On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > 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, > > Well, yes, but I can imagine different harmonic oscillators depending > on the strength. In atomic units, the only parameter is "w" (omega), > so it makes sense to me to let the user specify "w". Which effectively > your patch already does (by specifying nu= omega/2), so all is fine. > >> 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. > > That patch looks good to me, +1 for now. > > Important is to get started, later on we can try to unify it more and > integrate with the new QM stuff, as Brian said.
Yep. I think this sounds good. Cheers, Brian > 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.
