Tuesday 30 June 2020

reference frames - How to understand the definition of vector and tensor?


Physics texts like to define vector as something that transform like a vector and tensor as something that transform like a tensor, which is different from the definition in math books. I am having difficulty understanding this kind of definition. To me, it goes like this:





  1. First we have a collection of bases or coordinate systems (do these represent reference frames?) and the transformations between them.




  2. A vector/tensor is an assignment of an array of numbers to each basis, and these arrays are related to each other by coordinate transformations.




I am wondering how coordinate systems and transformations are specified.





  1. Do we need all possible coordinate systems and transformations to define a vector space or just a few of them?




  2. How to define the concept of basis and coordinate transformation without completing the very notion of vector?






physical chemistry - How does an infinitely hard tip scratch an amorphous brittle material when it slides along it?



I know infinitely hard materials don't actually exist but sometimes the tip is so much harder than the substance it's scratching that it can be treated like one. Suppose a sharp diamond tip is made to look like the vertex of a tetrahedron by fracturing it along its cleavage planes and then it slides along a surface of glass that's nanosmooth. What is the nature of the scratch that was made and why does it come out that way? Is the scratch a fractal of cracks? If so, what type of fractal is it? What power of the scratching speed and total pressing force does the depth of the scratch vary as? Why does the scratch come out as that type of fractal? When the tip scratches the glass, does the scratch end up so deep that a nanosmooth rod of glass the thickness of the scratch could support a much bigger force of tension than the pressing force of the tip because the material gets weakened as a result of beginning to get scratched enabling it to get scratched even deeper? Is it the case that molecular theory is needed to predict how the scratch would come out and that if atoms were half the size with a quarter the strength of their bonds, glass etched nanosmooth would still have extremely close to the same tensile strength but the diamond tip moving at the same speed with the same total pressing force would make a deeper scratch?




mass - What is the relation between the Higgs field and chirality?


Wikipedia states that the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry "is responsible for the bulk of the mass (over 99%) of the nucleons".


How do the nucleons gain mass from the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry? Why don't leptons gains mass from it? What is the role of the Higgs field in this all?




homework and exercises - Galaxies moving away at the speed of light



As an arts student, I really find those cosmological questions hard to understand and hence come here to seek your kind help.


The Hubble constant $H_0$ is estimated to be about 65 km/s/Mpc, where 1 Mpc (megaparsec) is around 3.26 million light-years. At what distance would galaxies be moving away at exactly the speed of light? (I found that there is something called Hubble Radius, but is this the same as Hubble Radius?) If there were galaxies farther than the Hubble radius, how would they appear to us?



Answer



That's a very, very good question! Actually, the point you are addressing is the reason why physicists coined the term "observable universe". Those galaxies moving away from us with a speed bigger than the speed of light will never be visible (in the light they emit right now) to us and are outside the so-called "Hubble sphere". The distance you are looking for is $\frac{c}{H_0}$.


So as sad as it may sound, every second more and more galaxies and astronomical objects are leaving the observable universe, never to be seen again.


gravity - Is there a possibility for discovery of anti-graviton, i.e. the graviton antiparticle?


If gravitons exists, then would there be anti-gravitons as well? 1)If not, why? 2) If yes, what are their expected properties?




What does the notation $(1^-,2^-)$ mean in the ground-state nuclear spin of lithium $10$?


I am trying to get to grips with nuclear spin. However I note that many of the spin of isotopes can have many results. For example, if one looks on the Wikipedia page for the isotopes of lithium, the spin of $^{10}$Li, ground state, is quoted as $(1^-,2^-)$. And it says



The values of spin with weak assignment arguments are enclosed in parentheses.



So what does that mean, we don't know what the spin is? Does $^{10}$Li have two spins?




Monday 29 June 2020

Second Quantization in Condensed Matter and Quantum Field Theory


There appears to be an apparent dichotomy between the interpretation of second quantized operators in condensed matter and quantum field theory proper. For example, if we look at Peskin and Schroeder, the Hamiltonian for the quantized Dirac field Hamiltonian is given by eqn. 3.104 on p. 58:


$$H =\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}\sum_s E_p (a_p^{s\dagger}a_p^s+b_p^{s\dagger}b_p^s). \tag{3.104}$$


Here, $a_p^{s\dagger}$ and $a_p^s$ are the creation and annihilation operators for fermions, while $b_{p}^{s\dagger}$ and $b_p^s$ are the creation and annihilation operators for anti-fermions. Note that particles and antiparticles are described by the same field, which we will call $\psi$. Also note that these operators satisfy the relations


$$a_p^{s\dagger}=b_{p^*}^s,\qquad a_p^s=b_{p^*}^{s\dagger}$$


In condensed matter notation, we might similarly have creation and annihilation operators for some many-body state, which we will call $c_i^\dagger$ and $c_i$ (we consider spinless fermions for simplicity). In numerous texts and in my classes, I have learned that $c_i$ might be interpreted as the creation operator of a hole, which might be thought of as the condensed matter equivalent of an antiparticle.


Why do we need separate creation and annihilation operators for fermions and anti-fermions in quantum field theory, but in condensed matter we can simply treat the annihilation operator as the creation operator of the "antiparticle"? It is my understanding that there is a fundamental difference between the Dirac field second quantized operators and the condensed matter second quantization operators, but I can't find any references that discuss this. Any explanation would be appreciated, as well as any references at the level of Peskin and Schroeder.



Answer



It's just a convention to write the Dirac Hamiltonian in terms of electron and positron operators. The operator $b_p^{s\dagger}$ creates a "hole", i.e. a positron, which is the same as annihilating an electron. So we could just as well define $c_p^s = b_p^{s\dagger}$ and write the Hamiltonian in terms of $a$ and $c$ instead of $a$ and $b$. Then everything is expressed in terms of electron operators.



So we are reduced to asking why you need two sets of operators $a$ and $c$. The reason is simply that the dispersion relation of the Dirac equation is $E = \pm \sqrt{p^2 + m^2}$, so at any given momentum there are two bands. Hence, you need one operator that creates/annihilates an electron in the top band, and one which creates/annihilates an electron in the bottom band. This would equally well be true in a condensed matter system treated in momentum space, if there are multiple bands.


(As for why this convention is chosen: in relativistic quantum theory, if you write everything in terms of electrons, you are forced to conclude that the vacuum $|0\rangle$ has all the negative-energy states occupied, since $c_p^{s\dagger}|0\rangle = 0$. This was, in fact, Dirac's original picture, but conceptually it's easier to imagine that the vacuum contains no particles. On the other hand, in condensed matter physics, we are used to thinking about our solid-state materials as containing a lot of electrons, so it's actually less confusing to take the opposite point of view.)


electromagnetism - Difference between the reflection and the scattering of light


What is the difference between the reflection of light and the scattering of light?



Answer



Neither of these words are particularly precise and are often used somewhat interchangeably, but "reflexion" almost always means an elastic interaction of light, i.e. one that does not change the frequency / photon energy, with other matter / quantum fields. "Scattering" can mean elastic (e.g. Fresnel, Rayleigh and Mie scattering) or inelastic (e.g. Raman scattering).


The word "reflexion" tends to stand for a particular kind of scattering where the scattered electromagnetic field can be accurately determined by the law of reflexion (equal incidence and reflexion angles) applied to each of the Fourier plane wave wave components of the field individually. In turn, this means that the field / each photon interacts with a region of matter that is many wavelengths wide.



newtonian mechanics - How do the Planets and Sun get their initial spin?




  1. How do the Planets and Sun get their initial rotation?




  2. Why do Venus and Mercury rotate so slowly compared to other planets?




  3. Why does Venus rotate in a different direction to Mercury, Earth and Mars?






Answer



Anglular momentum is conserved, so any tiny initial rotation that a the original ball of gas had becomes faster as the gas collapses down into a star and disk of planets.


Planets near the sun rotate slowly for the same reason that the moon always faces the same side to the Earth - tidal braking


Venus probably received a hit from a some lump of rock / proto-planet some time early in it's life which changed it's rotation. A similar event split the moon off from Earth


statistical mechanics - Largest theoretically possible specific heat capacity?


What substance will have the largest specific heat capacity integrated from T=0 to, say, room temperature? In other words, given a finite amount of mass, what object or collection of objects has the largest number of degrees of freedom that can be excited as it absorbs energy starting from T=0? Would it be a complicated molecular polymer that can be tangled in all sorts of ways, or some kind of gas of low-mass particles, or maybe a spin lattice of some sort? Is there some kind of fundamental limit in the universe of the number of quantum degrees of freedom per mass or perhaps per volume that is allowed?




transit - Is it easier to learn more about the seasonal changes in an exoplanet's atmosphere when the exoplanet orbits a binary star system?


From a recent ScienceDaily article, we have this...



Scientists detected the new planet in the Kepler-16 system, a pair of orbiting stars that eclipse each other from our vantage point on Earth. When the smaller star partially blocks the larger star, a primary eclipse occurs, and a secondary eclipse occurs when the smaller star is occulted, or completely blocked, by the larger star. Astronomers further observed that the brightness of the system dipped even when the stars were not eclipsing one another, hinting at a third body. The additional dimming in brightness events, called the tertiary and quaternary eclipses, reappeared at irregular intervals of time, indicating the stars were in different positions in their orbit each time the third body passed. This showed the third body was circling, not just one, but both stars, in a wide circumbinary orbit.


The gravitational tug on the stars, measured by changes in their eclipse times, was a good indicator of the mass of the third body. Only a very slight gravitational pull was detected, one that only could be caused by a small mass. The findings are described in a new study published Sept. 16 in the journal Science. "Most of what we know about the sizes of stars comes from such eclipsing binary systems, and most of what we know about the size of planets comes from transits," said Doyle, who also is the lead author and a Kepler participating scientist. "Kepler-16 combines the best of both worlds, with stellar eclipses and planetary transits in one system."




Which brings up some interesting questions. Namely - could we learn more about the exoplanet when it can undergo multiple transits in front of each star?


With single stellar systems, we often can only see the exoplanet's transit when the exoplanet is in a single consistent position (analogous to seeing the Earth only during Northern Hemisphere winter, and not at any other time).


But with multiple stellar systems, we might be able to see the transit during Northern Hemisphere winter and during another season too (we might even be able to see transits for even more seasons)




Error estimation in peak location determination by centroid method


I am trying to locate peak in a data set by numerically calculating the peak using centroid method. How can I estimate the error associated with this peak determination?



Answer



As far as I can see this is just going to be the uncertainty of the mean of your dataset. To determine this you must know the uncertainty in the individual data points.


For the simple case where you can consider the uncertainty in the data to be constant for all points then the the uncertainty of the mean is


$$ u_c=\frac{u}{\sqrt n}$$


for the case where the errors are different then


$$ u_c=\frac{\sqrt{\sum u_i^2}}{n} $$ the general formula for combining uncertainties is



$$ u_c^2 = \sum \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\right)^2 u_i^2 $$


However, I would also point out there are several flaws with your approach. Firstly, if the peak is asymmetric the centroid will not be aligned with the peak position. Similarly, the method treats all points with equal weighting when determining peak position. Therefore, the result can be effected by noise far from the peak which likely has no relevance to the actual uncertainty of the peak position.


See this http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~toh/spectrum/PeakFindingandMeasurement.htm for a better approach to peak finding.


general relativity - Positive Mass Theorem



I'm currently a third year undergrad writing about Minimal Surfaces. In particular, trapped surfaces and black holes.


What does the Positive Mass Theorem have to do with this? And does the theorem directly predict the existence of black holes?




soft question - For a theoretical (not mathematical) physicist, is there a need to learn pure mathematics?


For a theoretical physicist (not a mathematical physicist), is there a need to learn pure mathematics ?




Sunday 28 June 2020

classical mechanics - Derivation of the time-derivative in a rotating frame of refrence


I have so trouble following Goldsteins derivation of the time derivative in the rotating refrence frame, and its use to derive the coriolis force (sec. 4.9-10) Given an intertial frame of refrence, $S$, and a rotating one, $S'$, contected through the transformation


$$ x_i' = a_{ij}(t)x_j, \\ x_i = a_{ij}'(t)x_j' = a_{ji} (t)x_j', $$


we can get the time derivative in the rotating refrence-frame by use of the chain rule,


$$ \frac{d}{dt}x_i = a_{ij}\frac{dx_j'}{dt}+ \frac{da_{ij}}{dt} x_j'. $$


Assuming $a_{ij}(0) = \delta_{ij}$, w can rewrite the equation as


$$ \frac{d}{dt}x_i = \frac{dx_i'}{dt} + \frac{da_{ij}}{dt} x_j. $$


$\mathrm{d} a_{ij}$ is an infinitesimal rotation, and can be writen as (Goldstein in sec. 4.8)


$$ \mathrm{d}A = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \mathrm{d}\Omega_3 & -\mathrm{d}\Omega_2\\ -\mathrm{d}\Omega_3 & 0 & \mathrm{d}\Omega_1 \\ \mathrm{d}\Omega_2 & -\mathrm{d}\Omega_1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} = \pmb{\omega} dt, $$


so that $\mathrm{d}a_{ij} = \epsilon_{ikj} \omega_k \mathrm{d}t$. This finally gives us



$$ \frac{d}{dt}x_i = \frac{dx_i'}{dt} + \epsilon_{ikj} \omega_k x_{j} = \bigg(\frac{d}{dt}a_{ji} + \epsilon_{ikj} \omega_k \bigg)x_{j}, $$


or as Goldstein writes it,


$$ \bigg(\frac{d}{dt}\bigg)_{space} = \bigg(\frac{d}{dt}\bigg)_{body} + \omega \times. $$


He then quickly uses this operator form to get


$$ \frac{d}{dt} \pmb{r} = \pmb v = \bigg(\frac{d}{dt} \pmb{r} \bigg)_{body} + \pmb\omega \times \pmb r = \pmb v' + \pmb \omega \times\pmb r', $$


(notice the switch between unprimed and primed $\pmb r$) and then


$$ \frac{d}{dt} \pmb v = \bigg(\frac{d}{dt} \pmb v \bigg)_{body} + \pmb \omega \times \pmb v = \bigg(\frac{d}{dt} (\pmb v' + \pmb \omega \times\pmb r') \bigg)_{body} + \pmb \omega \times (\pmb v' + \pmb \omega \times\pmb r') \\ = \pmb a' + 2 \pmb \omega \times \pmb v' + \pmb \omega \times(\pmb \omega \times \pmb r'). $$


I have tried to derive this using the indecies, but to no avail. If anyone is able to this, it would be greatly apriciated. I am espeacially having trouble with the term


$$ \bigg(\frac{d}{dt} (\pmb v' + \pmb \omega \times\pmb r') \bigg)_{body}. $$


I also find Goldsteins switch between the primed and unprimed system dubious, so any clarafications on this would also help.





particle physics - How did Pauli and Fermi deduce the existence of the neutrino?



From Wikipedia:




The neutrino was postulated first by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to explain how beta decay could conserve energy, momentum, and angular momentum (spin). In contrast to Niels Bohr, who proposed a statistical version of the conservation laws to explain the event, Pauli hypothesized an undetected particle that he called a "neutron" in keeping with convention employed for naming both the proton and the electron, which in 1930 were known to be respective products for alpha and beta decay.[6][nb 2][nb 3]


n0 → p+ + e− + νe James Chadwick discovered a much more massive nuclear particle in 1932 and also named it a neutron, leaving two kinds of particles with the same name. Enrico Fermi, who developed the theory of beta decay, coined the term neutrino (the Italian equivalent of "little neutral one") in 1933 as a way to resolve the confusion.[7][nb 4] Fermi's paper, written in 1934, unified Pauli's neutrino with Paul Dirac's positron and Werner Heisenberg's neutron-proton model and gave a solid theoretical basis for future experimental work.



Can you explain why beta decay could not be explained by adding that tiny amount of energy (attributed to the neutrino) to the KE of the emitted electron?



Answer



An electron is a charged particle, charge conservation would not work as the neutron has zero charge. In addition it would have been detected with its interaction as its energy would be similar to the energy of the other electron seen.


The neutrino was posited as a weakly interacting particle exactly because it was not caught by the detectors, and because energy and momentum conservation would not otherwise work for each event.


Edit after edit of question



Can you explain why beta decay could not be explained by adding that tiny amount of energy (attributed to the neutrino) to the KE of the emitted electron?




It is all about momentum and energy conservation. The neutron mass was known, the proton mass was known and the momentum measured and the electron mass was known and the momentum measured. It is easy to go to the center of mass system , i.e. where the neutron is at rest for the presumed two body decay. In the center of mass system the proton and the electron should have equal and opposite momenta which constraint defines also their energy in the center of mass system, one unique value. Instead the data showed that it was not a two body decay but a three body decay, since there was a distribution for the energy and momenta of the proton and the electron. A zero mass spin one half particle balancing momentum and energy solved the problem.


thermodynamics - Can one get clear ice crystals from a dirty suspension?


Euteictic freeze crystallization is a method where an electrolytic solution is cooled and separated into a stream of (relativly) clean, pure ice and a salty brine. I know anectdotally of wine concentrates that where made similiar. Now I wonder wether a suspension of solids can be separated in a similiar way, and if so under what circumstances, and if not, why.



Some half baked thoughts of mine:




  • Anecdotally, if I put soup into the the freezer, no easily visible separation occurs.




  • With comparativly large suspended particles, a growing ice crystal may not be able to 'push' particles away and encapsulate them instead.




  • With salty solutions, the brine is denser than the water or ice and separates by gravity - while in my soup, er suspension, some solids will settle at the top with the ice and become frozen in it.





  • The whole thing my simply be a matter of time, with slower freezing allowing for cleaner crystals






Saturday 27 June 2020

newtonian mechanics - Can a particle have momentum without energy?


Can a particle have linear momentum if the total energy of the particle is zero? Even if a particle has a certain velocity, can its potential energy cancel out the kinetic energy as to add to zero ?



Answer



As weird as it sounds, the answer is "yes."


Take, for instance, a satellite in gravitational orbit around some heavy body. It's energy is given by $$ H=\frac{p^2}{2m}-\frac{GMm}{r} $$ Clearly, there are solutions to this equation which have $0$ energy (look at a slowly moving particle that's really far away), but those solutions necessarily involve a non-zero momentum.


This answer may seem artificial because it also allows for negative energies (oh! horror of horrors), but mechanically, this gives all of the correct equations of motions. The details are very enlightening, too: positive energy orbits correspond to hyperbolae (unbound orbits, scattering orbits), negative energies correspond to ellipses (bound orbits like those described by Kepler's Laws or, colloquially, just "orbits"), and zero energies correspond to parabolae. Parabolic orbits are non-periodic, but never escape the effective gravity of the heavy mass (unlike hyperbolic orbits). These shapes, of course, all collapse into lines when the particle has zero angular momentum.



Edit: As David mentions, in relativity a free particle with zero energy simply does not make sense because it would have to be both massless and without momentum. Massless particles are massless in all reference frames, so the particle would have to be momentum-less in all reference frames as well (which sounds like a pretty boring particle to me). But if you include interaction potentials in your definition of a particle's energy, positive, negative, and zero energies are possible once again.


electromagnetism - How does the induced E field for a uniformly varying B field obey spatial symmetry?



Consider this answer giving the induced E field by a uniformly varying B field. In this case, if you place a point positive charge at the origin it will experience 0 force, but if you put it at some other point (such as (1, 0)) it would experience a force (in the positive Y direction) due to the induced E field.


If the laws of physics obey translational symmetry, then the particle at (0, 0) should experience the same force as the one at (1, 0). Furthermore if the laws of physics obey rotational symmetry then both forces must be 0. However this is not what is predicted by any solution to Faraday's law, since any vector field with a constant, nonzero curl cannot be everywhere 0.


How then should Faraday's law be interpreted in the context of a uniformly varying B field? In other words, given some system (for instance, a system of 2 electric charges, one at (0, 0) and one at (1, 0)), what constraints can be deduced to choose the particular solution of Faraday's law that must be used for a given prediction (such as, "What force will be exerted on each particle?")?



Answer



The thing is, there is an infinite amount of solutions to this problem, i.e. if B points in the z-direction, $E(x,y,t) =E_0 (t) ((x-x_0) \hat{y} - (y-y_0) \hat{x})$ solves Faraday's law for every value of $x_0$ and $y_0$. As a consequence, the particle can accelerate in any direction!


The problem with this situation is that we are missing one important ingredient to determine the "good" field: Boundary conditions. Adding boundary conditions to this problem will force the selection of a unique solution among the infinite solution set. In essence, this is not a physical situation as in reality you always have boundary conditions.


The most usual boundary condition used, but not the only one that would produce a unique solution, is generally E->0 and B-> 0 at infinity, which in this case is obviously violated.


classical mechanics - Why must allowable physical laws have reversibility?


I'm watching Susskind's video lectures and he says in the first lecture on classical mechanics that for a physical law to be allowable in classical mechanics it must be reversible, in the sense that for any given state $S\in \mathcal{M}$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is the configuration space there should be only one state $S_0\in \mathcal{M}$ such that $S_0\mapsto S$ in the evolution of the system.


Now, why is this? Why do we really need this reversibility? I can't understand what are the reasons for us to wish it from a physical law. What are the consequences of not having it?





Friday 26 June 2020

statistical mechanics - Applying the Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics to astrophysical objects


Quoting Wikipedia:



In statistical mechanics, Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics describes the statistical distribution of material particles over various energy states in thermal equilibrium, when the temperature is high enough and density is low enough to render quantum effects negligible.






  1. Is it possible to apply Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics to objects as large as nebulae; globular clusters or galaxies, that is, treating stars as Maxwell-Boltzmann particles; or even the universe as as whole, treating galaxies or clusters of galaxies as Maxwell-Boltzmann particles?




  2. Can the Universe be considered in thermal equilibrium? Or does an expanding Universe imply non-equilibrium?






newtonian mechanics - Static Friction - Only thing that can accelerate a train?



I'm a computer programmer that never studied physics in school and now it's coming back to bite me a bit in some of the stuff I'm being asked to program. I'm trying to self study some physics and I've got a few open source intro physics books and understanding it for the most part but I'm a bit confused on this statement I've stumbled upon in a section about static friction.


It's already gone over the formula for static friction and so forth. It gets into a section explaining that the weight of a train increases static friction between the wheels and the tracks. Alright, makes sense. But then it says this:



The reason locomotives are built to be so heavy is for traction. The upward normal force of the rails on the wheels, FN, cancels the downward force of gravity, FW, so ignoring plus and minus signs, these two forces are equal in absolute value, FN = FW. Given this amount of normal force, the maximum force of static friction is Fs = sFN = sFW. This static frictional force, of the rails pushing forward on the wheels, is the only force that can accelerate the train, pull it uphill, or cancel out the force of air resistance while cruising at constant speed. The coefficient of static friction for steel on steel is about 1/4, so no locomotive can pull with a force greater than about 1/4 of its own weight. If the engine is capable of supplying more than that amount of force, the result will be simply to break static friction and spin the wheels.

- "Newtonian Physics", Light and Matter - Book 1, p158 B. Crowell


http://www.lightandmatter.com/bk1.pdf

I'm confused as to how static friction is the only thing that can move the train forward. I thought static friction was what kept it in place in the first place. There's another force - that I can't think of the name of, but I've heard of somewhere - that I thought was more what they're describing here, where the weight of the wheels pushing down and forward slightly on the tracks causes the tracks to push up and forward (from the opposite side).


Can someone explain to me what this is saying?



Answer



This is all a complicated (and confusing, or just plain confused) way to say that, if you want the locomotive to pull the train, you don't want its wheels to slip. It's friction that prevents the wheels from slipping.


I suggest you simply delete this sentence:




This static frictional force, of the rails pushing forward on the wheels, is the only force that can accelerate the train, pull it uphill, or cancel out the force of air resistance while cruising at constant speed.



The paragraph makes a lot more sense without it. The author is trying to get at Newton's third law (equal and opposite reaction) but this way of putting it provides more confusion than insight.


homework and exercises - Force on the central charge


While solving some exercise questions of electrostatics, I come across a problem given in the image:



enter image description here


Also what will the force on central charge only due to the shell?


I thought that there is already a charge $Q$ which is uniformly distributed on surface and due to charge $q1$ shell surface may aquire some induced charge and the net charge on surface will be sum of that induced charge and charge $Q$ and this may be non-uniformly distributed on the outer surface of shell. But whatever be the charge on outer surface, there will be a charge of equal magnitude but opposite sign on the inner surface which will be uniformly distributed over inner surface. So net force from these charges on the central charge $q$ will be zero.


But it was given in solution that force on charge $q$ due to both shell & charge outside is zero but only due to the shell was towards right. If we consider only the shell neglecting $q1$, then also the charge $-Q$ will be uniformly distributed on inner walls and will exert net force zero. Then why rightward? Is there anything which I am assuming wrong?



Answer



No, in the presence of the point charge $q_1$, the shell will no longer be uniformly charged: it will change its distribution so as to keep the electric field inside the shell zero. This is what the charge distribution will look like:


enter image description here


So the sum of the electric field due to both the shell and $q_1=0$. The force on the charge at the center is zero. The force due to $q_1$alone is $\frac{kqq_1}{r^2}$ to the left so the force due to he shell alone must have the same magnitude and be directed to the right. Whe they say "consider only the shell neglecting $q_1$" they mean find the force due to the shell alone in the same scenario, not to forget that $q_1$ is there at all, and the effect its presence has.


If mass is not conserved but instead energy is conserved, is it right to say that the fundamental particles are photons?



If mass is not conserved but instead energy is conserved, so is it right to say that the fundamental particle of the Universe is photon instead of protons, neutrons, electrons, leptons, etc and all that. That is all mass is eventually made of photons (energy).


Or another form of this question would be What can one imagine the entire universe to be made up of? Well in Greeks time they thought it to be atoms. But I want a answer synchronous with today's information. Please try to add a simplified version of quantum mechanics.


Or simply Please connect energy to mass taking in consideration the fact of sub atomic particles.



Answer




If mass is not conserved




This statement needs a qualification. In our everyday life, mass is conserved. Even banks weigh coins of the same denomination to know how many coins there are in the vault. In the framework where classical mechanics works, mass is conserved.



but instead energy is conserved,



It is in special relativity that mass and energy are correlated.


invariant mass


For a complex of particles, their invariant mass is not equal to the sum of their masses, in contrast to the classical regime where the mass of objects is additive.



so is it right to say that the fundamental particle of the Universe is photon




The photon is a part of the elementary particles of the standard model of physics.


They are called elementary because they are not composed out of other particles.



instead of protons, neutrons,



True, protons and neutrons are composite. They each are composed of quarks, elementary particles in the table.



electrons, leptons, etc and all that.




elempart


All the particles in the table are elementary, as elementary as the photon.



That is all mass is eventually made of photons (energy).



The above is a blanket statement. At the energies of our laboratories each particle is fundamental, not only the photon, and has a definitive role in building up macroscopic matter. It is only when modeling the beginning of the universe where one can talk of all matter being energy, but that is another story and needs quantum mechanics and General Relativity . These are combined in the Big Bang Model , and there you will see that the photons appear at the same time as the rest of the particles in the table.


quantum electrodynamics - Relation between the trace anomaly and the energy-momentum tensor being off-shell


Let's say we have a massless QED theory with a Lagrangian


\begin{equation} L=i\bar{\psi}\not{D}\psi-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \end{equation}


The symmetric energy-momentum tensor is


\begin{equation} \Theta^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\bar{\psi}\Big\{\gamma^\mu D^\nu+\gamma^\nu D^\mu\Big\}\psi-\eta^{\mu\nu}i\bar{\psi}\not{D}\psi-F^{\mu\lambda}F^\nu_{\ \lambda}+\frac{1}{4}\eta^{\mu \nu}F^{\sigma\lambda}F_{\sigma\lambda} \end{equation}


The trace of this operator is


\begin{equation} \Theta^\mu_{\ \mu}=\big(1-d\big)i\bar{\psi}\not{D}\psi+\big(\frac{d}{4}-1\big)F^{\sigma\lambda}F_{\sigma\lambda} \end{equation}


The fermionic part is zero if we use Dirac's equation, which can be stated as "The energy-momentum tensor is traceless on-shell". On the other hand, if we are working on a $d=4$ spacetime, the photon part is inmediately traceless.


The last equation works if $\Theta^\mu _{\ \mu}$ is a quantum operator as well, since the equations of motion work for operators too. My question is: How is the path integral insertion $\langle\Theta^\mu_{\ \mu}\rangle$ not inmediately zero?



My preliminary answer is that when you actually calculate that using


\begin{equation} \langle\Theta^\mu_{\ \mu}\rangle=\int\mathcal{D}\psi\mathcal{D}A_\mu\Theta^\mu_{\ \mu}e^{-S_E} \end{equation}


the operator inside the path integral is not on-shell, which means that it is not zero. However, if we were working only with the photon field in $d=4$ then there's no way $\langle\Theta^\mu_{\ \mu}\rangle$ is not zero.


Is my reasoning correct?




group theory - What is an $mathrm{SU}(2)$ Triplet?


Under $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ group, a doublet transforms like: $$\phi \rightarrow \exp\left(i\frac{\sigma_i}{2}\theta_i\right)\phi.$$ The doublet looks like $$\binom{a}{b} ,$$ which is easy to understand because the matrix representation of $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ is a second order square matrix. What is a $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ triplet? What does it look like? And what's the matrix representation? Is it the $\mathrm{O}(3)$ group? If their is a $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ doublet, is there a $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ singlet?


I'm not very familiar with group theories, so I would much appreciate a detailed explanation. Also, what do these doublets and triplets mean physically?




Practical matter of the Higgs-Mechanism


My maybe very naive question is, of what practical importance will the discovery of the Higgs-Mechanism be for our technological advance in the near future?




visible light - Malus Law in Michelson Morley experiment



My book of physics (I don't quote it here, since it is in Catalan) says that in the 1887 Michelson - Morley experiment, after getting the transversal and longitudinal phase shifts, they claim that the number of fringer observed will belong to the number of times that both phase shifts contains 2 pi because that is the phase two maximums repeat. My question is: why is here said that waves should form maximums? Because as I understand it, the expected result was to obtain a destructive interference whose phase shift could be jsed to determine Earth's velocity. If they were expecting a destructive interference, shouldn't the book use the phase two minimums repeat?




thermodynamics - Can you use sun light to heat an objects surface to hotter than the surface of the Sun?



I was reading this question: Concentrating Sunlight to initiate fusion reaction and some of the comments, as well as an answer, suggest that thermodynamics second law prevents what I ask in the title. I was wondering if that is really the case because: 1) The sun and a small target (eg deuterium pellets) are not equal amounts of gas in equilibrium. 2) Even if equal amounts of gas aren't required, it's still more like focusing light from one side of the box onto a smaller region on the other side. 3) There is mass being converted into energy in the center of the sun which can flow from place to place and drive an engine.. in other words this set up wouldn't make perpetual motion or free lunch.


And here is my attempt at a calculation: The largest parabolic reflector I know about is 500 meters wide (area ~ 500*500*3.14 = 785000 m^2). The earths surface receives 1000 watts per square meter, so 785000*1000=785,000,000 J/s it was also pointed out in the other question that you can't focus onto an arbitrarily small point. So lets dump the energy into a cup of water no? Specific heat of water: 4.18 joules per gram per degrees c. grams, one cup of water weighs about 236 grams


So if we throw all those together we get: (785,000,000 J/s)/[(4.18 J/gc)(236 g)] = 795759 c/s



If the surface of the sun is 5505 degrees then ignoring losses how long would it take to heat the water that high from room temperature or 25 degrees c? (x seconds)(rate)=5505-25=5480


x~6.9*10-3 seconds


So in order to prevent the cup of water from exceeding the temperature at the surface of the sun it'd have to cool off quicker that that fraction of a second, of course it's going to boil and plasmafy and rapidly expand, but keep in mind that I'm using a relatively small telescope parabola we could do the same calculation but with a much larger diameter and get a much smaller x seconds. Also the more sunlight you capture the higher pressure it's going to put on the target which prevents cooling. I can't see why exceeding the surface temperature wouldn't be possible.


Edit:


I'm confident that the assertion in the above linked question (that you can't make the target hotter than the surface of the sun) is wrong. So basically my question is what is the theoretical problem, and how is the real problem different from the theoretical? Alternatively, if I'm wrong, and the real problem doesn't deviate significantly from the theoretical, then why is the above calculation misleading? In the above calculation I show that there is a relation between the square meters of cross section of the focusing optic (e.g. reflective parabola) and the number of seconds it would take to raise the target to the suns surface temperature. Some number of orders of magnitude more area, and it becomes inconceivable to me that the target would be able to cool off fast enough to not heat up higher than the specified temp. So is there some missing piece of physics that would forbid that?


As I understand it the theoretical problem stems from second law of thermodynamics. One statement of that is as follows - you can't use a colder body to spontaneously heat a hotter body. In other words you can't make a perfect refrigerator. Or refrigeration requires work to be done on the system. Perhaps the optics are doing the work? Which gives me an idea, if the system was just the reflector, target, and star, then perhaps the solar radiation pressure would push everything apart fast enough.




Thursday 25 June 2020

electric fields - Inserting dielectric slab into a capacitor


I studied that inserting the slab into a capacitor which is connected to a battery is difficult and we have to do the work, and inserting the slab into a disconnected capacitor is easy and we don't have to do any work. is it right? if it is right then how the direction of the force on slab in both situation differs? I thought that in both situations slab is attracted by the capacitor and we don't have to do the work in both situations. why the capacitor is pushing the slab outside in first situation?




electric circuits - Resistance of capacitors


Please I would like to know how the resistance of the plates of a capacitors work? Is it the same as a resistor? If yes, is there electric field inside the plates like inside a resistor?




newtonian mechanics - Why is normal force perpendicular?


I realize "normal" is just another word for perpendicular, but semantics aside, what causes normal force to be always perpendicular to the plane?


For example, on an inclined plane, why is it that the plane pushes the box outwards rather than directly against gravity? It seems to me that in order for there to be normal force, there must be a force trying to push the box directly into the plane, but gravity is going directly downwards, not into the plane.


enter image description here




Wednesday 24 June 2020

newtonian mechanics - If an object moving in a circle experiences centripetal force, then doesn't it also experience centrifugal force, because of Newton's third law?


When an object moves in a circle, there's an acceleration towards the center of the circle, the centripetal acceleration, which also gives us the centrifugal force (since $F = ma$ is the equation for a force and the acceleration of an object, therefore, is caused by a force). But according to newton's third law, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, which would mean that because of the centripetal force there's an equal force outwards, which I would say is the centrifugal force. But this is obviously not true since that would mean that the net acceleration on the object moving in the circle would be 0. So my question is, what is actually this reaction force that's created by the centripetal force, and where does the centrifugal force come from? I do know that the centrifugal force can be viewed as an inertial force in a certian reference frame, but is there any way to describe it in another way? I can imagine that the centripetal force may come from friction with the road if you're in a car and if the reaction force is the force into the ground it makes sense, except for the centrifugal force.



Answer



This is a common misinterpretation of Newton's third law, often stated as "to every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction." As you surmise, "action" and "reaction" refer to forces. However, they refer to forces acting on different things. Otherwise, nothing could accelerate, ever: if every force were always canceled out by an equal and opposite force, no force could ever do anything. Instead, forces occur between objects--say car and road, to take your example. The road exerts an inward force on the car, which, you're right, is the centripetal force. The equal and opposite force is exerted by the car, on the road. The two forces are acting on different things, so they do not cancel. This second force (the force exerted by the car on the road) is sometimes referred to as the "reactive centrifugal force," which is confusing, because it's different from the more common meaning of centrifugal force.


Tuesday 23 June 2020

How does the angle between two objects change relative velocity?


I apologize in advance if my question isn't clear.


If two objects start from the same position, but leave in opposite directions--say $40^0$ west of north, and $50^0$ east of north--how would an observer on one of the objects see the speed of the other? It doesn't make any sense to me that it would be the speed of one of the objects, added to the speed of the other, because there are angles involved. To find the speed relative to the observer would an equation for relative velocity in space be the best approach? Rather than an equation for relative velocity along a line.



Answer



Place the two objects on a Cartesian $(x,y)$ coordinate system, as shown below:



Relative velocities.


$v_1$ and $v_2$ are the scalar values (the magnitude, if you prefer) of the velocity vectors, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the angles between the respective vectors and the $x$ axis.


We can now calculate the $x$ and $y$ projections (components) of the vectors:


$x$ projections:


$v_{1,x}=v_1\cos\alpha$ and $v_{2,x}=-v_2\cos\beta$ ($v_{2,x}$ is negative because it points in the negative direction of the $x$ axis).


$y$ projections:


$v_{1,y}=v_1\sin\beta$ and $v_{2,y}=v_2\sin\beta$.


Now we can calculate the relative velocities in both $x$ and $y$ directons:


$x$: $v_{R,x}=v_{1,x}-v_{2,x}=(v_1+v_2)\cos\alpha$.


$y$: $v_{R,y}=v_{1,y}-v_{2,y}=(v_1-v_2)\sin\beta$.



gravity - Why aren't there spherical galaxies?




According to the Wikipedia page on Galaxy Types, there are four main kinds of galaxies:



  • Spirals - as the name implies, these look like huge spinning spirals with curved "arms" branching out

  • Ellipticals - look like a big disk of stars and other matter

  • Lenticulars - those that are somewhere in between the above two

  • Irregulars - galaxies that lack any sort of defined shape or form; pretty much everything else


Now, from what I can tell, these all appear to be 2D, that is, each galaxy's shape appears to be confined within some sort of invisible plane. But why couldn't a galaxy take a more 3D form?


So why aren't there spherical galaxies (ie: the stars and other objects are distributed within a 3D sphere, more or less even across all axes)? Or if there are, why aren't they more common?




Answer



All matter in the galaxy has to rotate (not necessarily in the same direction) so that a centrifugal force acts. Without the centrifugal force, all matter contained in the galaxy will collapse into the center of the galaxy due to gravitation. The rotation happens about an axis, a line about which all matter revolves in the galaxy. Now, the manner in which all the matter revolves around that axis is planar. Why is it planar and why does it have to rotate about an axis only? The answer to this question will decisively clear that doubt.


But how does the planar galaxy continue to retain planarity for billions of years?


Let's imagine that a planar galaxy has a few bodies which don't revolve around the central axis and have their own axis of rotation. In any direction perpendicular to that axis, centrifugal force keeps the body from collapsing into the center of the galaxy. In any direction parallel to that axis however, there is no such centrifugal force; but there is a component of the gravitational force from the matter contained in the planar galaxy below. This component of gravitational force keeps pulling the body toward the plane, and there is no force to stop it. Thus, even this body will eventually join the galactic plane. All such fringe bodies which do not obey to the galactic plane will be attracted by gravity to eventually join the plane. Therefore the galaxy manages to maintain planarity.


As Rob Jeffries pointed out, there are galaxies that are of spherical and other three-dimensional shapes. There, however, since there is no pre-existing plane of rotation, nothing is causing the matter to collapse into a plane. Therefore, those galaxies retain their three-dimensional shape.


acoustics - Open-open pipe standing waves


What is the physical explanation for how a travelling wave sent down an open-open end pipe reflect from the ends (even though they are open) to form a standing wave?




general relativity - S-duality of Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton theory


Consider theory with action


$$S = \int d^D x \sqrt{-g} (R - \frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi - \frac{1}{2k!} e^{a \phi} F^2 _{[k]} ) $$


where $\phi$ is dilaton and $F_{[k]}$ is electromagnetic $k$-form.


S-duality is the symmetry of this action


$$g_{\mu \nu} \to g_{\mu \nu} \ , \ \ F \to e^{- a \phi} \star F \ , \ \ \phi \to - \phi $$


I cannot understand why we have to use this transformation in order to get , for example, magnetic solution if electric one is already known. Why cannot we use only $F \to \star F \ , \ \ \phi \to \phi $ transformation?



Moreover, the equations of motion for magnetic solution are


$$\partial _\mu (\sqrt{-g} e^{a \phi} F^ {\mu \alpha_2 ... \alpha_k } ) = 0$$ And it is claimed that magnetic solution of this equation (for diagonal radially symmetric metric) is


$$F_{[k]} = \frac{P}{R^{D-2}} d\theta_1 \wedge ... \wedge d\theta_k$$


But I cannot understand why it does not depend on dilaton via $e^{- a \phi}$ as electric solution does.




Monday 22 June 2020

thermodynamics - After what speed air friction starts to heat up an object?



I understand that air friction cools off an object at low speeds. For example, if you blow on a spoon of hot soup, it cools off. Or if you swing a hot frying pan in the air, it cools off faster.


But at higher speeds, the situation changes in the opposite. For example, consider a meteor falling on Earth. It is so fast that it heats up to such a high temperature that it burns into ashes.


What is the critical speed in which an object starts to heat up?


For example, consider a spherical object with radius of 1 meter. Let its density be 1 g/cm3 if needed. And let the air pressure be 1 atm. Assume that the temperature of the object is 400 K and the temperature of the air is 300 K. Also assume that the specific heat constant of the material is 1 cal/(gr.K). What is the critical speed for this object after which its temperature starts to rise above 500 K?



Answer



John's answer is a good one, I just wanted to add some equations and addition thought. Let me start here:



Heating is really only significant when you get a shock wave i.e. above the speed of sound.



The question asks specifically about a $200^{\circ} C$ increase in temperature in the atmosphere. This qualifies as "significant" heating, and the hypothesis that this would only happen at supersonic speeds is valid, which I'll show here.



When something moves through a fluid, heating happens of both the object and the air. Trivially, the total net heating is $F d$, the drag force times the distance traveled. The problem is that we don't know what the breakdown is between the object and the air is. This dichotomy is rather odd, because consider that in steady-state movement all of the heating goes to the air. The object will heat up, and if it continues to move at the same speed (falling at terminal velocity for instance), it is cooled by the air the exact same amount it is heated by the air.


When considering the exact heating mechanisms, there is heating from boundary layer friction on the surface of the object and there are forms losses from eddies that ultimately are dissipated by viscous heating. After thinking about it, I must admit I think John's suggestion is the most compelling - that the compression of the air itself is what matters most. Since a $1 m$ ball in air is specified, this should be a fairly high Reynolds number, and the skin friction shouldn't matter quite as much as the heating due to stagnation on the leading edge.


Now, the exact amount of pressure increase at the stagnation point may not be exactly $1/2 \rho v^2$, but it's close to that. Detailed calculations for drag should give an accurate number, but I don't have those, so I'll use that expression. We have air, at $1 atm$, with the prior assumption the size of the sphere doesn't matter, I'll say that air ambient is at $293 K$, and the density is $1.3 kg/m^3$. We'll have to look at this as an adiabatic compression of a diatomic gas, giving:


$$\frac{T_2}{T_1} = \left( \frac{P_2}{P_1} \right)^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}$$


Diatomic gases have:


$$\gamma=\frac{7}{5}$$


Employ the stagnation pressure expression to get:


$$\frac{P_2}{P_1} = \frac{P1+\frac{1}{2} \rho v^2}{P1} = 1+\frac{1}{2} \rho v^2 / P1 $$


Put these together to get:


$$\frac{T_2}{T_1} = \left( 1+\frac{1}{2} \rho v^2 / P1 \right)^{2/7}$$



Now, our requirement is that $T2/T1\approx (293+200)/293 \approx 1.7$. I get this in the above expression by plugging in a velocity of about $2000 mph$. At that point, however, there might be more complicated physics due to the supersonic flow. To elaborate, the compression process at supersonic speeds might dissipate more energy than an ideal adiabatic compression. I'm not an expert in supersonic flow, and you can say the calculations here assumed subsonic flow, and the result illustrates that this is not a reasonable assumption.




addition:


The Concorde could fly at about Mach 2. The ambient temperature is much lower than room temperature, but the heatup compared to ambient was about $182 K$ for the skin and $153 K$ for the nose. This is interesting because it points to boundary layer skin friction playing a bigger role than I suspected, but that is also wrapped up in the physics of the sonic wavefront which I haven't particularly studied.


You have to ask yourself, what pressure is the nose at and what pressure is the skin at. The flow separates (going under or above the craft) at some point, and that should be the highest pressure, but maybe it's not the highest temperature, and I can't really explain why. We've pretty much reached the limit of the back-of-the-envelope calculations.


(note: I messed up the $\gamma$ value at first and then changed it after a comment. This caused the value to go from 1000 mph to 2000 mph. This is actually much more consistent with the Concorde example since it gets <200 K heating at Mach 2.)


quantum mechanics - Does electron being many places at the same time violate Physics laws?


The following passage has been extracted from the book Parallel Worlds, by Michio Kaku:



Because of uncertainty, the electron does not exist at any single point, but exists in all possible points around the nucleus. This electron “cloud” surrounding the nucleus represents the electron being many places at the same time...... Modern civilization would collapse, in fact, if electrons were not allowed to be in two places at the same time. (The molecules of our body would also collapse without this bizarre principle. Imagine two solar systems colliding in space, obeying Newton’s laws of gravity. The colliding solar systems would collapse into a chaotic jumble of planets and asteroids. Similarly, if the atoms obeyed Newton’s laws, they would disintegrate whenever they bumped into another atom. What keeps two atoms locked in a stable molecule is the fact that electrons can simultaneously be in so many places at the same time that they form an electron “cloud” which binds the atoms together. Thus, the reason why molecules are stable and the universe does not disintegrate is that electrons can be many places at the same time.)



If I am not wrong, the passage says that an electron (not the parts of an electron) can be found in many places at the same time. Is that right? A layman always wants to hear twice!


An electron carries the properties of mass, charge, etc. If it can be in different places at the same time, doesn't it violate conservation laws?




acoustics - Is it possible to create an audible sound source in mid air by intersecting ultrasonic sound beams?


In the book Daemon by Daniel Suarez a technique gets described, that enables a device to create an acoustical illusion of a moving person inside a house.



Just then a voice called out clearly from the end of the hallway upstairs. ‘Who’s there?’ […] No reply. But they heard walking again. The footsteps came down the marble stairs to their right, some distance away from them. They could clearly see the staircase, but no one was there. They could hear the sound of a hand sliding down the metal railing. […] The footsteps were moving across the floor to them now. […] Then, in midair not five feet in front of them, a man’s voice shouted, ‘You don’t belong here!’ (page 94)



As I searched the internet for more information on the mind-shaking technology described by Suarez, I just encountered papers (and videos) on the use of a single hypersonic sound beam, that creates audible sound where it hits a surface. This leads to an effect that most people describe as a 'god voice' similar to the experience of the use of bone conducting speakers.


However what I am searching for is an answer to the question, if it is possible to create sound in mid air (at a chosen position in 3D space) as the author is shaping the picture of the technology, cited below.




A HyperSonic Sound system – or HSS – does not use physical speakers. HSS pulsates quartz crystals at a frequency thousands of times faster than the vibrations in a normal speaker – creating ultrasonic waves at frequencies far beyond human hearing. Unlike lower-frequency sound, these waves travel in a tight path – a beam. Two beams can be focused to intersect each other, and where they interact they produce a third sonic wave whose frequency is exactly the difference between the two original sounds. In HSS that difference will fall within the range of human hearing – and will appear to come from thin air. This is known as a Tartini Tone – in honor of Giuseppe Tartini, the eighteenth-century Italian composer who first discovered this principle.





PS: The reason why I even bother to search for information about a technology mentioned in a novel, is the author's concern, to just describe technology, that is in development in some lab and not placed in science fiction. He has a website for the description of some technology used in his book.



Answer



It isn't possible to create an audio source in mid-air using the method you've described. This is because the two ultrasonic waves would create an audible source if the listener were standing at that spot, but those waves would continue to propagate in the same direction afterwards. You would need, as I point out below, some sort of medium which scattered the waves in all directions to make it seem as if the sound were coming from the point at which you interfered the two waves.


It is possible, however, to make the user percieve the sound as coming from a specific location, but it isn't as easy as the author makes it seem. I can think of two different ways. First of all, as described by @reirab, you can get audio frequencies by interfering two sound waves of high frequency. When they interfere they will generate a beat note which has the frequency of the difference between the two frequencies. I.E. if you send a sound beam with frequency $f_1=200\ \text{kHz}$ and another beam with $f_2=210\ \text{kHz}$, the frequency heard in the region where they combine will be $\Delta f-=f_2-f_1=10\ \text{kHz}$ which is in the audio band of humans.


There is an additional difficulty. You will need the sound to come out in a well-defined, narrow (collimated) beam, and this is not terribly easy to do. A typical speaker emits sound in all directions. There are many techniques for generating such beams, but one is to use a phased array.


How can you use this to make a person perceive the sound as coming from a specific point?





Sending Two Different Volumes to the Two Ears


What does it mean to perceive sound as coming from a specific location? Our ears are just microphones with cones which accept sound mostly from one direction (excepting low frequencies). A large part of the way we determine where the sound came from is just the relative volume in our two ears. So, you could use the interference effect described above with beams which are narrow enough that you can target each ear. By using two separate sets of beams targeting each ear with different volumes, you could make the person perceive the sound as coming from a specific location; at least as well as a 3D movie makes a person perceive images in 3D.




Hitting a Material Which Scattered the Sound Isotropically


The second method is to use the same interference effect, but this time combining the two beams at a point where a material scattered the sound waves in all directions. I'm going to be honest, I'm not sure how realistic such materials are, but lets assume they exist for now. If you did so, the two sound beams would be scattered with equal amplitude in all directions and the person you are trying to fool would percieve the sound as coming from this point. This method has the advantage of truly sounding to the person as if the sound came from that direction in all respects including reflections, phasing, etc.


In summary, the idea is definitely possible (maybe there are more ways than I've given), but it isn't as simple as the passage in the book makes it out to be.


waves - A question on using Fourier decomposition to solve the Klein Gordon equation


Given the Klein Gordon equation $$\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=0$$ it is possible to find a solution $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$ by carrying out a Fourier decomposition of the scalar field $\phi$ at a given instant in time $t$, such that $$\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=\int\frac{d^{3}x}{(2\pi)^{3}}\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}$$ where $\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)$ are the Fourier modes of the corresponding field $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$.


From this we can calculate the required evolution of the Fourier modes $\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)$ such that at each instant in time $t$, $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$ is a solution to the Klein Gordon equation. This can be done, following on from the above, as follows: $$\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\int\frac{d^{3}x}{(2\pi)^{3}}\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;\,\\ =\int\frac{d^{3}x}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[\left(\partial^{2}_{t}+\mathbf{k}^{2}+m^{2}\right)\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)\right]e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}} =0\\ \Rightarrow \left(\partial^{2}_{t}+\mathbf{k}^{2}+m^{2}\right)\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)=0 \qquad\qquad\qquad$$


Question: This is all well and good, but why is it that in this case we only perform a Fourier decomposition of the spatial part only, whereas in other cases, such as for finding solutions for propagators (Green's functions), we perform a Fourier decomposition over all 4 spacetime coordinates? [e.g. $$G(x-y)=\int\frac{d^{4}x}{(2\pi)^{4}}\tilde{G}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{ik\cdot x}$$ (where in this case $k\cdot x\equiv k_{\mu}x^{\mu}$).]


Is it simply because when we construct the appropriate QFT for a scalar field we do so in the Heisenberg picture, or is there something else to it?


Apologies if this is a really dumb question but it's really been bugging me for a while and I want to get the reasoning straight in my mind!



Answer



Notation: $x=(t,\boldsymbol x)$; $k=(k_0,\boldsymbol k)$; $kx=k_0t-\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x$; $\mathrm dx=\mathrm dt\;\mathrm d^3\boldsymbol x$; etc.


You can in principle perform the Fourier decomposition on both space and time variables, but to do so you'll need several properties of the Dirac's delta funciton:



The first one is: let $\xi\in\mathbb R$; then $$ \delta(f(\xi))=\sum_{f(\xi_i)=0} \frac{\delta(\xi-\xi_i)}{|f'(\xi_i)|} \tag{1} $$ where the sum is over every $\xi_i$ such that $f(\xi_i)=0$, ie, over the roots of $f(\xi)$.


The second one is that, given $g(\xi)$ a known function, the distributional solution of $g(\xi)f(\xi)=0$ is $f(\xi)=h(\xi)\delta(g(\xi))$ for an arbitrary function $h(\xi)$. If you believe these, then the Fourier decomposition is as follows:


Let $\phi(x)$ be the solution of $$ (\partial^2+m^2)\phi(x)=0 $$


Take the Fourier transform of the equation to find $$ (k^2-m^2)\phi(k)=0 \tag{2} $$ where $$ \phi(k)=\int \mathrm dx\ \mathrm e^{ikx} \phi(x) $$


As $\phi(x)$ is a distribution, the solution of $(2)$ is $\phi(k)=h(k)\delta(k^2-m^2)$ for an arbitrary function $h(k)$. Inverting the Fourier Transform, we find $$ \phi(x)=\int\mathrm dk\ \mathrm e^{-ikx}h(k)\delta(k^2-m^2) $$


Next, use $(1)$ to expand the delta over the roots of $k^2-m^2$. These roots are easily found to be $k_0=\pm \omega(\boldsymbol k)$, where $\omega(\boldsymbol k)=+(\boldsymbol k^2+m^2)^{1/2}$. Therefore, it is immediate to get $$ \phi(x)=\int\mathrm dk\ \mathrm e^{-ikx}h(k)\frac{1}{2\omega}\left[\delta(k_0-\omega)+\delta(k_0+\omega)\right] $$ and, after integrating over $\mathrm dk_0$ using the deltas, we find $$ \phi(x)=\int\frac{\mathrm d \boldsymbol k}{2\omega}\ \left[\mathrm e^{-i\omega t} \mathrm e^{i\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x}h(\omega,\boldsymbol k)+\mathrm e^{+i\omega t} \mathrm e^{i\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x}h(-\omega,\boldsymbol k)\right] $$


Finally, make the change of variable $\boldsymbol k\to-\boldsymbol k$ in the second term, which yeilds the usual expansion $$ \phi(x)=\int\frac{\mathrm d \boldsymbol k}{2\omega}\ \left[\mathrm e^{-ikx}a(\boldsymbol a)+\mathrm e^{+ikx}b^\dagger(\boldsymbol k)\right] $$ where I have defined $a(\boldsymbol k)=h(\omega,\boldsymbol k)$ and $b^\dagger(\boldsymbol k)=h(-\omega,-\boldsymbol k)$.


As you can see, the solution is the same as yours (modulo some irrelevant prefactor that can be reabsorbed into the definition of $h(k)$), though the algebraic procedure to find it is a bit harder.


quantum mechanics - Differential equation (Greens function) satisfied by the kernel using path integrals


I'm reading Feynman and Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. How do I show that the kernel


$$\tag{2-25} K(x_2 ,t_2;x_1, t_1)=\int_{x=x_1}^{x=x_2}\mathcal{D}x~ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S[2,1]}$$


satisfies the differential equation


$$\tag{4-29} \frac{\partial K(2,1)}{\partial t_2}+\frac{i}{\hbar}H_2K(2,1)=\delta(x_2-x_1)\delta(t_2-t_1)~?$$


I know that the kernel satisfies the Schrodinger equation for $t_2 > t_1$, but how do I show the delta's on the RHS as $t_2 \to t_1$. Firstly, it is clear $=\delta(x_2-x_1)$, so that $\lim_{t_2 \to t_1}K(2,1)=\delta (x_2-x_1)$. But is there any method to prove this w/o using the transition amplitude interpretation i.e. directly from the definition as the integral over exponent of actions? Can I evaluate this integral in the $t_2 \to t_1$ limit, and show it as the delta function.


Secondly, why does the LHS acting on the delta function of $x$, give the RHS. It seems to me that the derivative wrt. time, introduces the delta function of time, and the Hamiltonian leaves it unchanged? This is clearly wrong IMO, for e.g. the free particle where the Laplacian should give a term $\delta^{\prime \prime}(x_2-x_1)$. What happens to this term?



Answer



I) Notational issues: Greens function vs. kernel. First of all, be aware that Ref. 1 between eq. (4-27) and eq. (4-28) effectively introduces the retarded Greens function/propagator



$$\tag{A} G(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)~=~\theta(\Delta t)~K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1), \qquad \Delta t~:=~t_2-t_1,$$


rather than the kernel/path integral


$$ K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)~=~\langle x_2,t_2 | x_1,t_1 \rangle~=~\langle x_2|U(t_2,t_1)|x_1 \rangle$$ $$ ~=~\int_{x(t_1)=x_1}^{x(t_2)=x_2} \! {\cal D}x~ \exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \!dt ~L\right] .\tag{B} $$


Here $\theta$ denotes the Heaviside step function, and the Lagrangian


$$\tag{C} L~:=~\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2-V(x)$$


is the Lagrangian for a non-relativistic point particle in 1 dimension with a potential $V$.


However, Ref. 1 confusingly denotes the Greens function $G$ with the same letter $K$ as the kernel! See also e.g. this and this Phys.SE posts. Therefore the eq. (4-29) in Ref. 1, which OP asks about, is better written as


$$\tag{D} D_2 G(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~=~\delta(\Delta t)~\delta(\Delta x), \qquad \Delta x~:=~x_2-x_1, $$


where we introduced the Schrödinger differential operator


$$D_2~:= ~\frac{\partial}{\partial t_2} + \frac{i}{\hbar}\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}+V(x_2)\right)$$ $$\tag{E} ~=~\frac{\partial}{\partial t_2} + \frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}+\frac{i}{\hbar}V(x_2).$$



II) Proof of eq. (D). The sought-for eq. (D) follows directly from eq. (A) together with the following two properties (F) & (G) of the kernel $K$:


$$\tag{F} D_2 K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~=~0, $$


and


$$\tag{G} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~\longrightarrow~\delta(\Delta x) \quad \text{for} \quad \Delta t \to 0^+. $$ $\Box$


III) So we can reformulate OP's question as follows.



Why the path integral (B) satisfies eqs. (F) & (G)?



Rather than going on a definition chase, perhaps the following heuristic derivation of eqs. (F) & (G) is the most convincing/satisfying/instructive. For sufficiently short times $|\Delta t| \ll \tau$, where $\tau$ is some characteristic time scale, i.e. in the diabatic limit, the particle only has time to feel an averaged effect of the potential $V$. So, using methods of Ref. 1, in that limit $|\Delta t| \ll \tau$, the path integral (B) reads


$$\tag{H} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~=~\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\pi i\hbar \Delta t}} \exp\left\{ \frac{i}{\hbar}\left[ \frac{m}{2} \frac{(\Delta x)^2}{\Delta t}- \langle V\rangle \Delta t \right]\right\}, $$



where the averaged potential is of the form


$$\tag{I} \langle V\rangle ~=~ V\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2}\right)+{\cal O}(\Delta x) ~=~ V(x_2)+{\cal O}(\Delta x)~=~ V(x_1)+{\cal O}(\Delta x). $$


IV) Proof of eq. (G). Note that it is implicitly assumed in eq. (H) that ${\rm Re}(i\Delta t)>0$ is slightly positive via the pertinent $i\epsilon$-prescription. Equation (G) then follows directly from eq. (H) via the heat kernel representation


$$\tag{J} \delta(x)~=~ \lim_{|\alpha|\to \infty} \sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{\pi}} e^{-\alpha x^2}, \qquad {\rm Re}(\alpha)~>~0, $$


of the Dirac delta distribution. $\Box$


V) Proof of eq. (F) for sufficiently small times $|\Delta t| \ll \tau$. It is a straightforward to check that eq. (H) satisfies the eq. (F) modulo contributions that vanish as $\Delta t\to 0$, cf. the following Lemma. $\Box$



Lemma. For sufficiently small times $|\Delta t| \ll \tau$, the path integral (H) satisfies $$\tag{K} D_2 K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~=~{\cal O}(\Delta t). $$



Sketched proof of eq. (K): Straightforward differentiation yields



$$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t_2} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)~\stackrel{(H)}{=}~-\left\{\frac{1}{2\Delta t} +\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[ \frac{m}{2} \left(\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}\right)^2+ \langle V\rangle +{\cal O}(\Delta t) \right]\right\} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1),\tag{L} $$


$$ \frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~\stackrel{(H)}{=}~\left\{m \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} +{\cal O}(\Delta t) \right\} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1), \tag{M}$$


$$ \frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} K((x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~\stackrel{(H)}{=}~\left\{\frac{1}{2\Delta t} +\frac{i}{\hbar} \frac{m}{2} \left(\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}\right)^2 +{\cal O}(\Delta t) \right\} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1). \tag{N}$$


Also note that


$$ \tag{O} \left\{V(x_2)-\langle V\rangle \right\}K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~\stackrel{(I)}{=}~{\cal O}(\Delta x) K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1) ~\stackrel{(G)}{=}~{\cal O}(\Delta t), $$


due to eqs. (I) and (G). The Lemma now follows by combining eqs. (E), (L), (N) & (O). $\Box$


VI) Proof of eq. (F) for large $\Delta t$. We use the path integral property


$$\tag{2-31} K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)~=~\int_{\mathbb{R}} \! dx_3~ K(x_2,t_2;x_3,t_3)~K(x_3,t_3;x_1,t_1), $$


which is independent of the instant $t_3$. We now pinch the instant $t_3$ sufficiently close to the instant $t_2$, so that we can approximate the path integral $K(x_2,t_2;x_3,t_3)$ by the analog of eq. (H). If we apply the operator $D_2$ on the kernel, we get


$$ D_2 K(x_2,t_2;x_1,t_1)~\stackrel{(2-31)}{=}~\int_{\mathbb{R}} \! dx_3~ D_2 K(x_2,t_2;x_3,t_3)~K(x_3,t_3;x_1,t_1)$$ $$ ~\stackrel{(K)}{=}~\int_{\mathbb{R}} \! dx_3~ {\cal O}(t_2-t_3)~K(x_3,t_3;x_1,t_1)~=~{\cal O}(t_2-t_3) .\tag{P}$$



Since the lhs. of eq. (P) does not depend on $t_3$, we conclude that it is zero. Hence eq. (F) also holds for large $\Delta t$ as well. $\Box$


References:



  1. R.P. Feynman & A.R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, 1965.


buoyancy - why does an object float in the centre of water?



It is pretty clear from archimedes that how an object behaves in terms of floating and sinking when submerged in a liquid is cleary a matter of density of both the object and the liquid. SO consider an infinitely big aquarium , in front of which a man is standing ; the man somehow throws balls into the middle of the aquarium with a finite horizontal velocity. These balls have a density that is equal to that of the liquid in the aquarium . These balls will stop after some time , but after the balls have stopped will they continue to rise vertically in the aquarium ? some time later ............... the same man throws balls vertically into a river . this time also the balls have same velocity as that of water. When the balls stop will rise up or remain at that position where they have stopped ?


the Archimedes principle tells me that they will not rise but remain at that spot. I just need a reassurance !


Also i need to clarify one more fact ; if thrown vertically in a big body of water, is it possible for a object with a greater density than that of water to stop midway in the river due to greater density at that point or does this type of object have a enough water level above it which will cancel out the effects of the greater density below ?




Sunday 21 June 2020

laser - Doppler cooling limit vs recoil limit


I was discussing laser cooling in class today and I understood that the main principle of the process is to tune a laser to a frequency lower than the absorbtion frequency of the atom and so only the atoms with a certain velocity will absorb the photons. These atoms then re-emit a photon in a random direction thus on average cooling the atom. But I didn't understand the difference between the so called 'doppler cooling limit' and the recoil limit.


I've read on hyperphysics.com that the doppler cooling limit has something to do with random walk motion. Isn't this, though, just the atom recoiling in random directions thus the recoil limit?


Could someone explain the difference?



Answer



The Doppler cooling limit is due to the fact that as the atoms absorb photons and spontaneously emit them in random directions they will not only have momentum no smaller than that of a laser photon, but they must also scatter one photon momentum in a random direction every natural lifetime of the excited state. If this lifetime is short then the random walk in momentum space occurs at a rate too fast to remain near the origin.


On the other hand, if the spontaneous emission rate is not an issue then the atoms really can get to having a single photon momentum and have the associated temperature, $T_\textrm{recoil}=\frac{1}{k_B}\frac{(\hbar k)^2}{2m}$, which is usually quite lower than one can achieve by Doppler cooling. This, however, requires more complex methods like Sisyphus cooling to reach. The difference is that this second class of methods relies on coherent scattering of photons from one beam into a second beam with opposite direction and polarization. Doppler cooling, on the other hand, requires spontaneous emission of photons, and is therefore controlled by the natural lifetime of the excited state - or, equivalently, its inverse, the natural linewidth $\gamma$.



To see how this happens, consider the total heating and cooling power of the beam, at intensities far below saturation. The total heating power is roughly one photon's kinetic energy per natural lifetime, so it's $\frac{(\hbar k)^2}{2m}\gamma$.$^1$ The force on the atoms is roughly the photon momentum times the detuning (why? because $F$ must be proportional to $v$ at low $v$ for the cooling to work, and $v$ can only enter through the detuning $kv$ as this is Doppler cooling. This is a rate and $F$ is a rate of loss of momentum, so one must have $F=\hbar k\cdot kv$). The cooling power is then $Fv=\hbar k^2 v^2$.


If one then equates both these rates of energy flow, as they will be in equilibrium, one gets $\gamma\hbar^2 k^2/2m=\hbar k^2 v^2$, and the mean velocity will be $$ \frac{1}{2}k_B T_\textrm{Doppler}=\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{1}{4}\hbar \gamma. $$


Why then does this scale like that? Think about it in the large-$\gamma$ limit. (How large is large? Naturally, the comparison is $\hbar \gamma \gg \hbar^2 k^2/2m$ so the following effect trumps the recoil limit.) In effect, you not only have to have one-photon kinetic energy at all times, but you also have to add to the atom's velocity a one-photon momentum, in a random direction, every natural lifetime. If $\gamma$ is relatively large then you need to do this quite often! This of course means that you will not get down to single-photon momentum because the random walk insists on carrying you away from that zone around the origin faster than you can cool down the atom. If $\gamma$ increases, then the rate of the random walk increases, and at constant cooling power that will imply a higher mean amplitude for the random walk.




$^1$ Both the cooling and heating power must be multiplied by the intensity, suitably normalized, and near saturation are more complicated functions of it. For the present treatment one can ignore this since both heating and cooling are proportional to the intensity in the far-below-saturation regime.


Why metals fused in vacuum?



On Earth when two pieces of metal comes into direct contact with each other, nothing amazing happens. In a complete vacuum condition the two metals fused permanently, how and why?



Answer



In theory, yes – it’s an effect called ‘cold welding’ by which the metallic bonds that hold atoms together in each object effectively ‘bridge the gap’ between them to create a single solid object. In practice, this rarely happens on Earth because most metals form a protective oxide layer where their surface is exposed to the atmosphere. Slight bumps and irregularities in metallic surfaces also prevent this from happening. Even when metals are taken into space, the oxide layer remains – but, of course, if you deliberately polished it off then, yes, the two metals would fuse together, and that’s something satellite and spacecraft designers need to bear in mind.


thermodynamics - Colder surface radiates to warmer surface


When radiation from a colder source arrives at a warmer surface there is some debate about what happens next. To make the question more concrete lets say that the colder source is at temperature 288K. The warmer surface is at 888K and has emissivity of 1. 3 possibilities



  1. We ignore such radiation because it cannot happen.

  2. The radiation is subtracted from the much larger radiation of every wavelength leaving the hotter surface.

  3. The radiation is fully absorbed and its effect is to be re radiated at characteristic temperature of 888K (plus infinitesimally small T increase due to radiation absorption).


I would have thought that 2. and 3 are more plausible than 1.



Both 2 and 3 satisfy the Stephan Boltzmann equation. 3 however seems to imply that the radiation from colder object is transformed into much higher quality radiation and a possible second law of thermodynamics infringement.




differential geometry - Why is it that every locally conformal transformation can be extended to a global conformal transformation for $D>2$?


In $D=2$, we can have locally analytic transformations that cannot be globally well-defined.


However, for CFTs in $D>2$, we have only the global group. Why is that?


Also, is it a statement that depends on topology? Any references on that?



Answer





  1. Let $\overline{\mathbb{R}^{p,q}}$ denote the conformal compactification of $\mathbb{R}^{p,q}$. Let $n:=p+q$ denote the dimension.





  2. (The pseudo-Riemannian generalization of) Liouville's rigidity theorem states that if $n\geq 3$, then all local conformal transformations of $\overline{\mathbb{R}^{p,q}}$ can be extended to global conformal transformations. For a proof, see e.g. this Phys.SE post.




  3. The upshot of Liouville's rigidity theorem is that for $n\geq 3$ there are only relatively few local conformal transformations of $\overline{\mathbb{R}^{p,q}}$ [which consist of (composition of) translations, similarities, orthogonal transformations and inversions], and these are easily extendable to global ones.




  4. On the other hand, for $n=2$, there are many more local conformal transformations. See also e.g. this Phys.SE post.





  5. Similar rigidity results (in the smooth case) hold on any conformal manifold $M$, cf. Wikipedia.




quantum mechanics - Why doesn't the no-cloning theorem make lasers impossible?


As I understand lasers, you start off with a few photons that are in an identical state, and other photons that are created later tend to have the same quantum numbers due to Einstein-Bose statistics. Isn't each photon that "joins" the group of preexisting ones a clone of the previous ones? Why doesn't this violate the no-cloning theorem?



Answer



As Rococo already pointed out, the no-cloning theorem doesn't forbid cloning of all specific states. It just states that you cannot make copies of arbitrary (general) states.


Let me (briefly) reiterate the core of the theorem: To clone a state you need a linear operator C that maps a state $|a\rangle|0\rangle$ to $|a\rangle|a\rangle$. This is not possible for general states: $$C |\lambda a+ \mu b\rangle|0\rangle$$ would have to map to $$|\lambda a+\mu b\rangle|\lambda a+ \mu b\rangle$$ per definition of the operator. But linearity (and homogenity) leads to $$C |\lambda a+\mu b\rangle|0\rangle = \lambda C|a\rangle|0\rangle + \mu C|b\rangle|0\rangle = \lambda|a\rangle|a\rangle + \mu |b\rangle|b\rangle$$ while $$ |\lambda a+ \mu b\rangle|\lambda a+ \mu b\rangle = \lambda^2|a\rangle|a\rangle +\lambda \mu (|a\rangle|b\rangle+|b\rangle|a\rangle)+\mu^2|b\rangle|b\rangle$$


So you see that for e.g. $\lambda=1, \mu=0$ (i.e. a base state) there is no contradiction. But you can't clone a general superposition of your base states.


Saturday 20 June 2020

general relativity - Can the vanishing of the Riemann tensor be determined from causal relations?


Given a Lorentzian manifold and metric tensor, "$( M, g )$", the corresponding causal relations between its elements (events) may be derived; i.e. for every pair (in general) of distinct events in set $M$ an assignment is obtained whether it is timelike separated, or lightlike separated, or neither (spacelike separated).


In turn, I'd like to better understand whether causal separation relations, given abstractly as "$( M, s )$", allow to characterize the corresponding Lorentzian manifold/metric. As an exemplary and surely relevant characteristic (cmp. answer here) let's consider whether the Riemann curvature tensor vanishes, or not, at each event of the whole set $M$ (or perhaps suitable subsets of $M$).


Are there particular causal separation relations which would be indicative, or counter-indicative, of the Riemann curvature tensor vanishing at all events of set $M$ (or if this may simplify considerations: at all events of a chart of the manifold); or on some subset of $M$?



To put my question still more concretely, consider as possible illustration of "counter-indication":


(a)
Can any chart of a 3+1 dimensional Lorentzian manifold with everywhere vanishing Riemann curvature tensor (or, at least, a whole such manifold) contain [Edit in consideration of 1st comment (by twistor59): -- the Riemann curvature tensor vanish at least in one event of a 3+1 dimensional Lorentzian manifold if each of its charts contains -- ]




  • fifteen events (conveniently organized as five triples):


    $A, B, C$; $\,\,\,\, F, G, H$; $\,\,\,\, J, K, L$; $\,\,\,\, N, P, Q\,\,\,\,$, and $\,\,\,\, U, V, W$,




  • where (to specify the causal separation relations among all corresponding one-hundred-and-five event pairs):



    $s[ A, B ]$ and $s[ A, C ]$ and $s[ B, C ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ F, G ]$ and $s[ F, H ]$ and $s[ G, H ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ J, K ]$ and $s[ J, L ]$ and $s[ K, L ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ N, P ]$ and $s[ N, Q ]$ and $s[ P, Q ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ U, V ]$ and $s[ U, W ]$ and $s[ V, W ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ A, G ]$ and $s[ G, C ]$ and $s[ A, K ]$ and $s[ K, C ]$ and
    $s[ A, P ]$ and $s[ P, C ]$ and $s[ A, V ]$ and $s[ V, C ]$ are lightlike,


    $s[ F, B ]$ and $s[ B, H ]$ and $s[ F, K ]$ and $s[ K, H ]$ and
    $s[ F, P ]$ and $s[ P, H ]$ and $s[ F, V ]$ and $s[ V, H ]$ are lightlike,


    $s[ J, B ]$ and $s[ B, L ]$ and $s[ J, G ]$ and $s[ G, L ]$ and

    $s[ J, P ]$ and $s[ P, L ]$ and $s[ J, V ]$ and $s[ V, L ]$ are lightlike,


    $s[ N, B ]$ and $s[ B, Q ]$ and $s[ N, G ]$ and $s[ G, Q ]$ and
    $s[ N, K ]$ and $s[ K, Q ]$ and $s[ N, V ]$ and $s[ V, Q ]$ are lightlike,


    $s[ U, B ]$ and $s[ B, W ]$ and $s[ U, G ]$ and $s[ G, W ]$ and
    $s[ U, K ]$ and $s[ K, W ]$ and $s[ U, P ]$ and $s[ P, W ]$ are lightlike,


    the separations of all ten pairs among the events $A, F, J, N, U$ are spacelike,
    the separations of all ten pairs among the events $B, G, K, P, V$ are spacelike,
    the separations of all ten pairs among the events $C, H, L, Q, W$ are spacelike, and finally


    the separations of all twenty remaining event pairs are timelike
    ?





Conversely, consider as possible illustration of "indication":


(b)
Is there a 3+1 dimensional Lorentzian manifold with everywhere vanishing Riemann curvature tensor (or, at least, one of its charts) which doesn't [Edit in consideration of 1st comment (by twistor59): -- nowhere vanishing Riemann curvature tensor such that all of its charts -- ] contain




  • twenty-four events, conveniently organized as


    four triples ($A, B, C$; $\,\,\,\, F, G, H$; $\,\,\,\, J, K, L$; $\,\,\,\, N, P, Q$) and


    six pairs ($D, E$; $\,\,\,\, S, T$; $\,\,\,\, U, V$; $\,\,\,\, W, X$; $\,\,\,\, Y, Z$; $\,\,\,\, {\it\unicode{xA3}}, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,}$),





  • where (again explicitly, please bear with me$\, \!^*$):


    the sixty-six separations among the twelve events belonging to the four triples are exactly as in question part (a),


    each of the six pairs is timelike separated,


    the separations of all fifteen pairs among the events $D, S, U, W, Y, {\it\unicode{xA3}}$ are spacelike,
    the separations of all fifteen pairs among the events $E, T, V, X, Z, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,}$ are spacelike,


    $s[ D, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ and $s[ S, Z ]$ and $s[ U, X ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ E, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ and $s[ T, Y ]$ and $s[ V, W ]$ are spacelike,


    $s[ A, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ and $s[ A, Y ]$ and $s[ A, W ]$ are spacelike,

    $s[ A, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ and $s[ A, Z ]$ and $s[ A, X ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ A, E ]$ and $s[ A, T ]$ and $s[ A, V ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ C, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ and $s[ C, Z ]$ and $s[ C, X ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ C, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ and $s[ C, Y ]$ and $s[ C, W ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ C, D ]$ and $s[ C, S ]$ and $s[ C, U ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ F, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ and $s[ F, D ]$ and $s[ F, S ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ F, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ and $s[ F, E ]$ and $s[ F, T ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ F, V ]$ and $s[ F, X ]$ and $s[ F, Z ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ H, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ and $s[ H, E ]$ and $s[ H, T ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ H, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ and $s[ H, D ]$ and $s[ H, S ]$ are timelike,

    $s[ H, U ]$ and $s[ H, W ]$ and $s[ H, Y ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ J, D ]$ and $s[ J, U ]$ and $s[ J, Y ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ J, E ]$ and $s[ J, V ]$ and $s[ J, Z ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ J, T ]$ and $s[ J, X ]$ and $s[ J, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ L, E ]$ and $s[ L, V ]$ and $s[ L, Z ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ L, D ]$ and $s[ L, U ]$ and $s[ L, Y ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ L, S ]$ and $s[ L, W ]$ and $s[ L, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ are timelike,


    $s[ N, D ]$ and $s[ N, S ]$ and $s[ N, W ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ N, E ]$ and $s[ N, T ]$ and $s[ N, X ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ N, V ]$ and $s[ N, Z ]$ and $s[ N, {\it\unicode{x20AC}\,} ]$ are timelike,



    $s[ Q, E ]$ and $s[ Q, T ]$ and $s[ Q, X ]$ are spacelike,
    $s[ Q, D ]$ and $s[ Q, S ]$ and $s[ Q, W ]$ are timelike,
    $s[ Q, U ]$ and $s[ Q, Y ]$ and $s[ Q, {\it\unicode{xA3}} ]$ are timelike, and finally


    the separations of all ninety-six remaining event pairs are lightlike
    ?




(*: The two sets of causal separation relations stated explicitly in question part (a) and part (b) are of course not arbitrary, but have motivations that are somewhat outside the immediate scope of my question -- considering Lorentzian manifolds -- itself. It may nevertheless be helpful, if not overly suggestive, to attribute the relations of part (a) to "five participants, each finding coincident pings from the four others", and the relations of part (b) to "ten participants -- four as vertices of a regular tetrahedron and six as middles between these vertices -- pinging among each other".)




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...