I wouldn't spend too much time on this right now. Once Matt and Addisons quantum GSoC stuff is merged into trunk, there will be an entirely new and more formal way of handling all of these things. We thought quite a bit about how to handle physical parameters of a system and I think we have a good design that makes sense for all systems. It would be great if you could help us code review all their stuff when it pops up later today for review.
Cheers, Brian On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Øyvind Jensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 Aug, 18:56, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Øyvind Jensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > fr., 13.08.2010 kl. 01.17 -0700, skrev Ondrej Certik: >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Øyvind Jensen <jensen.oyv...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I implemented the radial wave functions for an isotropic harmonic >> >> > oscillator in the spirit of Ondrej's hydrogen solutions. Tests are >> >> > missing, so it is not ready, but here it is anyway: >> >> >http://github.com/jegerjensen/sympy/compare/master...sho >> >> >> > I named the radial function 'R_nl', identical to the radial hydrogen >> >> > function, so that the user can use name spaces to get the solution >> >> > that is wanted: >> >> >> >>>> from sympy.physics.hydrogen import R_nl as psi_H >> >> >>>> from sympy.physics.sho import R_nl as psi_ho >> >> >> > Is this a good plan? >> >> >> That looks great to me. Also you should put there the energies of the >> >> system. >> >> > Yeah. But the energy function would take arguments (n, l, hw), so for >> > consistency, maybe I should change R_nl to take one more argument: (n, >> > l, hw, mass, r) instead of (n, l, nu, r)? >> >> I think I agree with Brian (see sympy-patches) that we should just use >> atomic units. >> >> So in this spirit, mass=1, h=1, so you only have "omega". >> > > I agree that we should go for dimensionless, but is it necessary to > specialize the vocabulary to atomic physics/chemistry?. For hydrogen > a.u. are well suited, of course, but I thought harmonic oscillators > would usually be described in terms of 'hw'. It is not so important, > as it applies only to the vocabulary in the docstring, not to the > implementation. What do you think about the docstrings here: > > http://github.com/jegerjensen/sympy/blob/sho2/sympy/physics/sho.py > > I'll change them if that is decided, but imho to remove hbar and m > from the discussion is not an improvement. > > Øyvind > >> Ondrej > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > -- Brian E. Granger, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo bgran...@calpoly.edu elliso...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
