrictions selection rules, which we summarize as:
Very similar to OurBigBook.com!
People who worked on it:
- Udi Manber: project lead
- www.wired.com/2008/07/google-knol/ mentions various engineers. The original page had photos, including the full team photo, but these died, but are visible on the archive: web.archive.org/web/20151220002650/http://www.wired.com/2008/07/google-knol/.
- Ben McMahan: "Developed, launched, and maintained Knol", mentioned at:
- x.com/benjmcmahan
- www.benjaminmcmahan.com/ has email
ben.j.mcmahan@gmail.com
- Michael McNally (2007-2009), "project's technical lead": mentioned at: www.wired.com/2008/07/google-knol/,
- github.com/xiangtiandai Xiangtian Dai
xiangtian.dai@google.com
- Mohsin Ahmed: can't find any online profiles
Bibliography:
- Wikipedia & Knol: Why Knol Already Failed by gwern.net (2009). So there was some kind of monetary payment on the site. Interesting and sad.
This is a good thing. It basically contains an entire website, with HTML and assets inside a single ZIP, and a little bit of metadata.
It is incomprehensible why browsers don't just implement it as they already have all the web part, and also ZIP stuff:
The situation is so sad. Ubuntu 21.04 doesn't come with a reader installed by default:
Based on the fact that we don't have a P algorithm for integer factorization as of 2020. But nor proof that one does not exist!
The private key is made of two randomly generated prime numbers: and . How such large primes are found: how large primes are found for RSA.
The public key is made of:
n = p*q
- a randomly chosen integer exponent between
1
ande_max = lcm(p -1, q -1)
, wherelcm
is the Least common multiple
Given a plaintext message This operation is called modular exponentiation can be calculated efficiently with the Extended Euclidean algorithm.
m
, the encrypted ciphertext version is:c = m^e mod n
The inverse operation of finding the private
m
from the public c
, e
and is however believed to be a hard problem without knowing the factors of n
.However, if we know the private
p
and q
, we can solve the problem. As follows.First we calculate the modular multiplicative inverse. TODO continue.
Bibliography:
- www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/rsa-encryption/ has a numeric example
TODO: in high level terms, why is QED more general than just solving the Dirac equation, and therefore explaining quantum electrodynamics experiments?
Also, is it just a bunch of differential equation (like the Dirac equation itself), or does it have some other more complicated mathematical formulation, as seems to be the case? Why do we need something more complicated than
Advanced quantum mechanics by Freeman Dyson (1951) mentions:
A Relativistic Quantum Theory of a Finite Number of Particles is Impossible.
Bibliography:
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101307/dirac-equation-in-qft-vs-relativistic-qm
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44188/what-is-the-relativistic-particle-in-a-box/44309#44309 says:
By several reasons explained in textbooks, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. You can solve it and find solutions, but those solutions cannot be interpreted as wavefunctions for a particle
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64206/why-is-the-dirac-equation-not-used-for-calculations
- www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-diracs-equation-still-useful-after-qed-is-developed.663994/
Unlisted articles are being shown, click here to show only listed articles.