Polarization - Science topic

The below is a polarization scan of a copper sample. After performing a corrosion rate analysis, this has been calculated to be reasonably low: 0.004 mm/yr, suggesting the copper could be suitable for use in this test solution. However, upon sweeping the potential anodically, from Ecorr, the current soon breaches the critical pitting current (as outlined in ASTM G61) and is this a red flag? Interestingly, there’s no hysteresis present.

What are the implications of this “type” of polarization curve and what might one expect in real life use?

Thanks!

After the Polarization (PE) test of samples, an energy storage density measurement is needed. Just by importing the data (.dat or .txt) into the software, it will automatically calculate the energy storage density (Wrec) and efficiency (n) of the sample.

I need help on how to investigate the corrosion inhibition performance of vegetable oil in tetraoxosulphate (VI) acid (H₂SO₄) environment using potentiodynamic polarization method. Does anyone have the idea of the right solvent to use since the acid and vegetable oil will not form solution in each another (immiscible) and oil not soluble in water or has anyone done such test?

Your suggestions and contributions will help me a lot, kindly reach me via this platform or my e-mail (adesusiolanrewajumoses@gmail.com).

Thanks in anticipation.

When measuring the radiation pattern in the E-plane and H-plane, it's common to rotate the measurement setup by 90° to capture the next plane.

Now, consider a rectangular waveguide antenna operating in the dominant TE₁₀ mode, which is linearly polarized. Let’s assume this waveguide antenna is used as a standard antenna (transmitting or receiving), with its electric field polarized along the y-axis(i.e., $\vec{E} = E_0 \hat{y}$)

If I measure the radiation pattern of a second antenna (the device under test) in the E-plane, and then rotate it by 90° to measure the H-plane, this seems to rotate its polarization from the y-axis to the x-axis — making it orthogonal to the standard antenna’s polarization.

In this case, the dot product $\hat{y} \cdot \hat{x} = 0$

meaning the polarization is cross-polarized, and theoretically, no signal should be received.

However, in practice, we do receive a signal in the H-plane. Why is that?

What is the correct interpretation of the 90° rotation during E- and H-plane measurements?

This paper introduces a new experimentally supported framework for understanding gravity, proposing that it originates from atomic nuclei rather than from mass or the curvature of space-time. Unlike Newtonian and Einsteinian models-which define gravity as a mass-based attraction or the result of space-time deformation-this theory presents gravity as an electromagnetic force generated by positively charged nuclei. It introduces the concept of a "Nuclear Polarization Force" to explain gravitational interactions between nuclei and other bodies-neutral, negatively charged, or positively charged-through polarization and charge dynamics. To validate this theory, an experiment was conducted demonstrating measurable weight differences in objects when charged positively or negatively, compared to their neutral state. The results suggest that gravitational force is influenced not only by mass but also by electric charge. This model aims to unify gravitational behaviour across atomic, planetary, and cosmic scales, offering a new perspective on the dynamics of the solar system, black holes, and the expansion of the universe. By redefining gravity in electromagnetic terms, this research addresses existing gaps in cosmology and quantum gravity, potentially opening new pathways in fundamental physics.

Dear colleagues,

Does anyone could have explanations that after cyclic polarization of TiNi alloy in 0.9% NaCl from -0.6 V vs SCE to Eb of 0,4 V and back to -0.6 V, EDS is performed but no oxygen is detected?

Thanks in advance

It is mentioned in the explanation of the dielectric properties of nanoparticles that all four types of polarization can occur even at low frequencies,but to what extent is the movement of the electron cloud at these frequencies physically reasonable?Isn't this related to the relaxation process? For example, suppose the relaxation time of electronic polarization is 1 second(I know it is not so), but the electric field changes every 5 seconds — in that case, wouldn't electric polarization still occur? I find it difficult to visualize this.I would appreciate it if you could provide a reference explaining this.

This paper introduces a new experimentally supported framework for understanding gravity, proposing that it originates from atomic nuclei rather than from mass or the curvature of space-time. Unlike Newtonian and Einsteinian models-which define gravity as a mass-based attraction or the result of space-time deformation-this theory presents gravity as an electromagnetic force generated by positively charged nuclei. It introduces the concept of a "Nuclear Polarization Force" to explain gravitational interactions between nuclei and other bodies-neutral, negatively charged, or positively charged-through polarization and charge dynamics. To validate this theory, an experiment was conducted demonstrating measurable weight differences in objects when charged positively or negatively, compared to their neutral state. The results suggest that gravitational force is influenced not only by mass but also by electric charge. This model aims to unify gravitational behaviour across atomic, planetary, and cosmic scales, offering a new perspective on the dynamics of the solar system, black holes, and the expansion of the universe. By redefining gravity in electromagnetic terms, this research addresses existing gaps in cosmology and quantum gravity, potentially opening new pathways in fundamental physics.

paper link :

i got a review on this image can anyone explain the croos polarization is high in figure? but my measured results came like this? 5g Base station antenna cross polarization become high or low expalin details?

When I run an SCF calculation with spin polarization in WIEN2k, the output file shows: MMTOT: SPIN MAGNETIC MOMENT IN CELL = 0.07145 How should I interpret this value? Does it indicate that the system is magnetic or

non-magnetic?Could anyone kindly clarify this for me? Thank you in advance.

I need to form an N-polar GaN HEMT. For simulating that I need to do some modifications in the parameter file of the GaN material in Sentaurus TCAD. How do we know what kind (Ga- or N-) of polarization is in the GaN par file. If so, how can we change it?

Hi,

I have read most of the literature and seen that researchers reported polarisation-dependent metamaterial absorption for refractive index sensing. I am to know that it is possible that a porization-dependent metasurface will be designed for biosensing applications.

thanks

Dear Coleques,

Can anyone explains difference in LPM and EIS measurements.

Namely, for pasive alloy TiNi, from LPM I got Rc of 80 kOhm cm2. From the EIS the best fit is obtained with circuit Rs_(Rf|Cf)_(Qdl|(Rc_Q2)). The EIS is practically straight line with slope higher than 45 o. So n of Q2 is 0.58 near to Wrburg, Rs + Rf are 30 Ohm cm2., but Rc os only 6 kOhm cm2. So how to corelate Rc from LPM and EIS.

Thanks in advance,.

Branimir

We are using the CST Studio Suite 2022 version. We are working on the Antennas - Time Domain section. The results we expect to obtain do not actually correspond to the simulation results.

CASE STUDY: We created the design of an antenna fed through two ports (PORT 1 and PORT 2). A DEFAULT signal is given as input for each port, the signal enters port 1 with phase 0° and the signal enters port 2  with phase 90°. By studying the Farfield at a given frequency we expect to obtain a Circular Polarization. The result we get is a linear polarization. That's very weird. We ask for technical support on this issue.

Hi, can anyone help me calculate polarization in a half-metallic system using VASP? According to the VASP Wiki, the Berry phase method only works well for insulators and semiconductors. So, if there is any way to get the polarization from charge density difference and distance.

Thanks in advance!

FF

When I simulate rectangular waveguides in CST, I want to observe multiple modes, so I set the port mode to 5. By calculating the cutoff frequency, it was found that both TE11 and TM11 modes can propagate.

The simulation information shows "Some modes with polarization degeneracy exist at port 1. Please define a polarization angle or polarization lines in the port properties dialog to make the modes unique."

how can I add an integral calibration line?

I am a Research Scholar at BITS Hyderabad, working in the field of Negative Capacitance using Silicon doped HfO2 as the ferroelectric material.

While trying to calibrate the Synopsys TCAD simulation file, I am facing the issue of getting an order of magnitude higher Polarization charge for the P-E Curve. This seems especially off the mark as I am using only Pr, Ps and Fc values in the HfO2 parameter file and not the Landau coeffecients, ie., alpha, beta and gamma. Since I am directly mentioning the Polarization and Electric field values, there should not be any mismatch there.

Also, I am not sure what all Physics Models should be included in the Simulation file for accurate results.

Any help in this regard would help me get over this obstacle and carry on my research work.

Thanks in advance.

Hello dear researchers

I want to calculate the polarization of a deformed structure (application of a stress along the z axis) using wien2k. So how can I apply this constraint along this axis ???

which is correct for turstile or cross dipole antennas do you use a 1/4lamda balun or do you put it together directly to get LHCP polarization? does anyone understand how to make a 1/4lamda balun in CST STUDIO? please help me Thank you.

Many people say the country is heading toward a major turning point in 2025. Others believe this is just another phase in a long cycle of political struggles.

I’d love to hear from different perspectives:

I’m interested in hearing thoughts from everyday people, not just political experts. Feel free to share your personal experiences and perspectives！

How to find co polarization and cross polarization in TE and TM mode in CST studio suite?

Concerning the electrochemical response, the first experiment to do after polarization is to give the response of the electrode in Blank solution . The response of compounds Ni12Co4Cd4, and Ni12Co6Cd2 should be given with ethanol and methanol in solution

Hello, researchers;

I am currently working on designing a multi-band rectangular patch antenna and i am using a coaxial cable for feeding. I have attempted to achieve circular polarization by truncating the corners of the patch, but unfortunately, it has not worked as expected.

Could you kindly suggest methods or approaches that could help me successfully achieve circular polarization in this design?

Any guidance or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

I have read the piezoelectric theory in some researches, and known that the piezoelectric coefficient could be derived from calculating polarization change when the structure was deformed. And the polarization change must be determined by atom charge.

HOWEVER, I have no idea to obtain the atom charge in LAMMPS.

If you have the similar experience or any tips, could you tell me how to do that?

The linked file may be helpful on understanding the piezoelectric theory.

I need to understand how in-plane Raman modes and out of plane Raman modes behave in parallel and perpendicular configuration of polarizer and analyser. How the Raman intensity will change? How to identify which is in-plane mode and out of plane mode by doing such experiment.

I assume that my material has ferromagnetic properties. So, during it´s geometry optimization in CASTEP calculation, I chose to check the spin polarization option. But after about 3 hours the job failed and it´s failing each time with spin being on. However, the job is running smoothly if keep the spin polarization off and giving successful outputs very fast. I was working with a metal cubic structure with k points 6 6 6 and was trying to figure out it´s cut off energy through convergence test.

I was running Material Studio for geometry optimization of a magnetic perovskite material. The value of cut off energy was kept fixed at 500 eV and the grid parameters of k value was 6 6 6 at the first try. The first run took about a few minutes to give the output successfully as I kept the spin polarization unchecked. But during second run, I checked the spin polarization option keeping all other parameters same as before and this time it took more than two hours to give the output successfully. However, during the third run with spin polarization on, I changed the k points grid parameters to 8 8 8 keeping all other parameters same as before. But this time it was a failure. I tried gain with k points 10 10 10, but that run also returned failure sticking at the same status. I tried with k points grid parameters 8 8 8 and 10 10 10 several times, each time it´s returning failure. I have attached the screenshots regarding the errors and status. It will be great if someone could help me understanding what may be the problem and what could be the solution.

All base station antennas has 2 polarizations, -45deg and +45deg. I assume that is because mobile device antennas are in various orientations, but are the basestation signals totally the same and synchronous through both of those outputs or somehow done in sequences?

Hello researchers,

I am constructing a PrismTIRF. I have a problem defining focus and detecting signals with labeled DNA (the bead sample works fine). I have looked for some possible solutions, yet have not been successful so far.

I wonder if the polarization type (p-polarized or s-polarized) of the laser can also cause this problem. Because I have read from some forums that a p-polarized laser can enhance the evanescent generation. My laser has a polarization ratio 100:1. Please share some experience with me.

Thank you.

Hello I am learning how to use HFSS and am trying to replicate a metasurface. The metasurface is designed for circular polarization so I am using floquet ports to simulate a unit cell. I turned on TE mode and also TM mode but with 90 degree phase in edit sources so that it would create a circularly polarized mode. Where I am having trouble is how to read the s parameters for the circularly polarized mode? how to combine the S parameters of TE and TM mode? Please give some suggestions

I am trying to design a Circularly Polarization reflective metasurface. I want to know , how to Get the accurate circularly polarized reflection parameters when I try to illuminate the unit cell with a circularly polarized excitation wave. I set one Floquet port having two modes, 90 degree out of phase from each other. After simulation, I am able to plot the (FloquetPort1:1,FloquetPort1:1); S(FloquetPort1:2,FloquetPort1:2); S(FloquetPort1:2,FloquetPort1:1); S(FloquetPort1:1,FloquetPort1:2); But they both seem to represent the linear polarizations. How to get the circular polarization, like S(RHCP,LHCP);S(LHCP,LHCP). Is there any formula to calculate it? Thank you.

Dear researchers, I'm working on desinging quad ridged polarizers as you may see in picture. I have designed one in simulation but I'm not sure that I did the simulation rigth. The picture (from an article) you see is an example of my design. I put two wave ports at the square ends and each port has 2 modes and with 90 degree phase difference. Port modes are along the diagonals as you may see in picture (E1 and E2).

After simulation I used formulas in the picture to calculare axial ratio (AR) and XPD (cross polar discrimination) phase difference. Using those values I also calculated XPD in dB .The resulting graphs have the tpye of results I see and expect in the articles. But I'm not sure that I used correct formulas. Can someone has knowlegde of this subject please help?

I also not sure about how to measure it too. I have 2pcs 4 port OMT (RX-V, RX-H, TH-V, TX-H V--> vertical H-->horizantal) may be used for measurement. I couldn't find any type of source that explains how to measure these polarizers using OMT or something else. Can someone also explain or give me guidance for correct measurement of quad ridged polarizer?

Thanks in advance.

Could you please tell me how to set up TE and TM modes in 2D in the longitudinal direction of a fiber or waveguide? Is it even possible to model what I want, because I found only transverse modeling articles in Comsol. I found them in the long direction of the study, where there is only one polarization as in the example below.Could you please tell me how to set up TE and TM modes in 2D in the longitudinal direction of a fiber or waveguide? Is it even possible to model what I want, because I found only transverse modeling articles in Komsol. I found them in the long direction of the study, where there is only one polarization

Suppose i made a 2x3 metalens array which can focus a high intensity spot as per the incident polarization whose original stokes are known now i want to reconstruct the stokes using intensity profile provided in the attachment.can any one plz guide how could i do that .

Hello everyone. I have a query. Suppose we have a linear to linear polarization conversion unit cell. We make its mirror unit to achieve 180 degree phase difference. Now, we make a checkerboard metasurface with 1010 arrangement.

My question is, whether after designing a checkerboard metasurface, we will achieve RCS reduction only or if we can also achieve linear to linear polarization conversion.

Your answers will be highly appreciated. Thank you

Hello,

I am trying to use the BioTek Synergy HT instrument running run Gen5 3.1? software. I have done polarization in the past but am unfamiliar with this machine and software. Any help/guidance would be greatly appreciated.

I am trying to do a reproduce a binding assay with fluorescent ligand and protein. I have used the concentration of protein and ligand that I have used for an ISS OC

spectrofluorometer (ISS, INC. Champaign, IL). Any thoughts?

Thank you for your input,

Sean

To induce polarization and study of drain current.

In the RCWA solver, only the excitation tab exists where there is no information about polarization. So, how can I change the polarization

In general, when performing a Tafel analysis for corrosion resistance measurements, a line voltage scan is performed from say -250 to +250 mV vs. OCV at low scan speed around 0.125 mV/s. However, there is a certain ambiguity in various publications concerning the speed and scan direction, when measurements are done for hydrogen evolution reaction. In one paper the LSV scan is performed from -0.2 to +0.2 V vs. RHE with speed 5 mV/s. The second one tells to scan it in negative direction at 2 mV/s. The third one doesn't even specify such details. The problem is that the direction of LSV scan greatly affects the polarization curve in terms of corrosion potential (hydrogen redox potential), linear regions, Tafel slope and exchange current density. So which one of these curves should be used to determine such parameters as Tafel slope and exchange current density?

what is co-polarization and cross polarization? How can plot it from CST studio? what are steps and process for find out co-polarization and cross polarization from CST studio?

we need surface area, corrosion current, equivalent weight and density of the metal involved for corrosion rate calculation in mm/year (lets say). For dissimilar metal welds, how can we measure equivalent weight and density? Is there other way to measure and compare corrosion rate?

Hi all RG users,

there are a wealth of research referring to the political polarization, like linguistic divergence, affective polarization etc.

Then, is it meaningful to study gender opposition using online language, from the perspective of polarization?

I'll be very appreciate for your opinion!

I am working on corrosion test with an electrochemical jar test.

Working electrode: Copper

Reference electrode: Ag/AgCl with 3M KCl solution

Counter electrode: graphite

In the process of linear polarization, the LSV staircase graph does not appear in a form that allows me to accurately analyze the corrosion rate. While I did not encounter this problem previously when conducting the same test with the same equipment and system, I am currently experiencing a deviation in the graph. Can anyone help me with what the possible cause might be? (In the attachment, visual illustrates the situation I'm referring to.)

I attempted calculations for hydrogen adsorption on transition metal-doped g-C3N4.

I want to know if it is possible to perform geometry optimization without enabling spin polarization, and then enable spin polarization for a second calculation with the optimized structure. Will the results obtained this way be correct?

I want to make n-type and p-type GaN devices as inverters and simulate them by Mixedmode. However, it always turns out to be wrong. With the warning: no solution possible. I want to know what the problem is. And here is the code:

go atlas

.begin

Vdd 1 0 5

Vin 2 0 0

R1 3 0 1k

An 2=gate 0=source 3=drain 0=n_substrate width=1000 infile=n_HEMT2.str

Ap 2=gate 1=source 3=drain 0=base width=1000 infile=pHFET2.str

.nodeset v(1)=0 v(2)=0 v(3)=0

.numeric lte=1e-3 vchange=100 imaxdc=50

.options print m2ln

.save outfile=inv

.end

#.dc Vin 0 5 0.25

material mat=GaN edb=0.03 eab=0.17 mup=16

#n type

model device=An region=1 POLARIZATION psp.scale=0.67 piezo.scale=0.67 calc.strain

model device=An region=2 POLARIZATION psp.scale=0.67 piezo.scale=0.67 calc.strain

model device=An region=3 POLARIZATION psp.scale=0.67 piezo.scale=0.67 calc.strain

model device=An region=5 POLARIZATION psp.scale=0.67 piezo.scale=0.67 calc.strain

models device=An consrh auger fermi print

mobility device=An GaNsat.n

mobility device=An albrct.n bn.albrct=3e-05 an.albrct=3e-05

mobility device=An region=5 albrct.p bp.albrct=1e04 ap.albrct=1e04

model device=An region=5 pch.ins

#p type

models device=Ap auger fermi print incomplete srh

model device=Ap region=2 polarization calc.strain polar.scale=0.74

model device=Ap region=3 polarization calc.strain polar.scale=0.74

model device=Ap region=4 polarization calc.strain polar.scale=0.74

model device=Ap region=7 polarization calc.strain polar.scale=0.74

mobility device=Ap GaNsat.p

mobility device=Ap GaNsat.n

mobility device=Ap albrct.n an.albrct=3e-5 bn.albrct=3e-5

model device=Ap region=4 pch.ins

mobility device=Ap region=4 albrct.p ap.albrct=1e-2 bp.albrct=1e-2

mobility device=Ap region=3 albrct.p ap.albrct=1e-2 bp.albrct=1e-2

contact device=An name=gate

# workfunc=4.8

contact device=An name=drain

contact device=An name=source

contact device=Ap name=gate workfunc=4.8

contact device=Ap name=drain con.resistance=1e-4

contact device=Ap name=source con.resistance=1e-4

method gummel newton climit=1e-4 maxtraps=10 itlimit=100

I would be grateful if you could give me some advice.

Hello Researchers,

I am working on a a design of a polarization splitting structure in COMSOL MultiPhysics, I am using y-direction linearly polarized incident wave. I would like to calculate the reflection coefficients of the co-polarized (y-axis) and cross-polarized (x-axis) components in COMSOL. S11 gives me the combined reflection coefficient but I need to separate the two components. Could you please guide me with this task?

Thanks

I believe its 10th such paper which just briefly mentioned how they used anodic current density at cathodic protection potential extracted from the polarization curves, to estimate the corrosion rate using Faraday's law.

I am not sure which formula they have used to calculate the corrosion rate. I am assuming something where you plug in the value of anodic current density and you get the corrosion rate. There are various formulae i came across just not sure how to use it.

Here is the snippet of the topic.

I have prepared a solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) with PVDF-HFP and LiTFSI in acetone and NMP and the dried the films under vacuum at 80 oC for 24h to make a solvent free SPEs. To obtain a Gel-polymer electrolyte (GPE), few microliters of EC:DEC were dropped over the SPE while fabricating the NCM523/GPE/Graphite full cells. When running the GCD measurements at 0.1 C in a potential window of 2.7-4.2 V, I am facing kind of polarization during the charging curve above 3.9 V vs Li/Li+. The corresponding graphs have been attached for the reference. What causes this polarization during charging above 3.9 V vs. Li/Li+? If anyone have idea about this problem, please give your valuable suggestions. it would be a great help. Thanks in advance.

I am setting up a simulation where I want to see the reflectance from an array of nanoparticle using COMSOL wave optics module. I want to see the reflectance for co and cross polarized light. For example, let's say the incident beam is x-polarized. I want to see the reflectance separately for x and y polarized scattered light. I can't find a way to do the same. I can get the total reflectance using ewfd.Rport_1 or ewfd.S11, but I don't see a way to get the same thing for a particular polarization.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

I am running polarization tests to get tale plots of 304L SS and CP-Ti, and getting noisy anodic curves. the cathodic curve is fine, but the anodic curve has a good amount of noise in it. Why would just one of the curves have noise but not the other? I using HCl with a ph of 3 diluted in distilled water as the electrolyte.

Attached is a picture.

How to plot co & cross polarization for end fire antennas in HFSS ?

I tried the LSV technique and by multiplying the potential by the current density, the power density curve was inverted.

I am trying to measure the Goos-Hanchen shift of a 632.8nm laser using the Kretschmann configuration. The polarization state is modulated by an optical chopper. The two states are coupled into a fibre optic cable and reflected off a gold film into a position sensing quadrant detector (PSD). The chopper outputs a reference signal to the lock-in. To calculate the goos-hanchen shift I need both the difference voltage output of the PSD and the sum output for each polarisation state. However, my lock-in only has 1 input, so I cannot measure all 4 variables simultaneously. When I measure them separately, my calculated GH shift is unsurprisingly completely off. How can I improve my measurements. Do I need multiple lock-ins?

I have been trying to find the phase difference to test whether polarization is converted or not in a metamaterial polarization converter. But I am not sure how to do that.

In the below paper, how did the authors got the graph in Figure-3.

We are using floquet port. We used one method where we go to "floquet boundaries' and then tick the box "polarization independent of scan angle phi" and put +45 once and then -45. we then took the S11 of the two simulations (+45 and -45) and then subtracted the phase of these two.

P.S.- I have attached some screenshots of the changes we did to the floquet boundaries. The last image is the phase difference I got following this method. It matches the figure slightly, but I am confused whether my method is correct or not.

Any help is appreciated.

I am wondering how can we take the polaization curve data for Vanadium redox flow battery. I am wondering which settings i need to apply the settings in neware BTS software? I am very much beginner in handling this software?

I used the Linear polarization technique (Tafel Analysis) for corrosion measurement using Auto Lab. I studied corrosion at different current ranges from 1 mA to 100 nA, 1 mA to 1 microA, and 1 mA to 10 microA. I expected the same corrosion current and rate for all three ranges. But, in reality, those values were changed with the current range. What is the reason behind it? What should be the ideal range for corrosion measurement, and why? I appreciate any help you can provide.

Can anyone help me include the pulse width dependency on the polarization of FeCAP....!

You will find the mathematical solution published Jan. 25, 2023 in the Intl. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys (doi: 10.1142/S021988782350069X) (Appx. BF-BH).

Not only is the CMB temperature resolved to five significant digits 2.7255K, but its age, quantity and present-day density are also resolved. The calculation compares with the Fixsen study - a survey of CMB measurements over a 10-year period - with no difference, (doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916), that is digit-for-digit correspondence (Appx. BH).

Notably, the total mass/energy of the CMB has never before been derived from first principles, resolved in the summary review paper - Measurement Quantization - as a combination of the fixed rate of universal mass accretion (Appx. BE) and the fixed radial rate of universal expansion (Appx. AZ-BA), the latter a metric description of expansion not to be confused with observations of expansion between galaxies.

The derivation is carried out using only Planck Units, more precisely fundamental units which are a geometry describing the relation between the system and internal frames of the universe. This is to say, a derivation from first principles using only a quantum description of observed phenomena may be found in the noted references. Your approach is a wonderful affirmation of the significance of this important quality of our universe.

For historical purposes it should be noted that these calculations were first published in the J. High Energy Phys, Gravit. Cosmol. on Mar. 31, 2020 (doi: 10.4236/jhepgc.2020.62015) (Sec. 3.13, Eq. 144).

Reviewing the cited MQ paper we find that the dependencies start with a determination of the size of the universe - the square root of three Planck lengths - this being the size of the universe at which the quantum epoch ends and the expansionary epoch begins. The quantum epoch is denoted by the discrete geometry, a period by which external referencing has no discrete mathematical solution. Without external referencing, there is no solution to an internal expansion at the speed of light. Specifically, the expansion velocity at the time when the quantum epoch ends is as resolved in Eq. BG.5 and as this is a geometry, we are limited in precision only by our measure of the radial rate of expansion, a function of the measure of theta which is usually derived from a physical measure of the fine structure constant (Appx. AA).

We do not do that here. Rather, we use a quantum measure of theta which in turn allows a solution to the fundamental measures. This calculation is limited to 6 digits of precision, a function of the measure of half of the Planck momentum - which we show equals the polarization angle of entangled photons at their degenerate frequency (Appx. S) as carried out by Shwartz and Harris in their 2011 paper (theta=3.26239 rad)

Notably, MQ research typically reverses this calculation (Appx. AD) to provide 12 significant digits with 2 uncertain digits for theta and the fundamental measures (Appx. BM), and therein solutions with the same precision for nearly all of the physical constants. As that approach derives from the CMB temperature, we must resort to the Shwartz and Harris measures which are constrained to 6 digits.

Therein, having a calculation of the size of the universe at the end of the quantum epoch we can resolve the time elapsed associated with this period (Eq. BH.2). There is a time dilation between epochs, but fortunately this is known as a function of the quantum epoch formulation without the introduction of additional parameters (Eq. BH.3). The precision remains unchanged.

And where the fixed rate of mass accretion is known (Appx. BE) - also entirely a function of theta - then we combine the elapsed time with the rate of mass accretion to resolve the mass/energy associated with the quantum epoch. This represents the total mass/energy making up the CMB (Eq. BH.4). To be more precise, the calculations can be extended to account for the Recombination Epoch, a period where CMB formation is still occurring. That is carried out here (Eq. 142-144),

but the difference in CMB temperature due to this difference is reflected in digits that exceed the fifth digit of precision. So we may ignore the difference as physically beyond our current precision inputs.

For anyone looking to better understand theta, this is an angle with respect to certain Planck scale measurements and half of the Planck momentum in nearly all cases of measure relative to the internal frame. The term carries no units when defined against the system frame of the universe as the system frame has no external reference. In Appx. S, we show how to demonstrate mathematical equality of angle and momentum at the Planck bound relative to the internal frame. The calculation is most interesting, as it is an implicit outcome of the expression for the Planck Length, a formulation that has been around for nearly 100 years.

At this point we can then calculate the current density and temperature of the CMB, which is a function of the measured age of the universe (nTu mf) (Eq. BH.4). Present universal age is the limiting parameter which affects precision. We use a measure which has a precision of five digits. Naturally, there are several measures of universal age, some equal some with less precision, but what is important is that we directly identify the source of the measurement constraints, thus addressing the precision inquiry. With this, the remaining terms include the radiation constant (Eq. BH.6), which in turn produces the CMB temperature (Eq. BH.7). All remaining terms have more significant digits.

Precision is an important and understated quality of the calculation. Developing a method which can be identified as from 'first principles' implies also that there exists the least of inputs and fundamentally no other approach with a finer description and therein potentially greater precision.

Lastly, we draw attention to the unique qualities of this derivation. In short, using the elapsed time associated with the quantum epoch and the fixed rate of universal mass accretion, we can derive the accumulated mass/energy during this period, which in turn becomes the CMB. The approach is straight-forward, explaining where the CMB comes from, why its density is as it is. thus why its present-day temperature is as is, and what physical principles were involved that ended the quantum epoch and began the expansionary epoch. Moreover, the solution integrates the internal and system frames of the universe in such a way as to provide an consistent description of the universe across the quantum, macroscopic and cosmological domains.

I would like to know the difference between them. Are they not the same?

Please explain with the help of references. Thank you

I am using the LCALCPOL tag to calculate the ionic and electronic dipole moment for a 2D material. While distorting the structure from its non-polar state, after a certain value of displacement there is a warning coming up in the 'out' output file.

PEAD_POLARIZATION_CALC: WARNING: reciprocal direction 1 spin channel 1

contribution from string 1 not well clustered around <|S|>_av = ( -0.61500 -0.55580 )

Im(ln[|S|/<|S|>_av])/2pi = 0.26746 > 1/4

Does anyone know what could be the possible reasons for that and how to remove this error?

Greetings,

Please how can i plot Cross or CO polarization on both hfss and cst

Thank you

It is common that the polarization purity of EM wave will be deteriorated when the propagation environment is to be free space (with obstacles). So, is there any device to preserve the polarization purity of signal at least to a reasonable level (which is supposed to take its propagation in free space).

Generally, interface polarization disappears at MHz, but why do many literature test frequencies in GHz but interface polarization occurs?

I require a formula for proving the received polarization based on the antenna structure

when I read some of the papers that studied TAFEL polarization, I saw most of the TAFEL plots have the same potential corrosion although they are different type

So why do they have the same Ecorr???

Could anyone give me

1. the procedure of the TAFEL plot.

2. which parameters I must measure for CE in solar cells

3. what is different btw Jo , Jcorr, Jlim, J, E, Eoc, Ecorr

4. On what I should depend as I saw that all the depend on Ba ,c also Jcorr, Ecorr

so which is best if it higher or enverse???

Also, how can I fit in if I use this

see the attached , please

how to confirm circular polarization of attached antenna??? if yes, then how??

Hi. I am working on a project with VASP with MoO3 lattice and recently I found out that I have to consider spin polarization in my calculations. So, now I do not know what value I should consider for the MAGMOM of Mo and O atoms in my INCAR file, can anyone help me in this regard?

#VASP #MAGMOM #SPIN

Ferrites, hopping mechanism

potentiodynamic polarization measurements for voltalab 100 is very noisy, how I can decrease this noise?