Saturday 28 February 2015

geometry - Is it always possible to balance a 4-legged table?


A perfectly symmetrical small 4-legged table is standing in a large room with a continuous but uneven floor. Is it always possible to position the table in such a way that it doesn't wobble, i.e. all four legs are touching the floor?


No tricks. No . Serious question (with real-life applications too!) with a serious answer.



This might look like it'd fit better on Lifehacks.SE, but the answer has a nice mathematical proof/formula [depending on whether it's yes/no; I won't give the game away!] which is surprisingly simple and elegant.




Answer



The answer is



yes!



Here's why:



Imagine that the table can pass through the floor. We're going to call one leg the "floating leg" - the other three are going to always be on the floor. Now, after we rotate the table a quarter turn, the floating leg is going to be above the floor if it was originally below, or vice versa. By the intermediate value theorem, it will be exactly on the floor at one point in that rotation.



More detailed proof:




Three legs of the table define a plane. Define the "offset" of a leg to be the distance above the floor if the other three legs are placed on the floor directly - negative if below, positive if above. In any arbitrary placement, the offset of any two adjacent legs will be positive and negative. (WLOG assume the one on the left is positive.) Offset is a continuous function because it's the distance from the floor. If you start with a positive offset on leg A and rotate the table 90° to the right, the offset on leg A (now in the original position of another leg) will be negative. This means that at some point, offset was 0, therefore the table was completely touching the floor.



chirality - absolute defintion of the right (i. e. not left) direction


The other day somebody told me that there are absolute definitions of hot and cold for instance. You can always say a is warmer than b, no matter where you are. But he said, there is no absolute definition for right (i. e. not left). He told me that “they” came up with an experiment that you can set in front of you and something would go to the right. And if you turn the apparatus, it would still go to your right.


I said that I cannot believe this, since it would fail with two observers and right is just arbitrary. If he meant a definition of right in a chirality kind of way, anything with a cross product in it should allow him to separate right-hand from left-hand coordinate systems.


He again said that “they came up with an absolute definition of right. Just do not ask my how they did it”, which did not really allow for a substantial conversation.


Is there any such thing?



Answer




The practical way to define left and right is through weak decays of nuclei. If you take a nucleus which is unstable to $\beta$ decay, and you use a magnetic field to align the spin of the nucleus along the z-axis, the direction of charge flow in the coil generating the magnetic field defines a current loop. If you curl the fingers of your right hand along the direction of the current, the thumb points in the conventional direction of the magnetic field.


The electrons emitted during $\beta$ decay are emitted asymmetrically in the direction of the B axis. More electrons go one way than the other. The direction in which the electrons are preferentially emitted in each decay defines left and right in each $\beta$ decay experiment.


The reason for the asymmetry is ultimately because the neutrino only has one helicity, it only spins in a certain way around its direction of motion. So if you emit a neutrino/anti-neutrino in the down direction, you must lose/gain half a unit of spin in the x-y plane. Aligning the spin of the nucleus in a certain direction makes one direction easier than the other for neutrino emission.


This classic experiment was first performed by C.S. Wu in the late 1950s, after Lee and Yang suggested that parity is violated in the weak interaction. Sudarshan and Marshak, followed by Feynman and Gell-Mann, were the first to explain the phenomena by noting that the neutrino only has one helicity.


Right hand rule for EM is fake


The EM interaction respect parity (as do the strong interactions). But the description of EM elementary students get breaks parity, because it uses the right hand rule to define the magnetic field. The magnetic field does not break left-right symmetry, because you always use the right hand rule twice. Once to figure out the direction of the B field, and once to figure out the direction of the force from the B field.


It is possible to formulate EM without breaking the right hand rule, but at the cost of making B into an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor instead of an intuitive vector. So if a B field is pointing in the z-direction, the rank-2 tensor curls in the x-y plane.


But the chiral description of EM is actually understood to be more fundamental today, because of the magnetic monopoles required by quantum gravity. Magnetic monopoles break chiral symmetry for real. But we have no monopoles at low energy, so the undergraduate EM is not formulated with all the symmetry explicit.


homework and exercises - Effective resistance across 2 adjacent vertices of a dodecahedron with each edge $r$


What will be the effective resistance across 2 adjacent vertices of a regular dodecahedron (12 faces) with each edge having resistance $r$?


Here is the source for the problem, it's problem 20. on the sheet.


In the link, a typical problem is solved using symmetry (infinite square lattice, resistance between adjacent vertices) and then it is stated



It appears that such a symmetrization technique can be also applied to finite lattices.



I am looking for some ideas as to how to apply this technique to a dodecahedron. More generally, I am looking for examples where such symmetrization techniques can be used for finite lattices.


Dodecahedron




Answer



In order to make the problem symmetric, consider this: What happens, when you take the dodecahedron and drive current $I$ into it from vertex $A$ and drive $I/20$ out from all every vertex (including $A$)? By Kirchhoff's laws and symmetry, there is a current


$I_{A-out} = \frac{(I-I/20)}{3} = \frac{19}{60}I$


going from $A$ to neighbouring vertexes.


Now suppose $B$ is a neighbour of $A$ and we do the same for $B$, but with current $-I$ (so current is flowing into $B$ from nearby vertexes). Again we find there is a current


$I_{B-in} = \frac{19}{60} I$


flowing into $B$. Now we superpose these solutions - we get a solution, where there is current $I$ going into $A$ and it all comes out from $B$. Also notice that $\pm I/20$ leaving from each vertex has also vanished. However the edge connecting $A$ and $B$ has current


$I' = I_{A-out} + I_{B-in} = \frac{19}{30} I$


So the voltage between $A$ and $B$ is $U = I'r$, thus


$U/I' = \frac{19}{30} r$



(which is the correct answer).




I decided to solve this problem instead of simply giving ideas, because the solution used some ideas from previous problems on the sheet, so it is probably more useful for other users this way.


optics - Can virtual images be photographed?


Is there any instrument that can photograph a virtual image? How would such a device work?




matches - Back to the Matchsticks Version 3


We start with


1=850-4-3 as the cotton swab equation, incorrect of course.



By moving 3 swabs or less create a correct equation. It is a standard digital display. You may use numbers, roman numerals or letters in standard digital display. If you use roman numerals, 1 willl have 2 swabs, C will have 4, D will have 6, L will have 3, V and X will have 4, M will have 6. No inequalities or > or <. No significant space creation to insert swabs. Rearranging is a move. No Removing or adding swabs. Use any math functions. Minus and Divide use 1 swab. Plus and multiply and equal to use 2 swabs. enter image description here



Answer



With only one swab moved:



1=8e0-4-3 In standard scientific notation: 1=8e0-4-3



And one funny with 3 swabs moved:



I don't think anything in the question prevents me to view the picture rotated, so: 3 swabs and view from above Viewed from above: 59-058=1




What does a Lagrangian of the form $L=m^2dot x^4 +U(x)dot x^2 -W(x)$ represent?


I saw this Lagrangian in notes I have printed:


$$ L\left(x,\frac{dx}{dt}\right) = \frac{m^2}{12}\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^4 + m\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2\times V(x) -V^2(x). $$ (It appears in the exercises in the first chapter of Goldstein.)


What is it? Is it even physical? It seems like it doesn't have the right units of energy.



Answer




Lagrangian:


$$L~=~\frac{1}{3}T^2+2TV-V^2, \qquad T~:=~\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2. $$


Lagrange equation:


$$2(T-V)V^{\prime}~=~\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} ~=~ \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}\right) ~=~ \frac{d}{dt} \left[\left(\frac{2}{3}T +2V\right)m\dot{x}\right] $$ $$~=~ \left(\frac{2}{3}T +2V\right)m\ddot{x} + \left(\frac{2}{3}m\dot{x}\ddot{x} +2V^{\prime}\dot{x}\right)m\dot{x} ~=~ 2(T+V)m\ddot{x} +4TV^{\prime}, $$ or,


$$- 2(T+V)V^{\prime}~=~ 2(T+V)m\ddot{x}. $$


In other words, one gets Newton's second law$^1$


$$ m\ddot{x}~=~-V^{\prime}. \qquad\qquad\qquad(N2) $$


So the Lagrangian $L$ is equivalent to the usual $T-V$ at the classical level.


--


$^1$ One may wonder about the second branch $T+V=0$, but since $T+V={\rm const}$ is a first integral to (N2), the second branch is already included in the first branch (N2).



capacitance - Why can rolled up capacitors be modelled as flat parallel plates?


If you have two parallel plate of opposite charge with a dielectric in between, then


Capacitance, $ C = \frac{A \epsilon_{0}}{d} K$, where $ K $ is the dielectric constant.


This is used to calculate the capacitance of a capacitor. However, a real capacitor is actually two of those plates rolled up many times. Wouldn't the electric field $ \vec{E} $ be different?


So why is the equation for the capacitance still valid?




thermodynamics - What type of substances allows the use of the Ideal Gas Law?


I know that I can use the ideal gas law with pure gases or pure liquids. But can I also use the ideal gas law at saturated gases and saturated liquids as long as they aren't two phase substances?



Answer



dmckee gives some good qualitative considerations, but we can also develop rules for when the ideal gas law is and isn't appropriate. To start:



  • The law applies perfectly in the case of a gas when $P\rightarrow 0$.

  • The law does not apply to liquids.



Between these two states is a gray area. In that case you should look at the compressibility factor, $Z=P_\text{actual}/P_\text{ideal}$. $Z$ is a function of reduced pressure $P_r$ and reduced temperature $T_r$ (more on these later), and this correlation is given in standard charts which apply for most substances (I use one from Koretsky 2004, p. 198). If you accept errors up to 10%, you may apply the ideal gas law as long as $0.9


  • The law is a good approximation when $P_r<0.1$ (even for a saturated vapor).

  • The law is a good approximation when $0.11.819-\dfrac{0.3546}{P_{\!r}^{\,0.6}}\,$.

  • The law is not a good approximation when $P_r>7$, no matter the temperature.


$P_r$ is defined as $P/P_c$ and $T_r$ is defined as $T/T_c$, where $P_c$ and $T_c$ are the substance's critical properties. For pure substances, these can be looked up in tables. For mixtures of vapors and gases which don't interact strongly, calculate each by multiplying the critical property of each pure component with its volume fraction and adding them together.


For example, pure water has $P_c=217~\text{atm}$ and $T_c=647~\text{K}$. Pure water vapor at 1 atm and 373 K has $P_r=1/217=0.0046$, so the ideal gas law applies to within 10% error. Pure water vapor at 25 atm and 498 K has $P_r=0.12$ and $T_r=0.77$, and $$0.77\not>1.819-\frac{0.3546}{0.12^{0.6}}$$ Thus the ideal gas law is no longer a good approximation. But if the vapor is mixed with 80% air $(P_c=37~\text{atm},\ T_c=133~\text{K})$ and kept at the same total pressure, we get $$P_c=80\%\cdot 37+20\%\cdot 217=73\Rightarrow P_r=0.34$$ $$T_c=80\%\cdot 133+20\%\cdot 647=236\Rightarrow T_r=2.1$$ $$2.1>1.819-\frac{0.3546}{0.34^{0.6}}$$ So the ideal gas law applies again.


But these rules only apply if you accept errors up to 10%. If accuracy is important, only use the ideal gas law for $P_r<0.025$ and don't use it for saturated vapors at all. When the ideal gas law doesn't apply, correct it using the compressibility factor $(P_\text{actual}=ZP_\text{ideal})$ or use a better equation of state like Soave-Redlich-Kwong or Peng-Robinson (not van der Waals; it's bad for general use).



general relativity - Could the black hole in the center of the galaxy be a white hole?


In the center of the galaxy there is a strong radio source which we call Sagittarius A*. Based on the high speed and orbit of nearby stars we have calculated that something with the mass of more than 4 million Sun’s is located in this small area of space. And such a big mass in such a small area can only be a black hole, and the observed electromagnetic radiation comes from the accretion disk of the black hole.


But there is also another solution to this method of logic deduction, Sagittarius A* might optionally be a white hole.



”Like black holes, white holes have properties like mass, charge, and angular momentum. They attract matter like any other mass, but objects falling towards a white hole would never actually reach the white hole's event horizon” source


And if we look at the observations this solution seems to fit beautifully:



  1. Sagittarius A* don’t have any "appetite". The Chandra telescope observe a lot of gas close to Sag A*, and this gas is ejected outwards by an unknown mechanism. We have never observed anything going into Sag A*, but based on the light given off by Sag A* the researchers have calculated that less than 1 % is "eaten" by the black hole and more than 99 % is the ejected gas we observe. The gas is not ejected outwards by gravitational slingshot effects, as it is too close and have too little velocity, tidal forces ejecting material is one hypothesis they are working on to explain this mystery. If Sag A* is a black hole it seems like there is some strange physics going on, if Sag A* is a white hole, ejection of material is what we would expect.

  2. Light is flowing from a much larger area then a tiny accretion disk of a black hole. If energy, matter and antimatter is pouring in through Sag A* this will create light. The Chandra telescope did neither observe the accretion disk which we expected to see with Chandra's high detail and resolution, only gas being ejected from Sag A*.

  3. A large area around Sag A* is energized. A black hole doesn’t energize nearby space much, but mostly energizes a tiny accretion disk.

  4. Close to the galactic center we observe the formation of many new stars, it is the most massive breeding ground for new stars in the galaxy and a large area close to the galactic center is populated by young stars. A black hole would devour stars instead of giving birth to stars, while a white hole would give excellent conditions for star birth. Neither have we observed any star being devoured by Sag A*, or anything else, and we have observed it for 40 years.

  5. In 2011 the scientists got exited, a huge cloud of gas called G2 was accelerating towards Sagittarius A*, they expected that the black hole to pull apart and devour the gas cloud and the accretion disk of the black hole would light up. But it was a big flop as the accretion disk showed no sign of lighting up and nothing extra was eaten, and it is a mystery that G2 was not ripped apart by the strong gravitational forces of the black hole. Now they speculate if G2 actually is a star. Well if it is a star, and it is not feeding the black hole, could it instead feed itself?


  6. We observe a large cloud of antimatter in the galactic center, where the highest intensity of the signature frequency is at Sag A*.



    enter image description here


    There is a theory that wormholes shift matter into antimatter. Antimatter is often described as matter with reversed time, also discussed in this question. A wormhole would cause matter to go back in time and it might then shift into antimatter:



    ...wormhole would seem to allow the conversion of matter to antimatter Source Wikipedia



    If Sagittarius A* is a white hole it could then be the source of the antimatter we observe. Today the antimatter is explained by being created by some binary x-ray stars close to the galactic centre, but why do we then only see this behavior for these binary stars and not all the millions of others? They neither know how these stars potentially produce the antimatter or why the amount is so high.



  7. The universe is expanding with an accelerated speed. This requires energy to be added, and if energy pours in through white holes, energy is added.

  8. Black hole singularity physics has not been able to come to final answers despite huge effort, still many says that the laws of physics break down inside a black hole and we can't find the final solutions. We have never observed any singularity elsewhere in the universe or in micro scale. So why are so many sure that a black hole singularities exist?

  9. Information seems to be lost in a black hole singularity, which goes against the rules of quantum mechanics; a white hole would be a solution to this black hole information paradox.


  10. Two gigantic fermi bubbles extends up and down from the galactic center, for at least 30 000 light years. These bubbles requires wast amounts of energy to be created and can't be created by a slumbering black hole accretion disk. So the scientist suggests that the black hole had an eruption 2 million years ago. Instead of erupting black holes, a white hole could fuel the fermi bubbles. enter image description here

  11. Quasars are active galactic nuclei that can be 100 times brighter than the whole Milky Way. Quasar are currently believed to be made from the accretion disk of black holes, and they shoot out immense galactic jets, but the exact physics is unclear. Quasars show strange redshifts which by using Hubbles law put them up to 29 billion light years comoving distance away, this is larger and longer than the universe, which is explained by the expansion of the universe. These observations puts many of the most powerful quasars in the early universe. Astronomer Halton Arp pointed out that often quasars don't match the redshift of its surroundings and might be much closer than what redshift show, he worked with it for many years and found quite a lot of evidence, but he was ridiculed as science trust distance measured by redshift. There is one solution that allows both Arp and science to be correct, that quasars are white holes connected to a wormhole, and we might be staring into another universe or optionally, another part of this universe. Another fun fact, before accretion disk theory took over and explained quasars, there was this hypothesis that quasars where the white end of a wormhole.

  12. The stars around Sgr A* is young and close to their escape velocity, and then had to migrate from the galactic disk and break down to come into an orbit, If Sag A* is a white hole they could be made where they are, and be pushed outward which makes them go close to their escape velocity.:



The researchers hope to continue to study the dancing stars to solve a long-held riddle as to how such stars ended up in their orbits about Sagittarius A*. They are too young to have migrated far, and scientists think it's improbable the stars formed in their current orbits where they'd be exposed to the extreme tidal forces of the black hole. http://www.space.com/6208-observations-detail-milky-big-black-hole.html




  1. The Penrose Schwarzschild-radius space time diagram, compress space and time so it can be drawn on a sheet of paper, it includes a black hole and a white hole. They are kind of embarrassed of the white hole, as no one has seen it, and if there were any white holes they would certainly light up so we could observe them. A white hole would stand out while a supermassive black hole could more easily hide in the shadows. enter image description here



If we just look at these observations it might seem like they count in favor of Sag A* being a white hole. And it is an important question, as science are currently stuck with the option that Sag A* is a black hole singularity. If there is a white hole in the center of the galaxy instead, the implications are enormous and it could give us answers to many grand problems in astrophysics.


enter image description here


A white hole or a black hole? That's the question!




Friday 27 February 2015

group theory - Is the Standard Model an invariant subgroup of $SU(5)$?


It is well known that the Standard Model (SM) gauge group is a subgroup of $SU(5)$: \begin{equation} SU(3) \times SU(2)\times U(1) ~\subset~SU(5) \end{equation} This can be easily checked using the method of Dynkin diagrams. Is this subgroup an invariant subgroup such that, \begin{equation} g _{SU(5)} g _{SM} g _{SU(5)} = g _{SM} ' \,, \end{equation} where $g_{SU(5)}$ ($g_{SM}$) is an element of $SU(5)$ ($SM$)?


Background: The reason I'm interested in this is because then its necessarily true that the non-SM gauge group generators of $SU(5)$ can be written as solely off-diagonal matrices and the SM as solely diagonal (this is easy to see by writing the matrices in block diagonal form), which simplifies calculations.




quantum mechanics - fixed input qubit state to an arbirary pure state using two variable rotations and one fixed rotation


It is a theorem that any arbitrary unitary transformation in SU(2) can be factored into the following form:


$ O = U_X(\theta) U_Y(\phi) U_X(\delta) $



Where $U_X$ is a Bloch sphere rotation. I believe it is possible to fix one of these angles, leaving only two angles as degrees of freedom. So, I am saying that, given that X and Y might be different, and the fixed angle is some number like $\frac{\pi}{2}$ any unitary can be written in a form something like:


$ O = U_X(\theta) U_Y(\frac{\pi}{2}) U_X(\delta) $


Does this sound right? Perhaps I am working on the assumption that, if a pure input state is fixed, then you only need two degrees of freedom to map that input state to any other pure output state. This thinking comes from the fact that the pure states are all on the surface of the Bloch sphere.


Here is a quote from Wikipedia:



Since polarization states are defined by two degrees of freedom, for example azimuth angle and ellipticity angle of the polarization state, such a polarization controller needs two degrees of freedom. The same holds for the task of transforming an arbitrary polarization into a fixed, known one.





word - Monoalphabetic Geometry


This is a second puzzle from the Monoalphabetic Equation series, you can check out the previous one here.




A set of letters has been replaced by $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ and one symbol has been replaced by $x$.
Following are some of the English words that consist of those letters, and their meaning:



$abcd = \large ○ \normalsize + ▿\ + $ enter image description here


$cbad = \large ● \normalsize + \small ○ $


$cbda = \text{△} \normalsize +\ —\ +\ –\ $


$cab \normalsize + x = x\ +$ \




- What are the letters that $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ replace, respectively?
- What is the symbol that $x$ replace?



Here's a picture, in case the unicode is not working.




Answer



Answer:



$a$ = r, $b$ = i, $c$ = t, $d$ = e, $x$ = $∠$

Note: The shapes on the right are combined to make a symbol representing the word on the left.



$abcd = \large ○ \normalsize + ▿\ + $ upward arrowhead



Word = rite
Depiction = Masonic ritual symbol (per @Timoris) or Wicca ritual pentacle, triangle + arrowhead make a star (intended answer per @Chrone)



$cbad = \large ● \normalsize + \small ○ $



Word = tire

Depiction = tire image



$cbda = \text{△} \normalsize +\ —\ +\ –\ $



Word = tier
Depiction = (per @Timoris) tier image



$cab \normalsize + x = x\ +$ \



Okay, I found this one to be particularly clever:

$x$ is $∠$
thus $cab$ + $x$ = $x$ + \ becomes
tri $∠$ = $∠$ + \
or rather:
triangle = $△$



particle physics - Why does antimatter and matter fuse to release energy even though they will cancel each other perfectly?


I have seen many physics people talk about antimatter as a evil twin of matter and when they come in contact with each other leave massive amount of energy instead of only void.


If antimatter and matter exactly opposite to each other why they should leave this enormous amount of energy? They should just cancel out each other leaving only blank space.


Why not positron(+) and electron(-) cancel each other out perfectly to leave nothing?


Please correct me if I am missing something.



Answer



They aren't complete opposites. They have the same (positive) rest mass (invariant mass) for instance. And since energy follows the equation


$$E=+\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(\vec pc)^2},$$


they have the same (positive) energy when they have the same momentum. And further, since the momentum is squared they have the same (positive) energy when they have opposite momentums. And since their rest masses are the same, they have opposite momentum when their velocities are opposite.


Thus, in a frame where they have equal and opposite velocities, they end up with equal and opposite momentums, and they always have equal and opposite charge, but they have equal (positive) mass, equal (positive) rest energy, equal (positive) kinetic energy, and equal (positive) total energy.



The opposite charge is because they are antiparticles and always have opposite charges.


The equal rest energy is because they are antiparticles and so have the same (positive) rest mass (invariant mass). Both positive. Both equal.


The opposite momentum is because of the choice of frame.


The total energy is equal because they have the same mass $m$ and the same squared momentum $(\vec pc)^2$ so the same numbers go into the right hand side of


$$E=\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(\vec pc)^2}.$$


The rest energy, $mc^2,$ is the same because they have the same rest mass, $m$.


The kinetic energy is the same because kinetic energy is $E-mc^2$ and the (total) energy, $E,$ is the same and the rest energy, $mc^2,$ is the same.


So they both have positive energy. It's like if you had a bank account that required a million dollar minimum balance. That's like your rest energy. As long as you keep the account you aren't spending that money. And as long as you have that mass (and are on shell like real particles are), then aren't giving up that rest energy becasue its the minimum energy you have.


The energy is $E=\sqrt{(mc^2)^2+(\vec pc)^2}$ and the smallest that can be is $mc^2$ and when the momentum is nonzero it only gets larger. When the momentum is very different than zero then the energy can get much larger.


But just like you can get that money by closing your account, you can spend that energy if you get rid of the mass. But the mass was intrinsic to the particle so that only happens when you get rid of the particle itself.



To do that you have to get rid of the electric charge. But you also have to get rid of the other charges, such as lepton flavor/species charges. For instance a muon (which has a large mass) could decay into an electron, a muon-flavored neutrino, and the anti-particle of an electron-flavored neutrino. The total electron-flavor is zero before and after (the electron-flavored neutrino has an equal electron flavor as the electron itself and antiparticles always have opposite charges). The total muon-flavor is one before and after. The electric charge is the same before and after (the muon and the electron have identical electric charge and the neutrinos have zero electric charge).


But the electron doesn't have a less massive lepton to decay into like the muon and tauon do. But the positron is the antielectron. It has opposite electric charge. And opposite flavor. So it does allow the electron to go away. It has its own positive mass (that equals the electron mass) and its own positive energy (which equals the electron energy in the zero momentum frame) and so when everything else cancels there is still some energy.


There are things that can still be different. For instance spin. So when they jointly decay into photons, the photons need to carry away the total energy, the total (vector) linear momentum, and the total spin (total angular momentum).


quantum field theory - Fourier Transforms Related to Green's Functions


I'm reading a text on field theory where there are a number of assertions made about Fourier transforms that I'm finding confusing. For example, let $G^R = -i \theta(t - t')e^{-i \omega_0 (t - t')}$. The text says that the FT of $G^R$ wtih respect to $t-t'$ is $(\epsilon - \omega_0 + i0)^{-1}$. What is the meaning of this $i0$ term?



Secondly, after inverting this expression the text takes the inverse transform. That is, the inverse FT of $\epsilon - \omega_0 + i0$ and obtains $\delta(t - t')(i\partial_{t'} - \omega_0 + i0)$. What is the meaning of this? How did the fourier transform of an expression become an operator?


Thanks!




Thursday 26 February 2015

interference - Young's double split experiment, the slit width


I realize that there is a lot of topic's mentioning this, but I think my question is rather new compared to many of them.


First of all, this is part of a school assignment, and our object is to replicate Young's double slit experiment. I am familiar that the original experiment isnt a double slit, but to get familiar with the basics, I will start with the double slit.


The question is, how does the interference pattern depend on x, dx and lambda? Where is x is the distance between the slits, dx is the width of the slits and lambda the wavelength. Most of the answers I've found connects the interference pattern with x and lambda, but simply leaves out dx since it's supposed to be so "very small".



My project requires me to find a lot of information, so if anyone knows a good source of finding information in the subject, please let me know.



Answer



A double slit arrangement with each of the widths of the slits being very, very small produces this interference pattern.
It is a graph of relative intensity (y-axis) against position (x-axis).


enter image description here


A single slit of finite width produces a diffraction pattern.


enter image description here


Now if you have a double slit arrangement with slits of the width that produced the diffraction pattern above you get the following interference pattern.


enter image description here


You will note that the single slit diffraction pattern controlled by the width of the slits modulates the intensity of the double slit interference pattern.



Here is the sort of pattern that you might observe on a screen:


enter image description here


Now if the slit width is halved then the diffraction pattern due to a single slit of that width looks like this.


enter image description here


The diffraction pattern is wider than the single slit diffraction pattern shown before.


Using two slits of this width whilst keeping the slit separation (centre to centre) the same as before results in this interference pattern.


enter image description here


So you will note that the slit widths control the modulation of the intensity of the double slit interference pattern.
The slit separation controls the separation of the interference fringes.
As the slit separation has not been changes the separation of the interference fringes stay the same.



So the very first diagram is an interference pattern with two slits which are very narrow and hence produce a very broad diffraction pattern.


Update as a result of a comment.


The third graph was produced using


$$y = \left (\dfrac{\sin\alpha}{\alpha} \right )^2 \cdot \cos^2(5 \alpha) $$.


The first term is the diffraction envelope and the second term the interference fringes.


There is more about how the angle $\alpha$ is related to the wavelength of the light, the slit width and the slit separation in this answer and in many textbooks and websites.


Why do we have so many dualities in string theory?


Why do we have so many dualities in string theory? Is there a reason for that?




electromagnetism - Basis for the Generalization of Physics to a Different Number of Dimensions


I am reading this really interesting book by Zwiebach called "A First Course in String Theory". Therein, he generalizes the laws of electrodynamics to the cases where dimensions are not 3+1. It's an intriguing idea but the way he generalizes seems like an absolute guess with no sound basis. In particular, he generalizes the behavior of electric fields to the case of 2 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions by maintaining $\vec{\nabla}. \vec{E} = \rho$. But I struggle to understand why. I could have maintained that $|\vec{E}|$ falls off as the square of the inverse of the distance from the source. Essentially, there is no way to differentiate between the Coulomb's law and the Gauss's law in the standard 3+1 dimensions--so how can I prefer one over the other in the other cases? To me, it seems like it becomes purely a matter of one's taste as to which mathematical form seems more generic or deep--based on that one guesses which form would extend its validity in the cases with the number of dimensions different than that in which the experiments have been performed. But, on the other hand, I think there should be a rather sensible reason behind treating the laws in the worlds with a different number of dimensions this way--considering how seriously physicists talk about these things. So, I suppose I should be missing something. What is it?



Answer



Great question. First of all, you're absolutely right that until we find a universe with a different number of dimensions in the lab, there's no single "right" way to generalize the laws of physics to different numbers of dimensions - we need to be guided by physical intuition or philosophical preference.



But there are solid theoretical reasons for choosing to generalize E&M to different numbers of dimensions by choosing to hold Maxwell's equations "fixed" across dimensions, rather than, say, Coulomb's law, the Biot-Savart law, and the Lorentz force law. For one thing, it's hard to fit magnetism into other numbers of dimensions while keeping it as a vector field - the defining equations of 3D magnetism, the Lorentz force law and the Biot-Savart law, both involve cross products of vectors, and cross products can only be formulated in three dimensions (and also seven, but that's a weird technicality and the 7D cross product isn't as mathematically nice as the 3D one).


For another thing, a key theoretical feature of 3D E&M is that it is Lorentz-invariant and therefore compatible with special relativity, so we'd like to keep that true in other numbers of dimensions. And the relativistically covariant form of E&M much more directly reduces to Maxwell's equations in a given Lorentz frame than to Coulomb's law.


For a third thing, 3D E&M possess a gauge symmetry and can be formulated in terms of the magnetic vector potential (these turn out to be very closely related statements). If we want to keep this true in other numbers of dimensions, then we need to use Maxwell's equations rather than Coulomb's law.


These reasons are all variations on the basic idea that if we transplanted Coulomb's law into other numbers of dimensions, then a whole bunch of really nice mathematical structure that the 3D version possesses would immediately fall apart.


Wednesday 25 February 2015

Does String Theory predict a particle with twice the mass of the electron?


As far as I know, the spectrum of any (?) String Theory is of the form $$ M^2\propto N $$ where $N$ is the number operator. The lightest known particle being the electron, I am led to think that we should observe particles with masses $m_e,2m_e,3m_e,\dots$


In more general terms, the spectrum of ST seems to be harmonic, as the operators are always essentially oscillators. Cf. the Veneziano amplitude, with poles at $s=4(n-1)/\alpha'$. This brings me to my question: how does the phenomenology of ST deal with the (obviously?) unobserved tower of particles, with masses in harmonic progression? does the geometry of the extra dimensions have anything to do with the apparently erratic behaviour of low-energy physics?



Answer



It's more complicated than that. To get the Standard Model, a standard technique is to use intersecting brane models, usually many D6s in the compact space, in which the spectrum depends on the angles between the branes and the particles comes from vibrational modes of the open strings stretched between the branes.


Roughly speaking, in superstring theory you will get:


$$\alpha' M^2 = N_B + N_F + f(\theta_i)$$


where $N_B$ and $N_F$ are the oscillator numbers and $\theta_i$ the angles between the branes in the compact spaces (think to factorized tori for simplicity), for some function f. While the angles are not completely arbitrary, due to supersymmetry constraints for instance, you can get a realistic spectrum in this way. The presence of multiple branes in each stack will give the different families of leptons and quarks.



A nice and simple introduction to the topic can be found in the classic book by Zwiebach.


astrophysics - How likely is it that the mass of all humans was generated by the same supernova?




All humans are brothers. They came from the same supernova.


─ Allan Sandage (1926 - 2010)



My gut (not a physicist) says not very likely at all.


That being said, he was probably referring to the creation of the solar system, Earth, etc.




logical deduction - Reconstructing the results of a 5-team soccer tournament


5 teams are playing in a "round-robin" soccer tournament, in which each team plays each other team once. Each game has 3 possible outcomes: team 1 wins, draw, or team 2 wins. The winning team receives 3 points, while the losing team receives 0 points. In case of a draw, both teams receive 1 point. At the end of the tournament the teams have the following points:



A - 10 points,
D - 8 points,
B - 4 points,
C - 3 points,
E - 1 point.




Based on this information, can you reconstruct the result of each game? A solution exists and it is unique.


Good luck!



Answer



LOGIC AS USED TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE: The first thing to note is that with 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and the known points totals, we must have the following end outcomes in terms of wins, draw and losses:



A = W3 D1 L0 (10pts)
D = W2 D2 L0 (8pts)
B = either (a) W1 D1 L2 or (b) W0 D4 L0 (4pts)
C = either (a) W0 D3 L1 or (b) W1 D0 L3 (3pts)

E = W0 D1 L3 (1pt)



In particular, for teams B and C either scenarios (a) would both happen together or scenarios (b) would both happen together (since we need an equal number of wins and losses across all times and an even number of draws, by the nature of the game).


So what can we work out immediately? Well, we know:



Team A’s results straight away since the result of the A-D match must have been a draw, as both teams are undefeated, and A won all their other games (W3 D1 L0):

A-D = draw
A-B = A win
A-C = A win
A-E = A win




Immediately, we notice that:



Since Team A beat Team B, B cannot have drawn all of their matches (scenario (b)) and so instead we have scenario (a) for both Team B and Team C:

A = W3 D1 L0 (10pts)
D = W2 D2 L0 (8pts)
B = W1 D1 L2 (4pts)
C = W0 D3 L1 (3pts)
E = W0 D1 L3 (1pt)

This means that 6 matches ended in a win for one team (and defeat for the other) and there were 4 draws in total.



What else do we know?




Well, the match between Teams C and E must have ended in a draw, since neither won a match. And then, since E lost their other matches (W0 D1 L3, remember), we must have:

C-E = draw
B-E = B win
D-E = D win



We also then know that:



C’s other two matches ended in draws, since we have already ticked off one draw (vs E) and one defeat (vs A) for them, and they have a W0 D3 L1 record:

B-C = draw
C-D = draw



This leaves just one game left to deduce – that between B and D – which must have:




Ended in a win for undefeated team D, since B’s only draw is accounted for by the match with C (B = W1 D1 L2, recall).



And altogether, we now know the results were:



A-B = A win
A-C = A win
A-D = draw
A-E = A win
B-C = draw

B-D = D win
B-E = B win
C-D = draw
C-E = draw
D-E = D win



Or, as a table:



enter image description here




POST-SCRIPT: The steps above outline the logic I used when deducing the results. However, (noticed afterwards) it is possible to resolve the ambiguity in spoiler 1 (scenarios (a) vs (b)) and know exactly which W-D-L combination of wins, draws and losses we ultimately need to find for every team before we even begin to deduce the individual match results, since:



We can see straightaway that scenario (b) is impossible! If each team plays four matches, it is not possible for Team B to draw all four of their games while Team C draw none, since the two teams must have drawn with each other! We can therefore reason that scenario (a) applies, and deduce the full W-D-L table (as in spoiler 3) right at the outset, before proceeding with the same logic as per the answer above.



statistical mechanics - Why is the canonical ($NVT$) ensemble often used for (classical) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations?



Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation is a common approach to the (classical) many-body problem. It relies on integration of Newton's equations of motion to simulate the trajectories of many (e.g., ~1,000-100,000) particles.


In my limited exposure to the MD literature, a recurring theme that I think I see (at least on the chemical physics end of things) is that MD simulations are often performed in the canonical ($NVT$) ensemble. Why does this seem to be the case?




Here are the common thermodynamic ensembles:




  • Microcanonical ensemble ($NVE$)



    • The system is isolated.

    • The total energy $E$ is fixed.


    • Every accessible microstate has equal probability. That is, if $\Omega$ is the number of accessible microstates, the probability that a system is in a particular microstate is $\frac{1}{\Omega}$.

    • Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the microcanonical ensemble satisfies ergodicity -- time averages can be replaced with ensemble averages.




  • Canonical ensemble ($NVT$)



    • The system is not isolated. The system can exchange energy with a heat bath. The total energy of the system + bath is fixed. The average or equilibrium energy of the system is constant.

    • The absolute temperature $T$ is well-defined. (Is $T$ fixed? I think so.) $T$ is given by the temperature of the heat bath.

    • The probability of finding the system in some microstate $i$ with energy $E_i$ is given by the Boltzmann distribution: $$p_i = \frac{e^{-\frac{E_i}{k_B T}}}{\sum_i e^{-\frac{E_i}{k_B T}}}$$





  • Isothermal-isobaric ensemble ($NPT$)



    • The absolute temperature $T$ and the pressure $P$ are fixed.







Looking at this non-exhaustive list of choices, it seems that we can eliminate the $NVE$ ensemble from consideration because "real world" chemistry involves energy exchange with the environment.


MD simulations typically do not model chemical reactions, but still, I would say that most chemistry in the "real world" occurs at nearly constant pressure (e.g., atmospheric pressure). So the $NPT$ ensemble seems like a reasonable candidate.


What about the $NVT$ ensemble? Constant temperature perhaps seems reasonable for equilibrium, "real world" chemistry, but I am not so sure about constant volume.


Now let's jump back to my very rudimentary of MD simulations in the literature. In MD simulations, molecules sit in a simulation box to which periodic boundary conditions are applied. From reading some literature articles it seems that the $NPT$ ensemble is used for equilibration -- to obtain the simulation box size that gives an average pressure of, for example, 1 atm. Then, the system is simulated in the $NVT$ ensemble -- that is, the simulation box's dimensions are held fixed, hence fixing the system volume. It is from this simulation in the $NVT$ ensemble that ensemble averages are computed and the system's chemistry is analyzed.


Why is the $NVT$ ensemble used for MD simulation production runs?



Answer



To amplify on something in the Ron's answer: Fixed energy is hard to maintain numerically; the slight computational errors accumulate over time. The "thermalization" effects serve to fix this, and keep the overall system with a (relatively) stable average energy (large N).


newtonian mechanics - What would happen if $F=mdot{a}$?



What would happen if instead of $F=m*d^2x/dt^2$, we had $F=m*d^3x/dt^3$ or higher?


Intuitively, I have always seen a justification for $\sim 1/r^2$ forces as the "forces being divided equally over the area of a sphere of radius $r$".


But why $n=2$ in $F=m*d^nx/dt^n$ ?




mathematics - Maximum time for ants to fall off stick (with a non-instant turning speed)


This question is purely a follow-up to Maximum time for ants to fall off stick.


Suppose there are $n$ ants on a stick which has length 10. At any time, the ants may be facing left or right, the initial directions of the ants are arbitrary.


At time 0, all ants start moving in the direction they're facing at speed 1. If an ant reaches the ends of the stick, it falls down (still quite a strange species of ant).


Each time an ant collides with another ant, both ants reverse direction in one unit of time and then continue moving in the new direction.


What is the maximum time an ant can stay on the stick before it falls off?




Clarification regarding ant collisions:


If $X$ encounters $Y$ and $Z$ in the middle of a colliding turn, then $X$ will turn around and leave in 1 time. $Y$ will finish its turn in 0.5 time and then turn around to face $Z$ again. This will take an additional 1 time. $Z$ will finish its turn in 0.5 time and continue on its way.



This makes intuitive sense, by the way, when you remember that $X$ will still be turning when $Y$ finishes its first turn. It couldn't move forward because the path is blocked.




Does time actually exist or is there just a single stateful system being updated over time?



What I mean is, is there a past, future and present? or just a NOW which changes?



I'm a computer programmer so the second alternative is from my programming experience. In this second alternative, I mean to ask, are we just in a stateful system like Conways game of life where there is just a NOW and then the system updates and then we are in a different NOW. In the conways game of life, there is never any past stored in the computer memory. In this case, the past is just an illusion from us recording events which have happened in our brain.


There is a distinct difference between the two, if there is actually a past, future and present then there is opportunity for things in the future to affect things in the past or time-travel might be possible. However in a stateful system like the game of life, then that really cannot happen.


Secondly, do any experiments confirm or deny either of these two options, is this already a decided problem in physics?


Conways game of life




Updated:


A system with a "real" (real as I describe) past, present and future could allow for travel in the time dimension just as you would travel in the x,y or z dimension. One person could travel slowly backwards in time to a point in the past, then move forward slowly and see events as they happen slowly. Not everyone is moving "forwards" together like in conways game of life. In a conways game of life, everyone is moving forwards.


In a system with a real time dimension, potentially a person could make a machine to move backwards, which you cannot do in conways game of life, you cannot move backwards to the older state, you cannot see time in reverse as well which you would see if you moved backwards as you would with a film playing backwards or sound recording playing backwards.


The rules of the conways game of life wouldn't permit travelling backwards, so there's no real time dimension to it, only a collective NOW.


The distinction between a system with a real time dimension (as I describe) would be that you can move forwards or backwards in the time dimension.



In a world without a real time dimension there is only conways game of life where everyone is moving forward and there is only a NOW at all times.


Now you could say that the system which I described with a real time dimension could be simulated by a suitable conways game of life, a suitable rules based system, but I think that you could make a distinction between the two, just as you can determine there is a real x dimension in 3 dimension space which is not a result of a conways game of life in the x dimension.


So my question is, is there a real time dimension or is there just a now that everyone is at all the time?




This question was closed because I have not proposed an experiment which can distinguish between the two conditions. Using the same argument, any discussion of string theory should be closed as there are no existing experiment which provides testable evidence of string theory and therefore it should be considered as much as a fiction as the difference between the two cases I suggested here.


Also by my own reasoning, anything fictional should be considered a valid question. :)




electromagnetic radiation - Can someone explain to me the concept of atmosphere opacity?


enter image description here


On this diagram, why is the atmospheric opacity shaped as it is?


If we are able to see lights due to low atmospheric opacity, why can't we see radio waves, when the atmospheric opacity is so low for these kinds of waves?


What does the author mean by "observable"?



Answer




On this diagram, why is the atomspheric opacity shaped as it is?




Different parts of the atmosphere are responsible for the shape of that curve. Electromagnetic radiation impinging on some object can be reflected by the object, absorbed by the object, or transmitted through the object. An ideal black body absorbs all incoming radiation, regardless of wavelength. A real body such as our atmosphere behaves differently from a black body. The behavior of a real body oftentimes varies with frequency. That certainly is the case with our atmosphere.


The shortest wavelengths (extreme ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma radiation) of radiation have enough energy per photon to eject electrons from atoms and molecules. This is ionizing radiation. Any atom or molecule that gets in the way of an incoming short wavelength photon can that photon. The atmosphere looks like a thick lead plate at these high wavelengths. Ionizing radiation (wavelengths of about 100 nm or less) occupy the far left of the graphic that you posted.


Longer wavelength ultraviolet light is not ionizing, but it can cause chemical reactions to occur. Unfortunately for us, some of the chemical reactions caused by UV radiation can lead to skin cancer. Fortunately for us, ultraviolet light reacts in a rather interesting way with oxygen. The ozone layer absorbs the vast majority of the incoming ultraviolet light.


Thanks to the absorption of very high wavelength radiation by the upper atmosphere and the absorption of ultraviolet light by the ozone layer, very little of the most damaging kinds of electromagnetic radiation make it through our atmosphere. In contrast to that almost complete absorption of short wavelength radiation, our atmosphere is rather poor at absorbing visible radiation and short wavelength infrared radiation. This is the "visible window." This visible window also represents the peak of the energy output from our sun. This is a happy coincidence that is essential to life as we know it.


Light at longer wavelength infrared radiation interacts with various vibrational modes of multi-atomic molecules. These interactions result in the multiple peaks and valleys in your graphic between 1 and 30 µm. The atmosphere is a very good absorber of even longer wavelengths, 30 µm to 30 mm. Another series of vibrational interactions take place between 30 mm and 30 cm, resulting in another suite of peaks and valleys in that graphic.


The atmosphere is more or less transparent to radiation with a wavelength between 30 cm and 10 meters. These longer wavelengths represent another window to the universe, the radio window. This window closes at very long wavelengths. The ionosphere reflects that very long wavelength radiation back into space.



Why can't we see radio waves, when the atomspheric opacity is so low for these kinds of waves?




Most animals, including humans, don't "see" radio waves because there's a reduced biological imperative to be able to do so. The ability to sense visible radiation is very important thanks to that happy coincidence of a visible window and peak solar output. That said, some animals have developed the ability to "see" radiation at wavelengths other than visible light. A number of insects and birds can see into the ultraviolet range. Pit vipers can "see" thermal infrared. Sharks can "see" extremely long wavelength radiation thanks to their lateral lines.



What does the author mean by "observable"?



Those places in the electromagnetic spectrum where the atmosphere doesn't absorb or reflect incoming radiation are our land-based windows to the universe. We can't build ground-based instruments that see gamma radiation, X-rays, or infrared radiation. The atmosphere absorbs radiation of those wavelengths. The only way to "see" the universe at those wavelengths is via satellites that orbit well above the Earth's atmosphere.


Tuesday 24 February 2015

general relativity - Solution of Friedmann equation in terms of conformal time



We know that for the flat geometry of lamda CDM model, the solution for Friedmann equation is


$$ a(t) = \left\{ \frac{Ω_{m,0}}{Ω_{Λ,0}} \sinh^2 \left[\frac{3}{2} \sqrt{Ω_{Λ,0}} H_0(t - t_0)\right] \right\}^{1/3}, $$


where the scale factor $a$ is a function of cosmic time. If I want to express the scale factor here as a function of conformal time, what will be the equation, i.e., how can I write the solution of the Friedmann equation in terms of conformal time?



Answer



The integral for the conformal time,


$$\eta(t)=\int_0^t\frac{dt’}{a(t’)},$$


gives a complicated function of $t$ involving a hypergeometric function in this case. Although this relationship could be numerically inverted to plot $t(\eta)$ and thus $a(\eta)$, I don’t believe that there are any analytic formulas.


ADDED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:


Using the numerical values $\Omega_{m,0}=0.3089$, $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.6911$, and $H_0=67.74\,\text{km}\cdot\text{s}^{-1}\cdot\text{Mpc}^{-1}=0.06923\,\text{Gy}^{-1}$ from Wikipedia, the scale factor is


$$a(t)=0.7646\,[\sinh(0.08633\,t)]^{2/3}$$



where $t$ is in gigayears. Numerically integrating $1/a$ gives the conformal time $\eta$. For example, one finds the following values for the first 15 billion years


$$\begin{matrix} t & \eta & a\\ 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0\\ 1.0 & 20.08 & 0.1495 \\ 2.0 & 25.30 & 0.2379 \\ 3.0 & 28.94 & 0.3130 \\ 4.0 & 31.83 & 0.3813 \\ 5.0 & 34.25 & 0.4458 \\ 6.0 & 36.35 & 0.5079 \\ 7.0 & 38.21 & 0.5689 \\ 8.0 & 39.88 & 0.6294 \\ 9.0 & 41.39 & 0.6901 \\ 10.0 & 42.78 & 0.7516 \\ 11.0 & 44.06 & 0.8142 \\ 12.0 & 45.24 & 0.8784 \\ 13.0 & 46.34 & 0.9446 \\ 14.0 & 47.36 & 1.013 \\ 15.0 & 48.32 & 1.084 \\ \end{matrix} $$


Thus, for example, when $\eta$ was 42.78 billion years and $t$ was 10.0 billion years, the scale factor was 0.7516.


At the current epoch, the scale factor $a$ is 1 by definition. Numerically solving for the $t$ that makes $a=1$, one finds $t=13.81$ billion years, the age of the universe. Evaluating the conformal time gives $\eta=47.17$ billion years; thus the size of the observable universe is currently 47.17 billion light years.


If one goes far into the future, one finds that the integral for the conformal time approaches 63.73. Thus in this model the size of the observable universe never grows larger than 63.73 billion light years.


Here is a plot of $a(t)$:


enter image description here


And here is a plot of $a(\eta)$:


enter image description here


It is not actually necessary to numerically invert $\eta(t)$ to get $t(\eta)$ and $a(\eta)$. You can easily plot $a(\eta)$ by treating $t$ as a parameter and plotting the parametric curve $(\eta(t),a(t))$.



ADDED TO PROVIDE ANALYTIC EXPRESSION FOR $\eta(t)$ AND THUS AN ANALYTIC PARAMETERIZATION OF $a(\eta)$:


If you have Mathematica evaluate the integral for the conformal time, you get an ugly expression, involving a hypergeometric function, which appears complex but is in fact real. By making a change of variables, you can get a nicer expression, still involving a hypergeometric function, which is real. To do this, first write the scale factor as


$$a(t)=A\sinh^{2/3}{\frac{t}{\tau}}$$


where $$A=\left(\frac{\Omega_{m,0}}{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}\right)^{1/3}$$


and


$$\tau=\frac{2}{3 H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}}.$$


Then


$$\eta(t)=\frac{\tau}{A}\int_0^{t/\tau}\frac{dx}{\sinh^{2/3}{x}}=\frac{\tau}{A}\int_0^{\sinh{(t/\tau)}}\frac{dy}{y^{2/3}\sqrt{1+y^2}}$$


using the substitutions $x=t/\tau$ and $y=\sinh{x}$. Mathematica can do this latter integral and get a real expression. The result is


$$\eta(t)=\frac{3\tau}{A}\,{}_2F_1\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{2};\frac{7}{6};-\sinh^2{\frac{t}{\tau}}\right)\sinh^{1/3}{\frac{t}{\tau}}$$



where $_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is the ordinary hypergeometric function.


At very early times, the conformal time is approximately


$$\eta\approx.\frac{3\tau}{A}\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^{1/3}$$


and at large times, the conformal time approaches the constant value


$$\frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{6})\Gamma(\frac{1}{3})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\tau}{A}.$$


Unfortunately, I know of no way to invert $\eta(t)$ to get an analytic expression for $t(\eta)$ and thus for $a(\eta)$. But numerically evaluating this expression might be faster than the numerical integration.


And it, along with $a(t)$, gives an analytic parameterization of the curve $a(\eta)$, with parameter $t$.


ADDED TO PROVIDE FORMULA FOR $\eta(a)$:


The formula


$$a(t)=A\sinh^{2/3}{\frac{t}{\tau}}$$



can be inverted to give


$$t(a)=\tau\,\text{arcsinh}\,\left(\frac{a}{A}\right)^{3/2}.$$


This can then be used in the formula for $\eta(t)$ to get a non-parametric formula for $\eta(a)$ which doesn't involve $t$:


$$\eta(a)=\frac{3\tau}{A}\left(\frac{a}{A}\right)^{1/2}{}_2F_1\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{2};\frac{7}{6};-\left(\frac{a}{A}\right)^3\right)$$


It can't be inverted, as far as I know. So there is no nice formula for $a(\eta)$, but there is a nice formula for its inverse, $\eta(a)$!


logical deduction - Blood Relations in deducing family tree


Eight Members of a family A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H are sitting around a circular table.while some of them are facing inside and some of them are facing outside.



  • The couples are facing inside and singles are facing outside.

  • E is the daughter of C.who is sitting second to the right of her husband

  • B is sitting opposite to his father and facing outside

  • G is the sister-in law of both H and E and also she is not immediate neighbour of neither H or E


  • D is sitting between C and G,and is the only group of three females sitting together

  • H is facing his Mother C and G is facing her father in Law A

  • E is the only daughter in the family and sitting second to the right of her nephew



How to deduce the family tree and seating arrangement in circular table



I have Tried


Family Tree:




From 1 st statement, we deduce E is the female and his Mother is C


From 3 statment , G is sister in Law of both H and E


E and H is married to one person and his sister is E,but we dont know the gender of H and E from third statement


From six statement,H is facing his mother C and G is facing her father-in law A


Now we Know H is the Male and married to female and her sister is G, G is married to Male and his father is A


E is the only Daughter and sitting second to the right of her nephew, from this E is brother son is there



I have tried , but so many blanks are available for deducing the family tree.please guide me.Any help appreciated what i am doing mistake , please rectify



Answer



Here's my attempt:



Let's assume the positions on the table are the wind directions (N, NE, E, ...)



Let's start with saying that $C$ is sitting east.

Statement 2: C is facing inward, since her husband is also present. So her husband is sitting south, again facing inward.

Statement 7, we gather that H is sitting on the western spot, facing inward. This means he must be married.

Statement 5: D is sitting between C and G. Since C sits to the east, and the south spot is C's husband, this means G must be north and D northeast.

Statement 6: A is south. Statement 3: B is sitting opposite to his father and facing outside. The only way they can be opposite eachother, is if F is the father and they occupy north-west and south-east. This means E must be south-west.

Statement 4: G is the sister-in law of both H and E. But G is facing inward, so must have a partner. However, it can't be B (facing outward), A (C's partner) or H (she's his sister-in-law), so G must be a couple with F; who's then facing inward.

At this point, H still needs a partner, and only D and E are left as possibilities. But E is H's sister, so the partner must be D. This also means D is facing inward.

Finally, E must be looking outward because there's nobody left to form a couple with.

Note that G being the sister-in-law then implies that G and D are sisters.

Statement 7: E is second to the right of her nephew. Since F is the partner of G, who's E's sister in law, the nephew in question has to be B. So B is sitting north-west, and F is sitting south-east.



Final results:



North: G, inward.
North-east: D, inward.
East: C, inward.
South-east: F, inward.

South: A, inward.
South-west: E, outward.
West: H, inward.
North-west: B, inward.



electromagnetic radiation - Has someone measured that in the far field of radio waves, the electric and magnetic field oscillate synchronously?


That in near field both fields oscillating 90° displaced is obvious since in antenna rod a lot of electrons will be accelerated and and this oscillation of electric field is escorted by alignment of electrons magnetic dipole moments. Thus oscillation of magnetic field - if strong enough - produces the next oscillation of electric field and so on.


But somehow this two components of EM field were going over to a state - called far field - there both fields oscillation at the same time. In know that Hertz produces sparks and registered this modulation of EM radiation some meters away.


Does he or someone else measure the synchronicity of the two components with amplitudes not shifted 0° to each other and of course both perpendicular to the direction of propagation and not shifted by 90° like in the near field?


Near field https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Photon_Spin_%2B1.PNG


Far field https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Onde_electromagnetique.svg


Edit because of the comment from KyleKanos: What I'm asking is, has someone measured, that at one moment of time the peak of magnetic component is in the same distance from source as the peak at the electric field. That should be not easy because this peaks are moving with c.




Answer



Google search for "antenna far field magnetic field measurement" does not match any result. Always the electric field is measured and from this is concluded about magnetic field. I could not see that there is any measurement of electric and magnetic fields at the same point to show that both fields in phase.


special relativity - How to add together non-parallel rapidities?



How to add together non-parallel rapidities?


The Lorentz transformation is essentially a hyperbolic rotation, which rotation can be described by a hyperbolic angle, which is called the rapidity. I found that this hyperbolic angle nicely and simply describe many quantities in natural units:



  • Lorentz factor: $\mathrm{cosh}\,\phi$

  • Coordinate velocity: $\mathrm{tanh}\,\phi$

  • Proper velocity: $\mathrm{sinh}\,\phi$

  • Total energy: $m\,\mathrm{cosh}\,\phi$

  • Momentum: $m\,\mathrm{sinh}\,\phi$

  • Proper acceleration: $d\phi / d\tau$ (so local accelerometers measure the change of rapidity)



Also other nice features:



  • Velocity addition formula simplifies to adding rapidities together (if they are parallel).

  • For low speeds the rapidity is the classical velocity in natural units.


I think for more than one dimensions, the rapidity can be seen as a vector quantity.


In that case my questions are:



  • What's the general rapidity addition formula?

  • And optionally: Given these nice properties why don't rapidity used more often? Does it have some bad properties that make it less useful?





riddle - I have an extravagant sense of humour


Here is my latest riddle, take a crack at it if you dare!



Need to reinforce your brain?


Need help going with the flow?


Then I am exceptional for the job!


I am not a coward, but my family is.


I have an extravagant sense of humour,



I can be within precision, masters, and drastic-ness,


Most people see me and think, “It’s what is on the inside that counts!”


Yet leave out an important part of me!


Well, I am not gonna exaggerate,


But people believe I am an important part of a holiday, yet I am not.


Still people may have me everyday,


Since the beginning of time?



Hint 1




Maybe synonyms?



Hint 2



I am telling the truth I do not EXAGGERATE!




Answer



The answer is



An egg




Need to reinforce your brain?



"Eggs are a good source of several nutrients tied to brain health, including vitamins B6 and B12, folate and choline." source



Need help going with the flow?



(From OP) Eggs contain good cholesterol which helps with blood flow



Then I am exceptional for the job!




If you say "exceptional" out loud it kind of sounds like "egg-ceptional"



I am not a coward, but my family is.



They're all chicken



I have an extravagant sense of humour,



"Eggstravagant"




I can be within precision, masters, and drastic-ness,



Precision = Exact = Eggsact
Masters = Experts = Eggsperts
Drastic = Extreme = Eggstreme



Most people see me and think, “It’s what is on the inside that counts!”



The egg contains a baby chick. Possibly a reference to "Don't count your chicks before they hatch!"




Yet leave out an important part of me!



The shell protects the baby chick. Also (from OP), many people don't like to eat the yolk



Well, I am not gonna exaggerate,



"Eggsaggerate"



But people believe I am an important part of a holiday, yet I am not.




Colored eggs are common around Easter, but Easter is actually a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus and has nothing to do with eggs.



Still people may have me everyday,



Some people eat eggs for breakfast every day.



Since the beginning of time?



A reference to the classic question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"




logical deduction - Prepare for the counterattack


My adviser's brilliance crushed the Blackbeard's fleet, and we held a banquet to celebrate. The banquet was short lived however, for a arrow flew right past me and struck a pillar. Attached was a message from Blackbeard. It reads



Arrr, how dare you attack me branch fleet while I was out swashbucklin'. By the name of meself, I will send you to Davy Jones' locker.



I realized right away that I had made an error in my previous attack. It was indeed too little to be called the Blackbeard Grand Fleet.


Quickly, I dismissed the banquet and summoned my military adviser to discuss how we should prepare. He advised that we strike them in the high sea instead, as fighting at home would potentially put all the citizens in danger. He further said that Blackbeard would most likely sail directly from where the previous engagement was, so we should prepare to scout in that general direction right away.


Thus once again, scouts were sent out. But by the time we received a message, it was near nightfall. It read




We have found a fleet wearing Blackbeard's Jolly Roger. However, because it is dark, I don't see Blackbeard anywhere. To make things worse, the fog makes it hard to pinpoint the location of their ship, so I can only attach a map with how many ship pieces there are on each row and column. Based on my first speculation, there's again 1 flagship, 2 frigates, 3 corvettes, and 4 patrol boats, and I do not believe they touch each other. Not even diagonally.



$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \hline&&&&&&&&&&4\\ \hline&&&&&\bigcirc&&&&&5\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&2\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&2\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&0\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2 \end{array} \quad\quad \bbox[4pt,border: 1px solid black]{ \begin{array}{llc} \bf{Legend:}&\\ \hline \text{Flagship:}& \blacktriangleleft\blacksquare\blacksquare\blacktriangleright \text{or} &\blacktriangle\\ &&\blacksquare\\ &&\blacksquare\\ &&\blacktriangledown\\ \hline \text{Frigate:}& \blacktriangleleft\blacksquare\blacktriangleright \text{or} &\blacktriangle\\ &&\blacksquare\\ &&\blacktriangledown\\ \hline \text{Corvette:}& \blacktriangleleft\blacktriangleright \text{or} &\blacktriangle\\ &&\blacktriangledown\\ \hline \text{Patrol Boat:}& \blacklozenge\\ \hline \text{HUGE rock:}& \bigcirc \end{array}} $$


My adviser looked at the map for a few minutes, and said to me: this is most likely his vanguard fleet; we still need to crush them, but his main fleet should be not far behind, and I should send the scouts there instead. Then, he quickly disappeared into the operation room like before, leaving me pondering how he managed to find the ships using this map.


Can you guys help me figure out the enemy location again?



Answer



$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \hline&&&&&\blacktriangleleft&\blacksquare&\blacktriangleright&&\blacktriangle&4\\ \hline\blacktriangleleft&\blacksquare&\blacksquare&\blacktriangleright&&\bigcirc&&&&\blacktriangledown&5\\ \hline&&&&&\blacktriangle&&\blacklozenge&&&2\\ \hline&&&\blacklozenge&&\blacksquare&&&&&2\\ \hline&&&&&\blacktriangledown&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&\blacklozenge&&&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&\blacktriangle&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&\blacktriangledown&&&&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&&&0\\ \hline&&\blacklozenge&&\blacktriangleleft&\blacktriangleright&&&&&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2 \end{array} $$


First you eliminate the row and column with 0.


$$ \def\b{\color{blue}\blacksquare} \def\ltri{\color{red}\blacktriangleleft} \def\rtri{\color{red}\blacktriangleright} \def\utri{\color{red}\blacktriangle} \def\dtri{\color{red}\blacktriangledown} \def\rsq{\color{red}\blacksquare} \def\rdi{\color{red}\blacklozenge} \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&4\\ \hline&&&&&\bigcirc&&&\b&&5\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&2\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&2\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&1\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline&&&&&&&&\b&&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2 \end{array} $$



The sixth column can at most have one more free space so we can fill some of it in and add some more free spaces. The free spaces in the middle of columns 5 and 7 are there because any way we could fill the sixth column would block those spaces.


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \hline&&&&&?&&&\b&&4\\ \hline&&&&\b&\bigcirc&\b&&\b&&5\\ \hline&&&&&?&&&\b&&2\\ \hline&&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&2\\ \hline&&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline&&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline&&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline&&&&&?&&&\b&&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2 \end{array} $$


Now we can place the Flagship either in row 2 or in column 6. I excluded row 1 because any way you put it there would block at least two more spaces from row 2 but only one more space is allowed to be free there.


I tried placing the Flagship in the only position of row 2 and the rest solved itself afterwards.


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&&&\b&&4\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&&\b&&5\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&&&\b&&2\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&2\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&&&&?&&&\b&&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2 \end{array} $$


step


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|ll} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\ltri&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\utri&4^*\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&5^*\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&&&?&?&\b&&\b&\b&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1^*&7&1&2&0&2^\dagger\\ \end{array} \\ ^*\text{must be filled}\\ ^\dagger\text{at most two} $$


step


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|ll} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\ltri&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\utri&4\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&5\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&2^*\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&&&\b&&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&&&?&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7^{\dagger\dagger}&1&2^\dagger&0&2\\ \end{array} \\ ^*\text{must be filled}\\ ^\dagger\text{at most two}\\ ^{\dagger\dagger}\text{this column needs a corvette and a frigate in the middle} $$


step



$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|ll} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\ltri&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\utri&4\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&5\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&&\b&&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\ltri&\rtri&\b&\b&\b&\b&3^*\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2\\ \end{array} \\ ^*\text{must be filled but no more frigates}\\ $$


step


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|ll} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\ltri&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\utri&4\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&5\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\rdi&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&?&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\ltri&\rtri&\b&\b&\b&\b&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3^*&1&7&1&2&0&2\\ \end{array} \\ ^*\text{only 2 patrols left for here}\\ $$


last step solving sixth column


$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|ll} \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\ltri&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\utri&4\\ \hline\ltri&\rsq&\rsq&\rtri&\b&\bigcirc&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&5\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\utri&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\rsq&\b&\b&\b&\b&2\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\utri&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\dtri&\b&\b&\b&\b&1\\ \hline\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&\b&0\\ \hline\b&\b&\rdi&\b&\ltri&\rtri&\b&\b&\b&\b&3\\ \hline1&1&2&3&1&7&1&2&0&2\\ \end{array} $$


Monday 23 February 2015

Operator in quantum mechanics


I'm really confused by the definition and uses of operators in quantum mechanics. Usually we say that the state of a system is described by some vector $\lvert\psi\rangle$ in a Hilbert space $H$, and then we define operators acting on said vector, for example $\hat{p}: H\rightarrow H$. But often I read things like $$ \hat{p}\psi(x)=-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\psi(x)$$


I don't understand. $\psi(x)=\langle x\rvert\psi\rangle$ is a function in $L^2$ or some other space, not the same Hilbert space as $\lvert\psi\rangle$. More precisely $\psi(x)=\langle x\rvert\psi\rangle$ is an element of the field associated with $H$ for fixed $x$, I don't understand how can we apply $\hat{p}$ to this object.


How should I interpret this?


EDIT: I just realized that my question is a duplicate of this one, I must say that the "related" section is a much better search engine than the search engine. I have a question about ACuriousMind's answer. He writes that one can define a map $$\mathrm{Ket}: L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{1D}, \psi \mapsto|\psi\rangle := \int_{-\infty}^\infty\psi(x)|x\rangle\mathrm{d}x $$


But I don't really understand how $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\psi(x)|x\rangle\mathrm{d}x $$ is defined. How can one take an integral of a ket? The integral is a functional in $L^2$, not whatever space $\lvert x \rangle$ is in.



Answer



If we you want to know a rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, please check the first chapter of the book Dirac Kets, Gamow Vectors and Gelfand Tripletes--The Rigged Hilbert Space formulation of Quantum Mechanics by A.Bohm and M.Gadella. This is a huge topic and cannot be answered in a few lines. I list some important facts below.


Complete system of commuting operators


$\{A_k\}$, $k=1,2,\cdots,N$ is a system of commuting operators on rigged Hilbert space $\Phi \subset H \subset \Phi^X$ iff




  1. $[A_i,A_k] = 0$ for all $i,k = 1,\cdots,N$

  2. $\sum A_k^2$ is essentially self adjoint


$\{A_k\}$ is a complete commuting system if there exists a vector $\phi \in \Phi$ such that $\{A\phi| A$ runs out the algebra generated by $\{A_k\}\}$ spans $H$.


An antilinear functional $F$ on $\Phi$ is a generalized eigenvector for the system $A_k$ if for any $k=1,\cdots,N$ $$(A_k)^X F = \lambda^{(k)}F$$ The set of numbers $\lambda = (\lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)})$ are called generalized eigenvalues $F_{\lambda} = |\lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)}\rangle$.


Nuclear Spectral Theorem


Let $\{A_k\}$, $k=1,2,\cdots,N$ be a complete system of commuting essentially $\tau_{\Phi}$-continuous operators on the rigged Hilbert space $\Phi \subset H \subset \Phi^X$. Then, there exists a set of generalized eigenvectors $$|\lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)}\rangle \in \Phi^X$$ $$(A_k)^X|\lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)}\rangle = \lambda^{(k)}|\lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)}\rangle$$ $$\lambda^{(k)} \in \Lambda^{(k)} = \mbox{ spectrum of } A_k$$ such that for every $\phi \in \Phi$ and some uniquely defined measure $\mu$ on $\Lambda = \Lambda^{(1)} \times \cdots \times \Lambda^{(N)}$, $$(\psi|\phi) = \int_{\Lambda} d\mu(\lambda) \langle \psi | \lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)} \rangle \langle \lambda^{(1)},\cdots,\lambda^{(N)} | \phi \rangle$$.


Comments


Roughly speaking, the equivalence of the $L^2(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$ and $H$ is guaranteed by the fact that $X$ is a system of commuting operators on rigged Hilbert space. The demanded rigged Hilbert space should be constructed from the original Hilbert space if the algebra of operators are given. The notation of $|\psi\rangle = \int dx \langle x | \psi \rangle |x\rangle$ holds in the sense of performing inner product and is guaranteed by the nuclear spectrum theorem.



The whole construction is very complicated and subtle, and needs a lot of concepts of modern function analysis. Again, please check the book I recommended if you are really interested in this topic.


quantum mechanics - Calculating amplitude for chain of polaroids



I've recently started reading the book "Quantum Computing, A Gentle Introduction". After each chapter there are exercises for self study. For some of them there are answers, for some not. So far I've been reading "Feynman lectures on physics" and I've decided to make those exercises.


The answer for the first one was provided by the authors, but I cannot fully understand how they get it. I hope someone will be able to explain it to me.


Exercise 2.1:




Let the direction |v⟩ of polaroid B's preferred axis be given as a function of θ, |v⟩=cosθ|→⟩+sinθ|↑⟩, and suppose that the polaroids A and C remain horizontally and vertically polarized as in the experiment of Section 2.1. What fraction of photons reach the screen? Assume that each photon generated by the laser pointer has random polarization.



And this is the image question is referring to: exe


The answer is $0.5(cosθ)^{2}(sinθ)^{2}$


Now, let me explain my way of thinking.


In Dirac's bra ket notation we have situation like this:


\begin{equation} \langle C | B | A \rangle \end{equation} (what I understand, I hope accurately, as amplitude of electron going from state $A$ to state $C$ through state $B$)


which in book's notation is equal to:


\begin{equation} \langle \uparrow | B | \rightarrow \rangle \end{equation}



and it can be written also as


\begin{equation} \langle \uparrow | B \rangle\langle B | \rightarrow \rangle \end{equation}


Because (in theory) we have equal probability of finding electron in any of two states. The total probability is equal to:


\begin{equation} 0.5 |\langle \uparrow | B \rangle |^{2}|\langle B | \rightarrow \rangle|^{2} + 0.5 |\langle \uparrow | B \rangle |^{2}|\langle B | \uparrow \rangle|^{2} \end{equation}


But, polaroid A only allows for states $|\rightarrow \rangle $,thus, we don't need to consider second part of above equation (it's equal 0).


And now it's the part I don't fully understand and I am not sure:


the question is saying that



Let the direction |v⟩ of polaroid B's preferred axis be given as a function of θ, |v⟩=cosθ|→⟩+sinθ|↑⟩




Does that mean that we should change $ \langle B | \rightarrow \rangle $ to cosθ|→⟩ and $\langle \uparrow | B \rangle$ to sinθ|↑⟩ ? As long as I can understand first part, I have problems with second. Shouldn't it be in revers: ↑|sinθ⟩? I know that there is one rule regarding amplitudes: \begin{equation} \langle \phi | \chi \rangle=\langle \chi | \phi \rangle^{*} \end{equation} Is this rule applicable in this context? Also, what is its meaning, because I might be misunderstanding it.




Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...