25 views

Uploaded by Said

- CH107-L5 bc
- Dynamic Analysis
- Lecture 3
- ErrataSheet_Oct27
- Quantum Mechanics
- lezione_4 - Particle physics - uniud
- Modal Analysis of Machine Tool Column Using Finite Element Method
- Unit 7_ Homework-mubarak Nalf 20
- 00051969
- Quantum Notes
- MATLAB BASICS
- Principal Component Vignette
- ParticleIn1DBox.pdf
- Makalah Rbl Nuklir(Perhitungan)
- Math-414 syllabus.doc
- Jacobi Method
- Anders_S_Mouritzen
- Important book
- Raul Guantes and Stavros C. Farantos- High order finite difference algorithms for solving the Schrodinger equation in molecular dynamics. II. Periodic variables
- Kekre’s Wavelet Transform for Image Fusion and Comparison with Other Pixel Based Image Fusion Techniques

You are on page 1of 22

Problem 1. (10 points) Simultaneous Eigenstates

We do not in fact know the states momentum precisely. As an example, consider the ground

state of a particle in a box of width L:

0

for x < 0

2

0 (x) = L

sin x

L

for 0 < x < L (1)

0 for x > 0

Our friends claim that this state has a denite momentum is equivalent to claiming that this

state is a momentum eigenstate. If that were so, it would satisfy the momentum eigenvalue

equation:

n dE

E = pE

p = p E (x). (2)

i dx

Considering the region 0 < x < L, we have

n d0 n d 2 x n 2 x

= sin = cos , (3)

i dx i dx L L iL L L

eigenstate.

To really drive the point home, we can compute the momentum space wavefunction (k):

L

1 1 2 x L(1 + eikL )

(k) = (x)eikx dx = sin eikx dx = . (4)

2 2 0 L L 2 k 2 L2

|(k)|2 = , (5)

( 2 k 2 L2 )2

which is plotted in the graph on the next page, where the x-axis is in units of 1/L and the

y-axis is in units of L. The momentum space probability density clearly has a nite width

to it, which means that there is some uncertainty in the wavefunctions momentum. The

wavefunction is not a momentum eigenstate.

Our friends mistake was in assuming that since V (x) = 0 inside the box, the particle is just

like a free particle, and that knowing the energy precisely implies knowing the momentum

precisely. The particle is, however, denitely not a free particle, because the potential goes

from 0 to at x = 0 and x = L. Even though we only have to solve the energy eigenvalue

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

!10 !5 5 10

equation in the region 0 < x < L (because we know a priori that E (x) = 0 outside the box),

it is important to remember that the wavefunction formally extends over all space, even if it

happens to be zero in some regions. Put another way, the particle feels the potential from

x = to , even if it is conned to a nite region. In fact, it is more correct to say that

the particle is conned only because it feels the potential everywhere.

Suppose your friend now comes back to you, having read the previous paragraph, and says

ne, lets just have V (x) = 0 everywhere then. In that case, wavefunctions of the form

Aeikx become energy eigenstates, and they are in fact also momentum eigenstates (try it!).

However, the momentum eigenstate Aeikx is in no way localized, so we have simply traded

uncertainty in momentum for uncertainty in position, consistent with the uncertainty princi

ple. Note that, also in this case where V = 0 everywhere, not all energy eigenstates are also

2 k2

momentum eigenstates, e.g. sin(kx) = 12 (eikx eikx ), which has precisely energy E = n2m

but average momentum (p) = 0.

Heres a tip for life: dont ght the uncertainty principle. You will always lose. Even if

your name is Einstein1 .

1

Take a look at this if youre interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein debates.

8.04 Spring 2013 March 05, 2013

Problem 2. (10 points) Formal Properties of Energy Eigenstates

(a) (3 points) If E (x) is an energy eigenstate, then it satises the energy eigenvalue

equation: 2 2

n

EE = EE or + V E = EE . (6)

2m x2

Taking the complex conjugate of both sides gives

2 2

E = EE or

n

E + V E = EE

, (7)

2m x2

where E is unaected by the complex conjugation (as can be seen by its explicit form2 ),

and the same is true for E, because the eigenvalues of observables had better be real.

Equation 7 takes the form of an energy eigenvalue equation for E , which is another

way of saying that if E is an eigenstate with eigenvalue E, then so is E .

Now suppose

we add Equations 6 and 7 together:

2 2

n n2 2

+ V E + + V E = EE + EE

(8a)

2m x2 2m x2

2 2

n

+ V [E + E ] = E[E + E ]. (8b)

2m x2

This tells us that E + E , too, is an eigenstate with energy E. (Alternatively, we

couldve made the same point simply by invoking the principle of superposition, al

though this derivation makes it much more obvious that the new state also has eigen

value E). Since E + E is real3 , we see that the energy eigenfunctions can always be

taken to be real by forming linear combinations (which the principle of superposition

tells us we are allowed to do).

(b) (2 points) We once again begin with the eigenvalue equation:

2 2

n

+ V (x) E (x) = EE (x). (9)

2m x2

We now let x x. There is nothing wrong with doing this if you like, were just

expressing things in terms of a new variable y x. Doing so gives

2

n 2

+ V (x) E (x) = EE (x) (10a)

2m (x)2

2 2

n

+ V (x) E (x) = EE (x). (10b)

2m x2

2

There is also a deep reason for this. Stay tuned!

3

Thats true for any complex number: if c = a + ib, then c + c = a + ib + a ib = 2a, which is real.

To get to the second line, we used the fact that i) were taking a two derivatives, so

the two minus signs from each derivative cancel out, and ii) the evenness of V (x), i.e.

V (x) = V (x). Equation 10b tells us that if E (x) is an eigenstate, then so is E (x).

Just like in the previous part of this problem, the principle of superposition allows us

to form new eigenstates

E (x) E (x) E (x) + E (x)

odd (x) and even (x) . (11)

2 2

One can check that these satisfy the conditions odd (x) = odd (x) and even (x) =

even (x) for odd and even functions respectively.

(c) (5 points) We start with the energy eigenvalue equation:

n2 2 (x)

E = E + V (x)(x) = E(x). (12)

2m x2

This can be rearranged to give

2 2m

2

= 2 [V (x) E](x). (13)

x n

If E < Vmin , then and its second derivative always have the same sign. The easiest

way to understand the implications of this is to imagine what would happen if we were

asked to numerically integrate Equation 13 to nd (x) given initial conditions (x0 )

and /x x=x0 at some point x = x0 . The simplest way to numerically integrate the

equation would be to implement the following (very heuristic!) recipe:

(a) Start with the value of (xn ) at some point xn .

(b) Use the value of /x at that point to get a linear estimate of the value of at

xn+1 x + x using

x

x=xn

(c) Use the value of 2 /x2 at that point to get a linear estimate of the value of

/x at xn+1 x + x.

(d) Repeat steps 1-3 for the point xn+1 .

Now consider several cases for the initial conditions:

(x0 ) > 0 and /x

x=x0 > 0. Since (x0 ) > 0, it follows from what we said

above that 2 /x2 x=x0 > 0. This means that Step 3 of our algorithm makes

/x even more positive as we increase x by x. In turn, this makes (x) also

get more positive as we advance in x. Repeating this argument over and over

again, we see that (x) increases monotonically as we increase x, and so4

as x .

4

The rigorous amongst you may worry that a function can increase monotonically but asymptote to a

constant value instead of diverging as x . This possibility, however, is ruled out by the fact that /x

is also increasing monotonically. Besides, we are about to argue that the (x) we get cannot be normalized,

and that would still be the case even if (x) did approach some asymptotic value.

(x0 ) > 0 and /x x=x0 < 0. If we substitute V (x) with V (x) in (13),

following the same reasoning as in part (b) we obtain that (x) is a solution to

Equation (13), that (x0 ) > 0 and that /x x=x0 > 0. Thus, we fall in the

rst case again, and as x .

For initial conditions where (x0 ) < 0, one can simply repeat the arguments above

but with opposite signs. In every case the wavefunction diverges (i.e. ) as

x of x . From this, we can say that a wavefunction with E < Vmin cannot

be normalized and thus is not a permissible wavefunction.

8.04 Spring 2013 March 05, 2013

Problem 3. (20 points) Superposition in the Innite Well

(Background) We wish to verify that an innite potential well of width L has eigenfunctions

given by

r

2

n (x) = sin(kn x), (15)

L

with energy En = n2 kn2 /2m, where kn = (n + 1)/L. We can do so by plugging the eigen

functions into the energy eigenvalue equation:

n 2 d2

E = E = E, (16)

2m dx2

where we have restricted ourselves to 0 x L, so V (x) = 0. The left hand side is given

by

r

r

n2 d2 n 2 d2 2 n2 kn2 2

= sin(kn x) = sin(kn x) = En n , (17)

2m dx2 2m dx2 L 2m L

so our eigenfunctions are indeed solutions to the system. The fact that kn = (n + 1)/L

follows from the need to satisfy the boundary conditions n (0) = n (L) = 0.

(a) (2 points) Recall from our analysis of the Schrodinger equation that an energy eigen

state (a stationary state) evolves in time in the following way:

principle we can nd the time evolution of each of the three eigenstates that comprise

A , and then add our results together to nd A (x, t). So if

r

r

r

1 1 1

A (x, 0) = 0 (x) + 1 (x) + 2 (x), (19)

6 3 2

then

r

r

r

1 iE0 t/n 1 iE1 t/n 1 iE2 t/n

A (x, t) = e 0 (x) + e 1 (x) + e 2 (x), (20)

6 3 2

n2 kn2 (n + 1)2 2 n2

En = = E1 = 4E0 , E2 = 9E0 . (21)

2m 2mL2

r

r

r

1 iE0 t/n 1 i4E0 t/n 1 i9E0 t/n

A (x, t) = e 0 (x) + e 1 (x) + e 2 (x). (22)

6 3 2

We now compute (E) using two methods (both of which, naturally, give the same

result). For the rst method, recall that if a properly normalized wavefunction is

decomposed into a sum of energy eigenstates

= cn n , (23)

n

then the probability of measuring energy En is given by |cn |2 , i.e. the norm-squared

of the coecient in front of the corresponding eigenfunction. For example, in our case

the probabilities of measuring E0 , E1 , and E2 are

r

r

!

!

1 iE0 t/n 1 iE0 t/n 1 1

P(E0 ) = |c0 | =2

e e = e+iE0 t/n eiE0 t/n = (24a)

6 6 6 6

r

! r

!

1 1 1 1

P(E1 ) = |c1 |2 = ei4E0 t/n ei4E0 t/n = e+i4E0 t/n ei4E0 t/n = (24b)

3 3 3 3

r

! r

!

1 i9E0 t/n 1 i9E0 t/n 1 1

P(E2 ) = |c2 |2 = e e = e+i9E0 t/n ei9E0 t/n = (24c)

2 2 2 2

Notice that the probabilities add up to 1, as they should since 0 , 1 , and 2 are the

only eigenstates that comprise A . The expectation value (E) is simply the weighted

average of the measured energy:

1 1 1 1 4 9

(E) = En P(En ) = E0 + E1 + E2 = E0 + E0 + E0 = 6E0 . (25)

n

6 3 2 6 3 2

The second method is more complicated, but it is instructive to see that it works. We

start with the denition of (E):

Z

(E) A dx.

A E (26)

quantity EA is simple:

r

r

r

!

A = E 1 iE0 t/n 1 i4E0 t/n 1 i9E0 t/n

E e 0 (x) + e 1 (x) + e 2 (x) (27a)

6 3 2

r

r

r

!

1 iE0 t/n 1 i4E0 t/n 1 i9E0 t/n

= e E0 (x) + e E1 (x) + e E2 (x) (27b)

6 3 2

r

r

r

!

1 iE0 t/n 1 i4E0 t/n 1 i9E0 t/n

= e E0 0 (x) + e E1 1 (x) + e E2 2 (x) (27c)

6 3 2

In the rst equality, we used the fact that E contains only spatial derivatives, so it

passes right through the eiEt/n factors. In the second equality, we used the fact that

n (x) = En n (x). We now need to multiply

the (x)s are energy eigenstates, so E

by A and integrate with respect to x. Since the only x dependence remaining in

our

o expression comes from the eigenfunctions n (x), all our terms are of the form

(x)n (x)dx. Whats more, most of these terms are zero, because5 our eigen

m

functions are orthonormal, in the sense that

Z Z L

2 1 if m = n

m (x)n (x)dx = sin(km x) sin(kn x)dx = (28)

L L 6 n.

0 if m =

Z Z Z

1 1 1

(E) = E0 0 0 dx + E1 1 1 dx + E2 2 2 dx (29a)

6 3 2

1 1 1

= E0 + E1 + E2 = 6E0 , (29b)

6 3 2

just like we had before. Note that since our calculation was performed using the full

time-dependent wavefunction A (x, t), we see that (E) does not change with time.

(c) (2 points) The probability of measuring an energy equal to (E) is zero. The postulates

of quantum mechanics tell us that we can only measure energies corresponding to the

energy eigenstates that make up A . This is true at t = 0 as well as at t = t1 , because

the eigenstates that are superimposed to form A simply time-evolve independently as

stationary states.

(d) (2 points) As alluded to in part (b), only E0 , E1 = 4E0 , and E2 = 9E0 are values

that can be measured. The probabilities are given in Equations 24a to 24c, and do not

change with time (which can be seen from the fact that the time dependence cancels

out of the calculations leading up to the probabilities).

(e) (2 points) After measuring the energy of the particle to be E2 at t = t1 , the wave-

function collapses to the corresponding eigenfunction 2 . Thus, at times t > t1 , we

have

A (x, t) = e iE2 t/n 2 (x). (30)

Since the system is now in an energy eigenstate, any future measurement is certain to

yield energy E2 . Formally,

(f) (4 points) If B is to yield the same set of measured energies with the same probabil

ities as A , the complex coecients in front of each eigenfunction must have the same

5

This can be proved by direct integration, either by using trigonometric identities or by expressing the

sines in complex exponentials.

norm-squared (|cn |2 ), because those determine the probabilities. The coecients must

therefore dier by at most a phase factor of the form ei . One example would be

r

r

r

1 1 1

B (x, 0) = 0 (x) + 1 (x) 2 (x), (32)

6 3 2

where the only dierence between this and A is a minus sign (i.e. phase factor ei ) in

the last coecient. One can check that this is in fact orthogonal to A by computing

Z Z r

r

r

!

1 1 1

A (x, 0)B (x, 0)dx = A (x, 0) 0 (x) + 1 (x) 2 (x) dx (33a)

6 3 2

Z r

r

r r

!

r

r

!

1 1 1 1 1 1

= (x) + (x) + (x) 0 (x) + 1 (x) 2 (x) dx (33b)

6 0 3 1 2 2 6 3 2

1 1 1

Z Z Z

1 1 1

= 0 0 dx + 1 1 dx 2 2 dx = + = 0, (33c)

6 3 2 6 3 2

where we have once again used the orthonormality of n s to simplify our algebra.

Since the dot product is zero6 , the wavefunctions must be linearly independent.

r

r

3 5

C (x, 0) = 0 + 2 . (34)

8 8

Following the usual prescription for nding the probabilities for measuring the dierent

3

P(E0 ) = |c0 |2 = (35a)

8

5

P(E2 ) = |c2 |2 = . (35b)

8

Since the individual eigenfunctions n are orthogonal to each other, B must be linearly

independent of A since it does not contain 2 . The quantity (E) is exactly what we

want it to be:

3 5

(E) = E0 + E2 = 6E0 . (36)

8 8

r

r

!

1 1

D (x, 0) = a 0 (x) 1 (x) + b3 , (37)

6 3

6

Note that while this is a sucient condition, it is not necessary.

that our wavefunction be properly normalized and that (E) comes out to our desired

value. Using similar techniques as before, we have

Z

a2 a2

Z

a2

Z Z

1= D D dx = 0 0 dx + 1 1 dx + b 3 3 dx = + b2 (38)

6 3 2

and

3 2 2

6E0 = (E) = E0 P(E0 ) + E1 P(E1 ) + E3 P(E3 ) = E0 a + 16b . (39)

2

These two equations can be solved simultaneously, giving a = 20/13 and b = 3/13

and

r

r

r

10 20 3

D (x, 0) = 0 (x) 1 (x) + 3 . (40)

39 39 13

10

10

8.04 Spring 2013 March 05, 2013

Problem 4. (25 points) Sloshing Superposition State in the Innite Potential Well

(a) (3 points) Without loss of generality we can set the potential well width to unity

L = 1 and we also can dene a dimensionless time = 0 t (1 = 20 ). Then our

wavefunction becomes:

(x, ) = sin (x) ei + sin (2x) ei2 . (41)

Below there is a plot of the associated probability density |(x, )|2 with the dimen

sionless time running from 0 to 3. We observe that after a period T = 2 the

probability density pattern starts to repeat itself.

r r

1 i0 t 1 2

(x, t) = sin x e + sin x ei1 t . (42)

L L L L

o

To check that it is properly normalized, we compute |(x, t)|2 dx. First,

1

i0 t 2 i1 t

i0 t 2

2

|(x, t)| = sin x e + sin x e sin x e + sin x ei1 t (43a)

L L L L L

1 x 2x x 2x

= sin2 + sin2 + ei(0 1 )t + ei(0 1 )t sin sin (43b)

L L L L L

1 x 2x x 2x

= sin2 + sin2 + 2 cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin . (43c)

L L L L L

11

Z L Z L Z L

2 1

2 x

2 2x

x 2x

|(x, t)| dx = sin dx

+

sin dx

+2 cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin dx

= 1,

0 L

L

L L

"

'

0

'0

=L/2 =L/2 =0

(44)

so the wavefunction is properly normalized, and will remain so for all time because

all time dependence disappeared in our nal result. Note that we really couldve said

right from the beginning that the sin(x/L) sin(2x/L) cross-term integrates to zero,

because the two pieces of (x, t) are dierent energy eigenstates of the system that are

orthogonal to each other.

(c) (3 points) The probability distribution P(x, t) is given by Equation 43c above, so

2 1 2 x 2 2x x 2x

P(x, t) = |(x, t)| = sin + sin + 2 cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin . (45)

L L L L L

The system will return to its original conguration after

T = . (46)

0 1

(d) (3 points) Since n = En n, our time of interest is

t = n/[2(E1 E0 )] = /[2(1 0 )], (47)

which is a quarter (1/4) of the period T . Shown below is a plot of the probability

distribution at that time. The x-axis is in units of L while the y-axis is in units of 1/L.

1.5

1.0

0.5

(e) (3 points) To get the probability of nding the particle in the left half of the well, we

integrate the probability distribution over the left half only:

Z L Z L

2

2 1 2

2 x 2 2x x 2x

|(x, t)| dx = sin + sin + 2 cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin dx (48a)

0 L 0 L L L L

1 4

= + cos[(0 1 )t]. (48b)

2 3

12

(f) (3 points) The expectation value (x) is once again determined by integration:

Z

(x) = x|(x, t)|2 dx (49a)

1 L

Z

2 x 2 2x x 2x

= x sin + x sin + 2x cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin dx (49b)

L 0 L L L L

1 16

= L cos[(0 1 )t] . (49c)

2 9 2

From the form of (x), we see that the average value of x moves symmetrically and

periodically about the middle of the well i.e. it sloshes.

(g) (2 points) Plugging x = L/2 into our probability distribution (Equation 43c) gives

1 1

P(L/2, t) = sin2 + sin2 + 2 cos[(0 1 )t] sin sin = , (50)

L 2 2 L

r

r

L 1 L i0 t 1 2 L i1 t

x = ,t = sin e + sin e (51)

2 L L2 L L 2

r

r

1 1

= sin ei0 t + sin()ei1 t (52)

L 2 L

r

1 i0 t

= e + 0. (53)

L

We see that at x = L/2 and regardless of time the second eigenfunction is always

zero (it has a node). So for x = L/2 our wavefunction is composed only from the

rst eigenfunction, which being a stationary state always gives a constant probability

distribution. While we would normally nd |(x, t)|2 rst and then plug in x = L/2,

here we perform the substitution rst for computational convenience. Note that this

would not be legitimate if we were interested in working out expectation values, for

then we would have to perform an integral, and it makes a dierence whether we plug

in a specic value for x rst and then integrate or we integrate rst and then evaluate.

We can modify things so that the probability density at x = L/2 becomes time-

dependent by adding a third eigenstate which has a value dierent from zero at x =

L/2. In this way the rst eigenstate can interfere with the one we added, resulting in

a time-dependent probability density at x = L/2. That is, we can say

r r

r

2

i0 t 2 2 i1 t 2 3

(x, t) = sin x e + sin x e + sin x ei2 t ,

3L L 3L L 3L L

(54)

13

where the coecients in front of each eigenstate have been modied so that the wave-

function is normalized. Let us now check whether the probability density for this

wavefunction is constant at x = L/2. So:

r

r

2 i0 t 2 i2 t

(L/2, t) = e e (55a)

3L 3L

2

P(L/2, t) = |(L/2, t)|2 = 2 ei(0 2 )t + ei(0 2 )t

(55b)

3L

4

= (1 + cos[(0 2 )t]) , (55c)

3L

which is time-dependent, since 0 6= 2 .

14

8.04 Spring 2013 March 05, 2013

Problem 5. (35 points) Qualitative Properties of Energy Eigenstates

inside the well,8 where the potential is shallower, the wavelength of the oscillation is

longer and the amplitude is greater than where the potential is deeper,9

outside the well,10 the exponential decay is greater where the potential is higher,

if the potential is symmetric with respect to a given point, eigenstates are alternatively

even and odd, the ground state being even.

7

Mostly taken from A. P. French and E. F. Taylor, Qualitative plots of bound state wave functions,

Am. J. Phys. 39, 961-962 (1971).

8

By which we mean regions where the potential V is less than the total energy E.

9

These two features are due to the fact that in shallower regions the speed of the particle is lower, and

therefore the wavelength is longer, and the probability density to nd the particle there is higher.

10

Meaning, where V > E.

15

(a) (7 points)

16

(b) (7 points)

Notice that the rst excited level has a nonvanishing slope at its node. This is a general

feature of eigenstates. To see why, consider the eigenstate equation

n2 ""

+ (V (x) E) = 0, (56)

2m

and assume that has a node at x = 0, i.e. (0) = 0. Lets also assume that (x)

17

2m

(x) = ax + bx2 + cx3 + , (E V (x)) = A + Bx + .

n2

Substituting the above expansions in (56) we get

and thus

b = 0, 6c + aA = 0,

which means

A 3

(x) = a x x + .

6

In particular, it is easy to see that all the coecients of the Taylor expansion of (x)

are proportional to a. Therefore, if a = 0, the whole Taylor expansion of is zero,

and thus (x) = 0 everywhere. We conclude that the slope of (x) at x = 0 cannot

vanish, at least as far as it can be expanded as a Taylor series.

18

19

(ii) (6 points)

20

(iii) (6 points)

(3 points) The ground state of the double-well system is symmetric. One way to see

this is to start with the V0 = 0 case, and to imagine slowly dialing up the value of

V0 . Initially we just have a single innite potential well, and for this we know from

our explicit eigenfunction solutions that the ground state is symmetric and the rst

excited state is anti-symmetric. As V0 is slowly increased, we expect the wavefunc

tions to evolve continuously to the states for the double well system, which means the

ground state and the rst excited state should remain symmetric and anti-symmetric

respectively. Note that this all hinges on the fact that even as we increase V0 , the po

tential remains symmetric, so our eigenfunctions can be taken to be either symmetric

or antisymmetric (see previous problem). Thus, for a general potential which is not

symmetric we do not expect the ground state to necessarily be symmetric.

21

MIT OpenCourseWare

http://ocw.mit.edu

Spring 2013

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

- CH107-L5 bcUploaded byMo Ml
- Dynamic AnalysisUploaded bymaitoravi78
- Lecture 3Uploaded byAlessia Pacioni
- ErrataSheet_Oct27Uploaded byPatricia H
- Quantum MechanicsUploaded byroxy8marie8chan
- lezione_4 - Particle physics - uniudUploaded byframars
- Modal Analysis of Machine Tool Column Using Finite Element MethodUploaded byDoruk Eğinlioğlu
- Unit 7_ Homework-mubarak Nalf 20Uploaded byom
- 00051969Uploaded byGiuseppe
- Quantum NotesUploaded byInwook Kim
- MATLAB BASICSUploaded byAnand Prakash Dwivedi
- Principal Component VignetteUploaded byAmbarwari Agus
- ParticleIn1DBox.pdfUploaded byThangaGiri Baskaran
- Makalah Rbl Nuklir(Perhitungan)Uploaded byfitri kurniati
- Math-414 syllabus.docUploaded byAl Al Dala
- Jacobi MethodUploaded byAshok Kumar
- Anders_S_MouritzenUploaded bybumba_90
- Important bookUploaded byImran sarker
- Raul Guantes and Stavros C. Farantos- High order finite difference algorithms for solving the Schrodinger equation in molecular dynamics. II. Periodic variablesUploaded byMaxnamew
- Kekre’s Wavelet Transform for Image Fusion and Comparison with Other Pixel Based Image Fusion TechniquesUploaded byijcsis
- CJR ALJABAR LINEAR.docxUploaded byAnonymous 8cT9Hsebyt
- dualUploaded byJaviera San Martín
- 04058047Uploaded byAnishGoyal
- MainRauloUploaded byBoyang Qin
- BTech in Biomedical Engineering Curriculum and SyllabusUploaded bySouvik Das
- MATLAB Basic CommandsUploaded byManoj Kumar
- Inno2018_EMT2502_VIBRATIONS_Normal Form.pdfUploaded byinnoodira
- Decorrelating Data for Mixture of GaussiansUploaded byHimanshu Rai
- Ch2Laplace.pdfUploaded byJhill-Jhill Jimenez Dela Peña
- Kuan C.-m. Introduction to Econometric Theory (LN, Taipei, 2002)(202s)_GLUploaded byMateus Ramalho

- LayersUploaded bySaid
- Parametros de Projeto de AE Com Blocos de Concreto - LivroUploaded bySaid
- apto 125Uploaded bySaid
- TCE - Aula 05Uploaded bySaid
- Cálculo Das LajesUploaded bySaid
- Trabalho Mod I 25_09-F1Uploaded bySaid
- TCE - Aula 02.pdfUploaded bySaid
- TCE - Aula 02.pdfUploaded bySaid
- Lei Do EstagioUploaded bySaid
- Manual ParaUploaded byIsmael Alves
- TCE - Aula 02Uploaded bySaid
- concreto armado - apostila - pilaresUploaded byMARIANO
- Notas de Aula-1aLeiUploaded byHugo Ferreira
- 10 AncoragemUploaded byCarlos Alberto Alberto
- Trabalho Mod I 25_09-F2Uploaded bySaid
- Transportes II - 2018 - Breve Histórico e Cenários Das FerroviasUploaded bySaid
- cap1Uploaded bydim8997
- lec1(1)Uploaded bySaid
- ARQ-F1Uploaded bySaid
- 113107049Uploaded bySaid
- 113107049Uploaded bySaid
- Apostila CA iUploaded bySaid
- Erros e Incertezas Nas Medições - Paulo CabralUploaded bydouglas
- Formato de Papel e Legenda1Uploaded byEderson
- Relatório de SptUploaded bySaid
- Determinac3a7c3a3o Do Grau de Estaticidade de Uma EstruturaUploaded bySaid
- 10 AncoragemUploaded byCarlos Alberto Alberto
- lec1(2)Uploaded bySaid
- Folha Unica CoberturaUploaded bySaid
- lec1Uploaded byaravinda reddy

- 2007 Approximation of Contact Stress for a Compressed and Laterally One Side Restrained O-ringUploaded byBib Gmz
- Mysql CommandUploaded byHancy Narandra
- Otten 911 ThorndikeUploaded byhemma89
- jmodeltest-2.1.6-manual.pdfUploaded byradulus
- CFMV-Q4-11-EstUploaded byChris Turner
- ExcerptUploaded byAnonymous Aww0efA
- ML Geometry 2-5 Proving Statements With SegmentsUploaded bymadhuraju778797
- Drag on Nonspherical ObjectsUploaded byThang Hoang
- CFD Simulation With Experimental Validation of Oil-water Core-Annular Flows Through Venturi and Nozzle Flow MetersUploaded byEnivaldo Barbosa
- Analysis and Design NISAUploaded byRavi Pratap Singh
- 50_Test_Bank_14Uploaded byjssanthosh17
- Lab_Sheet_1Uploaded byJack Jong
- PP 01 DimconstraintsUploaded bysompongt
- Error List MathUploaded bymahesh280554
- Model ExamUploaded byBrittany Baker
- Process Dynamics Operations & ControlUploaded bybmallouh
- bullshitUploaded byCatfish Mamarat
- Computer EngineeringUploaded byLen Zymeri
- 48245_05Uploaded bybatmanbittu
- SYLLABUS - strucsyllUploaded byBalaji Nallaval Chinnaswamy
- NmoUploaded bymaheshnagarkar
- Deemen a.v., Rusinowska a. Eds. Collective Decision Making Views From Social Choice and Game Theory 2010Uploaded byeulaliaurora
- MalletUploaded byRichaSinha
- Coexistence of clusters, GPB zones, S″-, S′- and S-phases in an Al–0.9% Cu–1.4% Mg alloyUploaded byHossein Yadollahtabar
- 1-32-Bit Microprocessor - Intel 80386Uploaded byafzal_a
- DARC_96-401100_07-99_EUploaded byvalgor
- L4 - PolygonsUploaded byGaevs Salinas
- cv_monamiUploaded byRudrasis Chakraborty
- Elementary Math Curriculum Map SampleUploaded byHemanth Sharma
- Dynamic analysis.docUploaded byPrakash SIngh Rawal