YT2095 Posted October 7, 2006 Posted October 7, 2006 Gib65, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation about half way down called "Non-relativistic Schrödinger wave equation".
Klaynos Posted October 7, 2006 Posted October 7, 2006 Oh, and mine is an exponential fourier coeficient for a fourier series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series#Canonical_form it's cn=cj-2N-1 Oh and I see where Matt is comming from, this should not be in maths.
YT2095 Posted October 7, 2006 Posted October 7, 2006 well Matt should have simply asked for it to be Moved then, anyway, I`ve Moved it.
Severian Posted October 7, 2006 Posted October 7, 2006 I quite like the QED lagrangian: [math]{\cal L} = \bar \psi (x) \left( i \gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} - m - e \gamma^{\mu} A_{\mu} \right) \psi (x) - \frac{1}{4} F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu}[/math]
woelen Posted October 7, 2006 Posted October 7, 2006 Write out the tensor contractions, then you get a really longwinded thing
gib65 Posted October 8, 2006 Author Posted October 8, 2006 Oh and I see where Matt is comming from, this should not be in maths. In that case, my apologies. Sometimes these topics can be tricky. Thanks for all the formuli everyone. I've now got a lot to choose from.
ajb Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 Equations only "look" complicated because of the notation used. Simple looking equations may hide very deep facts behind the notation. Part of mathematics is trying to find "better" notation so that things look "obvious". So really, you have to think about the notation used rather than the equations themselves.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now