Sunday, 2 August 2020

newtonian mechanics - Are Newton's laws invalid in real life?



One of my friends and I had an argument over this topic. He stressed the fact that in real life many forces exist, whereas in physics we deal only with ideal situations. He put the following arguments:-





  1. Newton's First Law is invalid because friction exists in real life.

  2. Newton's second law is invalid due to the same reasons.

  3. Newton's third law is invalid because in a trampoline, there is excessive reaction.



In defence, I put forward the following arguments:-



Newton's laws are true but the equations have to be modified to take into account the other forces in real life.


For example, if a force $F$ is applied on a body of mass $m$, and $f_s$ is the force of friction, then, the equation becomes $F - f_s = ma$. Thus, we have just modified the equation $F = ma$.


So basically I mean to say that we have to adjust the laws to suit our purpose.




In the end, there was a stalemate between us. Even now I am confused after this argument. Please clarify my doubt.



Answer



Regardless of relativistic effects:




  1. Newton's First Law is invalid because friction exists in real life.



False, the first law talks about the case when no forces are present, if forces are present go to the second law.





  1. Newton's second law is invalid due to the same reasons.



False, you add friction to the total force.




  1. Newton's third law is invalid because in a trampolin, there is excessive reaction.




False, why do you think there is excessive reaction?


optics - What operation does a beam splitter apply?


What is the unitary matrix equivalent to the operation of a beam splitter?



I'm asking because I've seen different matrices used and was wondering if the term is just ambiguous or if there's an agreed upon meaning.


The "quantum chesire cat" paper treats beam splitters as a square-root-of-not-with-extra-phase-factor $$A = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & i \\ i & 1 \end{bmatrix} \, .$$


On the other hand, the "QuVis" visualization project says that the correct matrix is the Hadamard gate $$H = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \, .$$


The difference between these two matters. For example, $H^2 = I$ but $A^2 \propto X$. Also, $HZH = X$ but $AZA = A^2 e^{i \pi Z/2}$. Which operation should I be thinking of, when an article says "beam splitter"?



Answer



Both operations are equivalent, up to a local phase in the second mode. In particular, if you shift the second basis vector's phase by $i$, then you will turn $H$ into $A$. In a beam splitter this is perfectly natural, because the phases of the output modes are not particularly well defined, and you can always model the difference between the two operations as an extra phase plate on one of the output modes. In any case, the phase difference between the two modes is not an experimental observable unless you bring the two modes together and interfere them, in which case you will want to introduce a variable phase delay between them to control the interference. This extra controlled phase delay will eat up this static par difference.


general relativity - Clarifying what metric counts as flat space


In (2D) Cartesian coordinates, the Euclidean metric...


$$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}$$



...is flat space. If the diagonal elements are exchanged for other real numbers greater or less than zero, would this still count as flat space even though it is no longer Euclidean? I think the answer is yes but just want to make sure.


Also, when a physicist says that the local tangent space on a manifold is flat, do they imply that the metric is locally Euclidean, or can the diagonal elements be any non-zero real number in that local tangent space?



Answer



1) OP is asking about the use of the word flat metric. It means a pseudo-Riemannian metric (of arbitrary signature) whose corresponding Levi-Civita Riemann curvature tensor vanishes.


2) However, the word Euclidean space may potentially cause confusion among mathematicians and physicists. For a mathematician an Euclidean space is always an affine space, while a physicists often use it as just another word for Riemannian manifold, which is not necessarily affine.


In short, the word Euclidean refers for a physicist to a positive signature (typically as opposed to Minkowski signature), while a mathematician use the word Euclidean to refer to an affine structure.


A mathematician calls a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with Minkowski signature for a Lorentzian manifold.


astrophysics - Can Hydrogen Fusion via CNO Cycle Occur in First Generation Stars


CNO cycle requires the presence of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen to undergo hydrogen fusion. Does this mean that for first generation stars, no matter how big they are, can't undergo hydrogen fusion by CNO cycle because there is no carbon, nitrogen and oxygen present?


I can't seem to find any website which mentions this. All they say is if a star is large enough, it will undergo hydrogen fusion via CNO cycle, they don't specifically mention it having to be a second generation star.



Answer



It does require carbon to have CNO cycle fusion (it doesn't require nitrogen or oxygen, as they come from the carbon). So you are right, the very first stars could not do CNO-cycle fusion. However, it doesn't take much carbon to make it work, because the fusion is so extremely temperature sensitive that a paucity of carbon is easily made up for by a slight increase in temperature. But you do have to have a little bit of carbon from some prior stars, the Big Bang doesn't make essentially any.



Saturday, 1 August 2020

quantum field theory - How do I derive the Feynman rules for graviton-photon coupling?


I am trying to study the coupling of the graviton field $h_{\mu\nu}$ to the electromagnetic field $A_\mu$ with respect to the following action:


$$ S_M = \int d^4x \ \sqrt{-g} \ (-\frac 1{4} g^{\mu\nu} g^{\rho\sigma} F_{\mu\rho} F_{\nu\sigma}) \tag1$$


where $g_{\mu\nu}(x) = \eta_{\mu\nu}+\kappa h_{\mu\nu}(x)$ and $\kappa^2 = 32\pi G_N .$ With a little bit of simplification, I can rewrite this in terms of the gauge vector field $A_\mu$, up to first order in $\kappa$ as:


$$ S_M = \int d^4x \ (1+\frac 1{2}{h_\mu}^\mu)\Big(-\frac1{4} F^2 - \kappa h^{\mu\nu} A_\sigma N^{\sigma\lambda}_{\mu\nu} A_\lambda \Big) \tag2$$


where $N^{\sigma\lambda}_{\mu\nu} := \eta^{\sigma\lambda}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu + \partial_\mu\partial^\sigma {\delta_\nu}^\lambda.$


Is this simplification helpful in deriving the graviton-photon vertex?



Please advise on how to derive the Feynman rules. (I still haven't got the hang of deriving Feynman rules from arbitrary lagrangians. I get stuck every time.)


The result should read


$$ \frac{i\kappa}{2} \Big[ k_1 \cdot k_2 \ (\eta^{\rho (\alpha}\eta^{\beta) \sigma} - \eta^{\rho \sigma}\eta^{\alpha \beta}) + \eta^{\rho \sigma} k_1^\beta k_2^\alpha + \eta^{\alpha \beta} k_1^{(\rho} k_2^{\sigma)} - (\eta^{\alpha (\rho} k_2^{\sigma)} k_1^\beta + \eta^{\beta (\rho} k_1^{\sigma)} k_2^\alpha) \Big] \tag3$$


where $k_1,k_2$ are the four-momentum of the incoming photons and two of the Lorentz indices belong to the external graviton.



Answer



I think you could not arrive at your desired Feynman rules because your second equation is wrong. You see, given your definition of the graviton field as a small perturbation to the Minkowski metric, we can rewrite


\begin{align*} g^{\mu\nu} g^{\rho\sigma} F_{\mu\rho} F_{\nu\sigma} &\approx (\eta^{\mu\nu} \eta^{\rho\sigma} - \kappa h^{\mu\nu} \eta^{\rho\sigma} - \kappa h^{\rho\sigma} \eta^{\mu\nu}) F_{\mu\rho} F_{\nu\sigma} \\ &= F^2 + 2 \kappa {h^\mu}_\nu\ \partial_{[\mu}A_{\rho]} \partial^{[\rho}A^{\nu]}\,. \\ \end{align*}


Moreover, you made a mistake in your expansion of the invariant measure.


$$ \sqrt{-g} \approx 1 + \frac{\kappa}{2} \eta_{\alpha \beta}h^{\alpha \beta}$$


These considerations give your Interaction Lagrangian the following form:



$$ \boxed{\mathcal L_I = -\frac{\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta}h^{\alpha \beta} \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} \partial^{[\mu}A^{\nu]} - \frac{\kappa}2 {h^\mu}_\nu\ \partial_{[\mu}A_{\pi]} \partial^{[\pi}A^{\nu]}}\,. \tag4$$


You do not need to write your Lagrangian in the quadratic form (e.g. $A_\sigma \hat{N}^{\sigma\lambda}_{\mu\nu} A_\lambda$) unless, of course, you want to find the free propagator of your theory (which is $\hat{N}^{-1}$, if you have that free term in your Lagrangian, which you do not).


Note that there are six terms in the above Lagrangian which I will list down below.



  1. $-\frac{\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta}\ h^{\alpha \beta}\ \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}\ \partial^{\mu}A^{\nu}$

  2. $+\frac{\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta}\ h^{\alpha \beta}\ \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}\ \partial^{\nu}A^{\mu}$

  3. $- \frac{\kappa}2 h^{\mu\nu}\ \partial_{\mu}A_{\pi}\ \partial^{\pi}A_{\nu}$

  4. $+ \frac{\kappa}2 h^{\mu\nu}\ \partial_{\pi}A_{\mu}\ \partial^{\pi}A_{\nu}$

  5. $+ \frac{\kappa}2 h^{\mu\nu}\ \partial_{\mu}A_{\pi}\ \partial_{\nu}A^{\pi}$

  6. $- \frac{\kappa}2 h^{\mu\nu}\ \partial_{\pi}A_{\mu}\ \partial_{\nu}A^{\pi}$



For each of these terms, you can try to write down the momentum-space contribution to the vertex interaction,


photon-photon-graviton-vertex


as follows. Consider, without loss of generality, the first term from the above list: $-\frac{\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta}\ h^{\alpha \beta}\ \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}\ \partial^{\mu}A^{\nu}$.



  • Step 1: Start with the constant coefficients of the interaction term (such as $-\frac{\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta}$). Write them down with an extra factor of $i$, the imaginary number.

  • Step 2: Assign to each field in the interaction term (such as $h^{\alpha \beta}$) a corresponding schematic in the Feynman diagram (such as $h^{\rho \sigma}$) and write down the Lorentz indices of the pairing in terms of Minkowski matrices (such as $\eta^{\alpha \rho}\eta^{\beta \sigma}$).

  • Step 3: Write down the derivatives that act on a certain field (such as $\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}$) as the momentum of the corresponding field in the Feynman diagram (such as $\eta_{\nu\alpha}{k_1}_\mu$ for choice of $A_\alpha$ as the representative schematic).

  • Step 4: Add all possible contributions due to different choices of schematic assignments (such as $\eta_{\nu\beta}{k_2}_\mu$ for choice of $A_\beta$ as the representative schematic for $\partial_\mu A_\nu$).



The result should look like this.


$$ -\frac{i\kappa}{4} \eta_{\alpha \beta} \eta^{\alpha \rho}\eta^{\beta \sigma} (\eta_{\nu\alpha}{k_1}_\mu {\eta^\nu}_\beta {k_2}^\mu + \eta_{\nu\beta}{k_2}_\mu {\eta^\nu}_\alpha {k_1}^\mu) = -\frac{i\kappa}{2} (k_1 \cdot k_2) \ \eta^{\rho \sigma} \eta_{\alpha \beta} \tag{5.1}$$


You can consider the above steps as Feynman meta-rules to find the Feynman rules for any "well-behaved" theory. Try working out the other terms (#2 through #6) by yourself and see if you can get the following results from each of these terms.


$$ + \frac{i\kappa}{2} \eta^{\rho \sigma} {k_1}_\beta {k_2}_\alpha \tag{5.2}$$


$$ - \frac{i\kappa}{2} ({\eta_\alpha}^\sigma {k_2}^\rho {k_1}_\beta + {\eta_\beta}^\sigma {k_1}^\rho {k_2}_\alpha) \tag{5.3}$$


$$ + \frac{i\kappa}{2} (k_1 \cdot k_2)\ {\eta^\rho}_{(\alpha} {\eta_{\beta)}}^\sigma \tag{5.4}$$


$$ + \frac{i\kappa}{2} \eta_{\alpha\beta} {k_1}^{(\rho} {k_2}^{\sigma)} \tag{5.5}$$


$$ - \frac{i\kappa}{2} ({\eta_\alpha}^\rho {k_2}^\sigma {k_1}_\beta + {\eta_\beta}^\rho {k_1}^\sigma {k_2}_\alpha) \tag{5.6}$$


These are the ten terms that you wanted to have (eq. 3). I hope that helps. Please comment below if you do not understand something and need further clarification.





NOTE:


To understand why the meta-rules work the way they do, please read a standard book on Quantum Field Theory. I would recommend A. Zee: Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, Ch. 1.7. You will also find this resource quite useful.


heisenberg uncertainty principle - Very simple example of the way the Fourier transform is used in quantum mechanics?


According to a book I'm reading, the Fourier transform is widely used in quantum mechanics (QM). That came as a huge surprise to me. (Unfortunately, the book doesn't go on to give any simple examples of how it's used!) So can someone provide one please?



Answer



Given that leftaroundabout and vonjd have addressed the fundamental place of the Fourier transform in the formalism, let me talk a little about an experimental application.


What is the shape and size of a atomic nucleus?


From Rutherford we learned that the nucleus is rather a lot smaller than the atom as a whole. Now, electron microscopy can just about provide vague picture of a medium or large atom as a out-of-focus ball, but there is no hope of employing that technique to something orders of magnitude smaller.


What we do is scatter things off of the component parts of the nucleus. A nice reaction here is


$$ e + A \to e + p + B $$


where $A$ represents that target nucleus and $B$ the remnant after we bounce a proton out. (This is what nuclear physicists call "quasi-elastic scattering".) Now, if (1) we are shooting a beam of electrons at a stationary target, (2) we have a precision measurement of the momenta of the incident and scattered electrons and the ejected proton, (3) we are willing to neglect excitation energy of the remnant nucleus, and (4) we assume that $p$ mostly did not interact with the remnant after being scattered, we know the momentum of the proton inside the nucleus at the time it was struck.



Collect enough statistics on this and we have sampled the proton momentum distribution of the nucleus.


Now, here's the fun part: you can show that the spacial distribution of protons in the nucleus is the Fourier transform of the momentum distribution.


And bingo, a measurement of the size of the nucleus.


Do it with a polarized target and you can get info on the shape as well.


homework and exercises - Equation of Motion for Rigid Body Motion


In a paper, eq 24 I am reading, the author mentions the equation of rigid body motion which is written as the sum of translational motion of the centre of mass, $x_G(t)$ and a rotational term about an axis through the centre of mass, viz,


$$w(t,x)=w_G(t)+R(t)\times(x-x_G(t)),$$ where $w$ is the velocity field and $w_G$ the velocity of the centre of mass and $R$, is the angular velocity(?).


Then they proceed to differentiate the equation to obtain the equation


$$\frac{dw(t,x)}{dt}=\frac{dw_G(t)}{dt}+\frac{dR(t)}{dt}\times(x-x_G(t))+R(t)\times(R(t)\times (x-x_G(t))).$$


I do not understand how the third term in this equation is obtained and what it signifies. Should the third term not be $R(t)\times w(t,x)$?



Answer



Equation 24 of your paper says:


$$\vec{u}=\vec{U}+\vec{\omega}\times\vec{R}$$


Here $\vec{U}$ is the position of the center of mass, $\vec{\omega}$ is the angular velocity vector, and $\vec{R}$ is the position of one point in the rigid body. Taking the derivative,



$$\frac{d\vec{u}}{dt}=\frac{d\vec{U}}{dt}+\frac{d\vec{\omega}}{dt}\times\vec{R}+\vec{\omega}\times\frac{d\vec{R}}{dt}$$


Notice that $\frac{d\vec{R}}{dt}$ is the tangential velocity, which can be written as $\vec{\omega}\times\vec{R}$. Plugging this in, the result is,


$$\frac{d\vec{u}}{dt}=\frac{d\vec{U}}{dt}+\frac{d\vec{\omega}}{dt}\times\vec{R}+\vec{\omega}\times(\vec{\omega}\times\vec{R})$$


Hopefully you can translate this notation to your own.


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...