328 reputation
113
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 9 months
seen Jul 9 at 8:56

May
23
asked Shaping/simplifying equations in a certain way
Feb
20
comment Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica
@Artes Thanks for the explanation. I work on the optical nm-scale. The Problem was that I forgot thet $\omega\to\lambda$ sustitution for $\text{d}\omega$. Awkward.
Feb
16
comment Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica
@Artes Can you shortly explain why there has to be an error? I think the integral is defined in both ways, as J. M. explained. Also though I don't have performance issues, I do have issues with the result. I differs by 13 orders of magnitude from the MathLab- and the experimental value. I would expect the extrema in an order of magnitude between 10^-4 and 10^-6. As the schape of curve itself looks fine though, I don't think this is an issue of the numerics - though I cannot find an error in my formula.
Feb
15
accepted Working with PhysicalConstants
Feb
15
comment Working with PhysicalConstants
The automatic unit package seems fine. The Convert version ... well, one needs to know what should come out for that. That is not always the case for single factors, for example - at least not without unnecessary thinking.
Feb
15
asked Working with PhysicalConstants
Feb
15
awarded  Supporter
Feb
15
awarded  Scholar
Feb
15
accepted Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica
Feb
15
comment Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica
Wow, thanks. I indeed meant 800-200, this comes from the substitution $\omega$->$\lambda$. Of course I knew J. M. comment, but I thought Mathematica does, too ... Is that a bug, or is there more behind the problem?
Feb
14
awarded  Student
Feb
14
asked Kramers-Kronig in Mathematica