Tuesday, October 31, 2017

cosmology - Dark Energy / Accelerating universe: naive question


Folks, I have a naive question regarding the subject of dark energy and an accelerating universe:


From what I understand/read, it seems that the further we look out into deep space, the faster the objects are moving away from us - in all directions.


Is this basically what is meant by "accelerating universe"?


Because it seems that this situation is exactly what we should expect to see (according to Big Bang theory). The further out we peer into space, the further back in time we are "seeing", so wouldn't we expect to see higher rates of acceleration/expansion the further back in time we peer?



Answer



We indeed expect that the universe expands on the basis of the Big Bang theory. Hence by looking at higher redshift, i.e. further in time, you should expect objects to recede faster. This is reflected in the linear relationshift that first measured by Hubble $$v=H_0D, $$ where $v$ is the recession speed, $D$ the distance to the object and $H_0$ the Hubble constant.



Huuble


However from the observation of SNIa, that completes the plot for higher redshifts, the linear relationshift deviates! It suggest that the relation between velocity $v$ and the distance $D$ is no longer linear for higher $z$. The expansion is accelerating.


This acceleration depends on the geometry and energy content of the universe.


Take a look at the graph below: in a empty universe, as you noted, the recession velocities to deviate from the linear Hubble relation and it is indicated by a straight line. The measurement from the SN Ia however show that the universe deviates from this relation due to the presence of a repulsive energy component that result in an accelerated expansion of the universe to account for the observed recession velocities. This repulsive energy content is called dark energy and is still highly mysterious.


distandevsRedshift


mathematics - Peaceful Encampments


This math puzzle is due to Donald Knuth (as far as I know; maybe he got it from someone else) circa 2014.



Consider a plain represented by the unit square. On this plain we want to “peacefully encamp” two armies of point-sized soldiers — one army red and one army green. Each soldier “attacks” chess-queen-wise: horizontally, vertically, and diagonally in all directions. The puzzle is to maximize the size of the equal armies (equivalently, maximize the size of the smallest army), given the constraint that no pair of opposing soldiers can be placed attacking each other.



(No Cantor sets or anything, okay? Just normal plane geometry.)


I have a conjectured answer but I don't know if it's really the optimum. If this would be more on-topic for math.SE or something, please comment and let me know!


I have written a little Javascript program to help visualize solutions. You can find it here.


Here are two examples of ways to peacefully encamp armies of sub-maximum size. The total size of each army in the first solution is 1/9; the total size of each army in the second solution is 1/8.


example1 example2




Once you’ve solved that, the next puzzle is to peacefully encamp three armies, four armies, etc... all the way to infinity.



My own candidate solutions have army size $\frac{7}{48} \approx 0.1458$ (for 2 armies), $\sim 0.0718$ (for 3 armies), $0.05$ (for 4 armies), and $\sim 0.0311$ (for 5 armies).




cipher - The Twenty Doors! (ROOM 5)


This is part of The Twenty Doors series.
The previous one is The Twenty Doors (ROOM 4)

The next one is The Twenty Doors! (ROOM 6)




You go through into room five. There is a standard keyboard, and, of course, the paper:



Pidi ou nto seeob r thf ruusnei yeivboae f t .eoqo vrs rwlmdthuih rrlweyoei



You can just make out the carving into the wall. Kwei sdoa c etfcbeqs zvcd, ukl ghcds'u lwkweivkxu hd. E uvhdcdf hkoza-kqwi ifsdt!                                                                                                                                                               There are eight-million, four-hundred and ninety-six thousand, three-hundred and twenty-one pies.


What is the word that you should enter?


HINT 1:




The wall carving is actually a hint to the paper. You don't necessarily need to solve the wall carving in order to know the puzzle. If you do want to, however, know that the bit about a large number of pies is only important to decrypting that unimportant cipher. So, spend most of your time on the paper, for decrypting that will give you a word.



HINT 2: This is what is written on the wall carving, don't read if you want to work it out yourself.



Much like a skipping rope, the paper's cipher be. I skipped fifty-four times!



The next door will be added when this door is solved!



Answer



I am not particularly proud that I had to use the second hint, but using that I deciphered this.




The paper uses a skip cipher and the skip value is 54. Using this skip value and decoding the paper gives us

Skip has a prime factor that cleanly divides into the text length, so it can not be used.

54 has two factors, 2 and 3 (54 = 2133) and the text length is 75. So we cannot use 3.



So I think, to unlock the door, we need to key in the word



TWO



Monday, October 30, 2017

symmetry - Who used the concept of symmetries first?


Who "invented" the concept of symmetries? This article is quite extensive, but it blurs the history with the modern understanding. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/


Some of the concepts can be traced to Galileo and Newton, but I'm quite certain the modern notion is incompatible with their view of the world. Does the notion come from group theory specifically? Can the first mention be traced accurately?



Although the spatial and temporal invariance of mechanical laws was known and used for a long time in physics, and the group of the global spacetime symmetries for electrodynamics was completely derived by H. Poincaré [7] before Einstein's famous 1905 paper setting out his special theory of relativity, it was not until this work by Einstein that the status of symmetries with respect to the laws was reversed.





galaxies - Andromeda/Milky Way collision: How, and how accurately, can a galaxy's lateral velocity be measured?


Some sources suggest that the Andromeda Galaxy is likely to collide with our own in approximately 3 to 5 billion years.


We can estimate the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy using various techniques, including measuring the apparent brightness of Cepheid variable stars; its distance is currently estimated to be about 2.5 million light-years.


We can measure its radial velocity (i.e., the rate at which it's either approaching or receding from us) using Doppler shift. One source, the same Wikipedia article I linked to above, indicates that its radial velocity with respect to the Sun is about 300 km/s in our direction; another article says the radial velocity relative to our galaxy is about 120 km/sec, also in our direction. (Presumably the difference is due to the Sun's orbital motion around the core of the Milky Way.)


But that's just the radial component of the velocity. Taking the 120 km/sec figure, it could be moving directly toward the Milky Way (more precisely, its core could be moving directly toward the core of the Milky Way) at 120 km/sec, or it could be moving at a 45° angle at about 170 km/sec, or any of a number of other possibilities.


Without an estimate of the lateral component of the velocity, there's no way to be sure whether the collision will occur or not. I'm reasonably sure we can't measure the lateral velocity directly; 120 km/sec over a century would cause Andromeda to move only about 0.04 light-year (if my calculations are correct).


And yet this Wikipedia article says:




The best indirect estimates of the transverse velocity indicate that it is less than 100 km/s.



with a reference to "Abraham Loeb, Mark J. Reid, Andreas Brunthaler and Heino Falcke The Astrophysical Journal, 633:894–898, 10 November 2005", but the link is invalid.


So how can a galaxy's lateral velocity be measured, or at least estimated? How accurate can such an estimate be with current technology? Can we expect improvements in the near future?



Answer



There's new information on this, just released today (Thu 2012-05-31).


According to this study, based on Hubble data, M31 is on course for a head-on collision with the Milky Way.



Previously, it was unknown whether the far-future encounter will be a miss, glancing blow, or head-on smashup. This depends on M31's tangential motion. Until now, astronomers have not been able to measure M31's sideways motion in the sky, despite attempts dating back more than a century. The Hubble Space Telescope team, led by van der Marel, conducted extraordinarily precise observations of the sideways motion of M31 that remove any doubt that it is destined to collide and merge with the Milky Way.



"This was accomplished by repeatedly observing select regions of the galaxy over a five- to seven-year period," said Jay Anderson of STScI.



The collision will start in about 4 billion years. After an additional 2 billion years, the two galaxies are expected to merge into a single elliptical galaxy.



It is likely the Sun will be flung into a new region of our galaxy, but our Earth and solar system are in no danger of being destroyed.



Phil Plait, the "Bad Astronomer", discusses the findings here, and this article has more information (including that the Triangulum galaxy M33 will likely take part in the festivities, and might even hit the Milky Way before M31 does).


It should be an impressive show, but don't start stocking up on popcorn just yet.


The cool thing about this is that we're now able to measure lateral motion of stars in another galaxy. (The really cool thing about this is, hey, colliding galaxies!)


Group Theoretic definition of a particle


We intuitively have a sense of what a particle means in the conventional sense. But is it possible to have a group theoretical definition of a particle, I mean in terms of irreducible representations etc.?



Answer



An elementary particle is defined as an irreducible representation of the Poincar\'e group. These were classified by Wigner in 1939. This was done via the little group construction. The important representations are (metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$




  1. $p^2 = 0$, $p^0 < 0$ - The little group is ISO(2). All finite dimensional representations of this group are one-dimensional and labelled by a single number $h$ (called helicity). Topological considerations require that $h$ be a half-integer. Under parity, the representation $h$ is rotated to $-h$. Thus, a massless particle that has parity and proper Lorentz invariance, has two degrees of freedom and is labelled by its helicity $|h|$.





  2. $p^2 = - m^2 < 0$, $p^0 < 0$ - The little group is $SO(3)$. All representations of this are finite dimensional and are labelled by a single number $j$ with dimension $2j+1$ ($j$ is called spin). Thus, a massive particle of spin $j$ has $2j+1$ degrees of freedom.




How is the energy of an electron-shell related to the speed of electrons in that shell?


I am trying to gain an intuitive picture of what is referred to by "electron-shell energy". I have read that outer electron shells have higher energy than inner electron shells, and this seemed to make sense to me by analogy to a wheel — a point on the rim of a wheel moves faster than a point on the hub. However, I have also read that electrons in inner shells move faster than those in outer shells, that in particularly heavy atoms, relativistic effects have to be taken into account for the inner shells to determine the chemical behavior of the element. And if inner shells are smaller, doesn't that mean that for an electron to be in such a shell, it would need a shorter wavelength, thus higher energy? Can anybody shed some light on my confusion?


Edit: I posted my question because there is an aspect to this that I feel has not been addressed in that other question about the speed of electrons, but I did not express it clearly enough. I recognize that the billiard-ball picture of electrons is not right, and getting beyond that picture is not my difficulty. It is that for all I read that speed is not a relevant concept in this context, I nevertheless keep running into mention of electron "speed" in technical literature, like in a recent SA article, Cracks in the Periodic Table (Scientific American, June 2013), and in the Wikipedia article Electron Configuration:



For the heavier elements, it is also necessary to take account of the effects of Special Relativity on the energies of the atomic orbitals, as the inner-shell electrons are moving at speeds approaching the speed of light.



So, speed is not a relevant concept in the context of electron shell energies, except when it is? Can somebody help me sort out the conflicting messages here?




special relativity - Speed of light invariance (once again)


The answer to this very good question seems to be favored by a large amount of users.



Yet it seems to imply that the constancy of the speed of light and its finiteness stems from the underlying space-time symmetries.


First it says:



... let me note that speed itself is a coordinate system dependent concept. If you had a bunch of identical rulers and clocks, you could even make a giant grid of rulers and put clocks at every intersection, to try to build up a "physical" version of a coordinate system with spatial differences being directly read off of rulers, and time differences being read from clocks. Even in this idealized situation we cannot yet measure the speed of light. Why? Because we still need to specify one more piece: how remote clocks are synchronized. It turns out the Einstein convention is to synchronize them using the speed of light as a constant. So in this sense, it is a choice ... a choice of coordinate system. There are many coordinate systems in which the speed of light is not constant, or even depends on the direction.



How is agreeing on the speed of light a choice? If we didn't accept a priori its constance, what sense would it make agreeing on a value? You would end up with very different conclusions about the world depending on how fast was light speed locally for you.


Further it says:



...It is because of the symmetry of spacetime that we can make an infinite number of inertial coordinate systems that all agree on the speed of light. It is the structure of spacetime, its symmetry, that makes special relativity...




and ends with:



...The modern statement of special relativity is usually something like: the laws of physics have Poincare symmetry (Lorentz symmetry + translations + rotations)... Not everything is relative in SR, and speed being a coordinate system dependent quantity can have any value you want with appropriate choice of coordinate system. If we design our coordinate system to describe space isotropically and homogenously and describe time uniformly to get our nice inertial reference frames, the causal structure of spacetime requires the speed of light to be isotropic and finite and the same constant in all of the inertial coordinate systems.



From what I understand, this would seem to imply that you have freedom in choosing your coordinate systems and this would yield different results for the measured speed.


While it is equivalent to derive the constancy of light speed from the symmetries of space-time, as opposed to the inverse process, I don't think it yields the same result in the construction of knowledge. The former order would imply that light speed can vary, depending on the local space-time properties, and we are choosing a convention in which the value is the same. This would mean that the comparison of light speed with other, say sound speed, would be region dependent, since the latter depends at least on the medium properties if not also on space-time.


However, the second one, where light constancy assumption yields the symmetries, would imply that the local space-time properties however altered, will always hold the light speed, which seems to me more natural and consistent with reality.


My question is then: Are the answer's assertions correct? If so, where am I misunderstanding?



Answer



Special relativity is the spacetime geometry described by the Minkowksi metric:



$$ ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 $$


where $c$ is a constant. The Minkowksi metric is the solution to the equations of general relativity when no mass or energy is around to curve spacetime$^1$. All the symmetries you alluded to are encapsulated in the Minkowski metric - indeed all of special relativity is encapsulated in this metric.


Experiment confirms that the Minkowski metric correctly predicts observations i.e. no deviation from it has ever been observed. So our working hypothesis is that the Minkowski metric is the correct description of flat spacetime.


From the metric it's easy to show that $c$ is a velocity and indeed is the maximum possible velocity anything can have. Maxwell's equations also tell us that $c$ is the velocity with which electromagnetic waves propagate. Therefore we conclude that the constant $c$ is the speed of light and therefore that the speed of light is constant.


Any deviation from the predictions of relativity could be evidence that the speed of light isn't constant, and there is no shortage of scientists looking for them. So far no such deviations have been found.


Note that relativity doesn't tell us what the value of $c$ is, only that it is a constant.


To address the specific point in the cited answer:



There are many coordinate systems in which the speed of light is not constant, or even depends on the direction.




For example we can rewrite the Minkowski metric using accelerated coordinates and the result is the Rindler metric:


$$ c^2d\tau^2 = \left(1 + \frac{a}{c^2}x \right)^2 c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 $$


It is very important to emphasise that in this metric $c$ is still a constant, but now it is the local speed of light i.e. the speed any observer will measure if they do a measurement at their location. However if you use the metric to calculate the speed of light as a function of the distance $x$ from the observer you get:


$$ \frac{dx}{dt} = c\,\left(1 + \frac{a}{c^2}x \right) $$


and this speed can be greater or less than $c$ depending on the value of $x$. See my answer to Acceleration and its effect on the speed of light for more on this.


The speed $dx/dt$ is the coordinate velocity of light, and it can differ from $c$ because we have complete freedom to choose our coordinates. However it remains the case that any local measurement of the speed of light by any observer will always return the same value of $c$.


Incidentally, this principle remains true even in curved spacetimes so it is true in general relativity as well as special relativity.




$^1$ strictly speaking the Minkowski metric is only one of several vacuum solutions - the Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes are also vacuum solutions. However it is the only one with zero ADM mass.


quantum electrodynamics - Virtual photons as force mediators in QED - really?


If the photon is the force vector for EM interactions, e.g. electrons, how does each electron 'know' where the other one is so that it can send it a photon? I've thought about this for a while. I know one could easily say "that's why they're virtual", but really this just says to me - "it's magic, and we don't really know, but it helps us to figure things out, and we haven't a clue how things REALLY work".




visible light - Why do night sky appear red when it is cloudy?



Since childhood, I have seen that whenever at night, the sky is cloudy, the sky becomes red. But, clouds are grayish, so it is expected that the sky becomes more darker. But no, it is not! Why does this happen? Is wavelength of various colours linked to it? I'm even not sure what tag to give!!



Answer



The colour you see in the sky on cloudy nights is due to the reflection of city lights off the clouds. In rural areas, a cloudy night is, as you expected, significantly darker.


enter image description here


However, the massive amount of light given off in urban areas reflects back to Earth when there is cloud cover.


enter image description here


And so, you see a red-orange hue, similar to the overall colour of the city lights.


Sunday, October 29, 2017

knowledge - Nice song, pity about the words


There's a song I really like but I can't remember the title and I certainly can't remember the words. Perhaps you can help me.


I've summarised the lyrics as best I can, but in a rather literal way.



I'm afraid I've forgotten the first verse completely so that makes it even harder. Anyway here goes with the bit I can remember.



Greetings! Lots of greetings! But, oops mind that hole.




I'm not so worried now it's dark and we're all here. How about a show?


My brain doesn't seem to be working, I think I'm coming down with a bug.


Anyway, as I said, How about a show from these two people, a small creature and... Ooh I'm feeling rather...you know.




Here's a self-contradictory statement for you.


Is it my birthday? Thanks!



We have everlasting togetherness.



Any help?


Note


It is a very well-known song with many millions of plays on Youtube--if only I could remember the title.



Answer



The song is:



Smells Like Teen Spirit, by Nirvana
Greetings! Lots of greetings! (Hello, hello, hello.....)

But, oops mind that hole. (How low)
I'm not so worried now it's dark (With the lights out, it's less dangerous)
and we're all here. How about a show? (Here we are now, entertain us)
My brain doesn't seem to be working, I think I'm coming down with a bug.(I feel stupid, and contagious)
Anyway, as I said, How about a show (here we are now, entertain us)
from these two people, a small creature and... Ooh I'm feeling
rather...you know. (a mulatto, an albino, a mosquito, my libido)
Here's a contradictory statement for you. (I'm worse at what I do best)
Is it my birthday? Thanks! (For this gift, I feel blessed)
We have everlasting togetherness. (Our little group has always been and always will until the end)




acoustics - Is it possible to noise cancel a sonic boom?


I having trouble understanding how a sonic boom works exactly. I know that it is done with sound waves and that ALL sound waves, at least on Earth, travel through a medium which effects it's speed. So when something travels at speeds higher than Mach 1, it becomes supersonic. Where I become confused is how waves are shown.


In noise cancellation, if you "reverse" the wave you can effectively make it out to 0 by sounding it over the other. However, the way I was shown sonic booms was that they are conal behind whatever object is travelling at supersonic speeds. This meaning that it's not so much a wave as much as it is a semicircle behind the object. This is where I'm lost. Is it still a wave? Furthermore, if it is a wave, why does it make a boom sound and does it have a decibel number? Can we measure the decibels?


All of this leads me to the question, is it possible to counteract, or cancel, the noise of a sonic boom?



Answer




The way to reduce the sound is to reduce the pressure change across the shock, which can be done using an oblique shock.


oblique shock example



In this case, the angle between the shock surface and the incident flow speed, $\beta$, enters into the pressure ratio for a hydrodynamic shock as: $$ \frac{P_{2}}{P_{1}} = 1 + \frac{ 2 \ \gamma }{ \gamma + 1 } \left( M_{1}^{2} \ \sin^{2} \beta - 1 \right) \tag{1} $$ where the subscripts $1$ and $2$ correspond to the upstream and downstream regions, respectively, $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heats, $M_{j}$ is the Mach number in the $j$ region, and $P_{j}$ is the average pressure in the $j$ region.


As you can see, in the limit as $\beta \rightarrow 90^{\circ}$, we approach the standard expected limit for a hydrodynamic shock. This is equivalent to looking at a shock produced by a piston/driver with a planar surface orthogonal to the incident flow.


The magnitude of the pressure ratio, or the overpressure, defines the strength of the sound wave of the sonic boom at the source. If we measure this in decibels, then we can see from the description at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/266046/59023 that the intensity observed goes as: $$ L_{r}\left( r \right) = L_{i,src} + 20 \ \log_{10} \left( \frac{ 1 }{ r } \right) \tag{2} $$ where $L_{i,src}$ is the intensity level at the source and $r$ is the distance from the source. This is one of the reasons why one solution proposed is to fly a supersonic jet at higher altitudes (other reasons are outlined in the above linked answer relating to sound attenuation at altitude).




Is it still a wave?



Well, that's a little trick since a sonic boom is what your ear registers when a supersonic object passes by. It is the result of a shock wave, which is inappropriately named as I discussed at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/136596/59023.



Furthermore, if it is a wave, why does it make a boom sound and does it have a decibel number?




The boom is a discontinuous pressure pulse (well, technically it's two, an over- and underpressure pulse). Yes, one can estimate the decibel level as I described above in Equation 2.



Can we measure the decibels?



Yes.



All of this leads me to the question, is it possible to counteract, or cancel, the noise of a sonic boom?



Cancel, probably not. Reduce greatly, probably yes. One way is to change the shape of the nose cone of the jet, which alters the shock geometry (as I discussed above). For certain geometries, one can get a reduced pressure ratio (e.g., Equation 1) and thus, a smaller overpressure sound wave resulting in a "quieter" sonic boom.




The phase diagram image was taken from Wikipedia, courtesy of EMBaero - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obliqueshock.PNG


enigmatic puzzle - The great fall - Clue Fourteen



<---Previous clue




New: Now with illustrations!




You key in your answer. Then you hear a click. Aghhhhh.... the ground beneath you suddenly isn't there anymore.


falling


You hit the ground with a crash, in a dark room. Gingerly, you get to your feet, hoping for no broken bones. Nothing appears to be broken, but you're going to have some spectacular bruises by the end of this gauntlet.


standing


Suddenly, you're blinded by a light turning on. The light isn't that bright, but it's bright enough compared to the darkness that it blinds you temporarily. As you squeeze your eyes shut, you ruefully acknowledge that it seems as if that's been happening a lot lately...


light



As your eyes adjust, you see that you are in a tunnel. High above, you can't even see where you fell through. However, there appears to be some sort of path that you're standing on, but you don't know which way to go. You look around to see if there's any indication, and then you see it - some words with an arrow.


follow the trail and you will see / you will soon discover me


You follow the trail in the direction indicated by the arrow for about ten minutes (out of the reach of the light), when you catch sight of a wall in front of you. After a couple more minutes, you come up to the wall. You can faintly see something scratched onto the wall, but it's too... dark...


qr code


It appears to be a QR code, but it's too dark for your phone, which has miraculously survived your fall, to scan. Naturally, the light picks that moment to go on, blinding you yet again. But now it's light enough for your phone to pick it up...


qr code 2




What is the Clue?




Next clue--->




Answer



The QR code decodes to:



Good job you've reached the end of me/ now go back and you will see/ that there is more hidden here/ go look have no fear/ you will have to go in more/ don't worry there's no gore.



So,



We observe that clicking on each of the images leads to another more detailed version of itself. Each image has a hidden letter, in a faint colour.



They are,




C,
O (though it looks more like an upside down D to me),
P,
P again,
E,
R.



Images, with the hidden elements zoomed and circled:




enter image description here
enter image description here
enter image description here
enter image description here
enter image description here
enter image description here



Therefore the clue is:



COPPER.




Saturday, October 28, 2017

Completing the trace in the Non-abelian Chern-Simons Term



I've been having a little trouble proving that [Page 138 of "Introduction to Topological Quantum Computation" by Jiannis K. Pachos]:


$S_{CS} = \dfrac{k}{4 \pi} \int_{M} d^{3}x \, \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho} tr \left( A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}A_{\rho} + i\dfrac{2}{3} A_{\mu} A_{\nu} A_{\rho} \right)$


(with $A_{\mu} = A_{\mu}^{a} T_{a}$ and $T_{a}$ a generator of the gauge group's Lie alegebra) can be written as:


$S_{CS} = \dfrac{k}{8 \pi} \int_{M} d^{3}x \, \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho} \left( A_{\mu}^{a}\partial_{\nu}A_{\rho}^{a} - \dfrac{1}{3} f_{abc} A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c} \right)$


where$f^{abc}$ is antisymmetric.




My attempt thus far:


$tr \left( A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}A_{\rho} + i\dfrac{2}{3} A_{\mu} A_{\nu} A_{\rho} \right)$


$= tr \left( A_{\mu}^{a} T_{a} \, \partial_{\nu} \, A_{\rho}^{b} T_{b} + i\dfrac{2}{3} A_{\mu}^{a} T_{a} \, A_{\nu}^{b} T_{b} \, A_{\rho}^{c} T_{c} \right)$


$= tr \left( A_{\mu}^{a} \partial_{\nu} A_{\rho}^{b} (T_{a} T_{b}) + i\dfrac{2}{3} A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c} (T_{a}T_{b}T_{c}) \right)$



Using $tr(T_{a} T_{b}) = \dfrac{1}{2}\delta_{ab}$ and $(T_{a}T_{b}T_{c}) = \dfrac{1}{2}[T_{a}, T_{b}]T_{c} + \dfrac{1}{2}\{ T_{a}, T_{b} \}T_{c}$ we get:


$= \left( \dfrac{1}{2}A_{\mu}^{a} \partial_{\nu} A_{\rho}^{a} + i\dfrac{1}{3} A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c} \, tr \left( [T_{a},T_{b}]T_{c} + \{ T_{a},T_{b} \}T_{c} \right) \right)$


Using


$$[T_{a}, T_{b}] = if_{abd}T_{d}$$


and $\{T_{a}, T_{b}\} = \dfrac{1}{N} \delta_{ab} + d_{abd}T_{d}$, where $d_{abc}$ is symmetric, we get:


$= \left( \dfrac{1}{2}A_{\mu}^{a} \partial_{\nu} A_{\rho}^{a} + i\dfrac{1}{3} A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c} \, tr \left( if_{abd}T_{d}T_{c} + \dfrac{1}{N} \delta_{ab} T_{c} + d_{abd}T_{d}T_{c} \right) \right)$


Using $tr(T_{A}) = 0$ and $tr(T_{a} T_{b}) = \dfrac{1}{2}\delta_{ab}$, we get:


$$= \left( \dfrac{1}{2}A_{\mu}^{a} \partial_{\nu} A_{\rho}^{a} + i\dfrac{1}{3} A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c} \, \dfrac{1}{2} \left( if_{abc} + d_{abc}\right) \right)$$


Now this would be precisely what we need if the $d_{abc}$ disappeared somehow but I'm not sure how to make that happen. If $A_{\mu}^{a} A_{\nu}^{b} A_{\rho}^{c}$ were anti-symmetric under permutation of the indices (abc) then if would cancel with the symmetric $d_{abc}$ but as far as I'm aware the $A_{\mu}^{a}$'s don't behave that way.


Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Cheers in advance.



Answer



I think is quite simple if you split the product of two $A_\mu$'s in symmetric and anti-symmetric terms as $$A_\mu A_\nu=\frac{1}{2}[A_\mu,A_\nu]+\frac{1}{2}\{A_{\mu},A_\nu\}\,.$$ Thus, the action of $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}$ on $A_\mu A_\nu$ just kills the symmetric piece $$ \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}A_\mu A_\nu=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\frac{1}{2}[A_\mu,A_\nu]\,. $$ Now, with the normalization $\mathrm{Tr}(T^a T^b)=\delta^{ab}/2$, is trivial to show that $$\mathrm{Tr}\left([A_\mu,A_\nu]A_\rho\right)=A_\mu^a A_\nu^b A^c_\rho \mathrm{Tr}\left([T^a,T^b]T^c\right)=iA_\mu^a A_\nu^b A^c_\rho f^{abd}\mathrm{Tr}(T^d T^c)=i\frac{f^{abc}}{2}A_\mu^a A_\nu^b A^c_\rho$$ and $$\mathrm{Tr}(A_\mu\partial_\nu A_\rho)=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu^a \partial_\nu A^a_\rho$$. Putting everything together we arrive at the result, $$ S_{CS}=\frac{k}{8\pi}\int_M d^3 x\, \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\left(A_\mu^a \partial_\nu A^a_\rho-\frac{1}{3}f^{abc}A_\mu^a A_\nu^b A^c_\rho\right) $$


quantum mechanics - Double slit experiment with quarter wave plate and polarization detector


I read in a book the following assertion.


In a double slit experiment photons are passed through the slits and detected at the end plate.


Each of the two slits has a quarter wave plate which alters the polarization of the photons that pass through it in a way different than the other QWP.


Thus a polarizing detecting barrier at the end plate can determine which slit the photon went through.


In such an experiment, there will be no interference pattern at the end plate. i.e. the wave functions collapse.



But if one does either of two things, the interference pattern shows up. Thus if either:



  1. the quarter wave plates are removed but the polarizing detecting barrier is kept.


OR



  1. the polarizing detecting barrier is removed but the quarter wave plates are kept.


Then the interference pattern is back.


A. Is this assertion correct?



B. If yes, then where does the wave function collapse when both are in place? At the plates or the end detector?


here's a quote from that book (Biocentrism ch.8 scroll down to "The Most Amazing Experiment"):



We’re back to QT’s complementarity – that you can measure and learn just one of a pair of characteristics, but never both at the same time. If you fully learn about one, you will know nothing about the other. And just in case you’re suspicious of the quarter wave plates, let it be said when used in all other contexts, including double slit experiments but without information-providing polarization-detecting barriers at the end, the mere act of changing a photon’s polarization never has the slightest effect on the creation of an interference pattern.




Answer



No the claim is incorrect. Assertion 2) is wrong. If the two slots pass orthogonal polarisation, linear or circular, then there is no interference at all. A polarisation sensitive detector then sees only a single slit diffraction pattern, either the left or the right one. An unpolarised detector sees a superposition of both single slit diffraction patterns without interference. Classical electromagnetism is sufficient to show this.


pattern - What is a Composite Word™?


Here are some Composite Words™:


ADEPTIO           DIVTVRNVS
EXILIS MIXTVM
CVLTELLVS ARMARIVM
ACERBVS ALIOQVI
IMPRAESENTIARVM CVRVVS
AMICVS CONCVLCO
LACRIMABILIS ABVNDANS

ADDO ADEO
IMMVNDVS INFLECTVM
ALTVS LIQVIDVS

Here are some non-Composite Words™:


ANTIQVVS          LVXVRIA
AMICVLVM CRINITVS
ABSQVE IVDICIVM
MVNIMENTVM EXCELLENTIA
CALLIDE ECCLESIA

AMICITIA MAXIME
IMPRIMIS ALIQVANTVS
HAFFLIGENIENSIS INCLITVS
CALAMITAS CONIVRATVS
BAIVLVS ARTIFICIOSE

What property determines if I call it a Composite Word™ or not?



Answer



Composite words are those where the




sum of the Roman numeral values of the contained letters IVXLCDM



is equal to



a composite number.



The relevant data for each word:



ADEPTIO 501 [3, 167] DIVTVRNVS 516 [2, 2, 3, 43] EXILIS 62 [2, 31] MIXTVM 2016 [2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7] CVLTELLVS 260 [2, 2, 5, 13] ARMARIVM 2006 [2, 17, 59] ACERBVS 105 [3, 5, 7] ALIOQVI 57 [3, 19] IMPRAESENTIARVM 2007 [3, 3, 223] CVRVVS 115 [5, 23] AMICVS 1106 [2, 7, 79] CONCVLCO 355 [5, 71] LACRIMABILIS 1203 [3, 401] ABVNDANS 505 [5, 101] ADDO 1000 [2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 5] ADEO 500 [2, 2, 5, 5, 5] IMMVNDVS 2511 [3, 3, 3, 3, 31] INFLECTVM 1156 [2, 2, 17, 17] ALTVS 55 [5, 11] LIQVIDVS 562 [2, 281] ANTIQVVS 11 [11] LVXVRIA 71 [71] AMICVLVM 2161 [2161] CRINITVS 107 [107] ABSQVE 5 [5] IVDICIVM 1613 [1613] MVNIMENTVM 3011 [3011] EXCELLENTIA 211 [211] CALLIDE 701 [701] ECCLESIA 251 [251] AMICITIA 1103 [1103] MAXIME 2011 [2011] IMPRIMIS 2003 [2003] ALIQVANTVS 61 [61] HAFFLIGENIENSIS 53 [53] INCLITVS 157 [157] CALAMITAS 1151 [1151] CONIVRATVS 111 [3, 37] BAIVLVS 61 [61] ARTIFICIOSE 103 [103]




general relativity - Shine a beam of light horizontally, drop a stone from same height - would both hit the ground at the same time?


If a beam of light was shone horizontally, and simultaneously a stone was dropped from the same height, would they both hit the ground a the same time?



Of course on Earth they would not, but let's imagine a land mass large enough for the light not to fire off into space and away from the pull of the land's gravity.



Answer



Given that the stone is in free fall - that is, in a frame following a geodesic - it would have to observe the light emitted in its frame as behaving normally. This means that the stone would not observe the light bend away from a path radially outwards from it, which is a complex way of saying that it must hit the ground at the same time as the stone.


In the comments above, Floris mentioned how the deflection of light predicted by GR is twice what one expects from Newtonian calculations. This is true, however it is the measured deflection from the frame of a non-local observer that it refers to. So an observer standing on the ground would notice the discrepancy in the deflection of light, but the stone would not notice anything, since it is a local observer. If the stone were to see the photon hit the ground at a different time from it, that would violate the weak equivalence principle.


logical deduction - Correct way to add 22 to 4 to get 82


Inspired by this other puzzle, tell me a correct way by which adding 22 to 4 will give 82.


As in that other puzzle, these numbers are all expressed in base 10.



Answer



In French:




Quatre (4) can be added to vingt deux (22) to make "Quatre-vingts deux" (82)



Friday, October 27, 2017

calculation puzzle - "Magic: the Gathering" Challenge #2: Two Peas in a Pod


Previous Challenge


Next Challenge


BACKGROUND:
Here's a puzzle for Magic: the Gathering players out there. I feel that this puzzle is in the scope of the site, and is no different than other puzzles, e.g. chess, which require knowledge of the parameters of a game in order to solve. I'm adding the MtG tag since I hope to do more of these in the future. I've linked to cards so that you don't have to go look them up yourself. For those interested in learning the rules of Magic, see here and here.


I've tried to ensure that there is only one correct answer, but there are so many permutations, I may have missed one. Please don't post an answer unless it's distinct i.e. isn't just another answer but with mana tapped slightly differently or two spells cast in swapped orders if it doesn't affect the outcome. If I missed something, and there are multiple distinct solutions, I will accept the one that gets the most damage through. Your solution cannot involve opponent's cooperation (e.g. they choose not to block any of your creatures) in other words, it must be a guaranteed win regardless of what your opponent can do.


PUZZLE SETUP:
It is Main Phase 1 of your turn. You have played your land for the turn. No cards have been put into either graveyard so far this turn. Defeat your opponent during this turn (before end of cleanup step). Provide the sequence of spells/game actions that you take to achieve the goal. Please be specific about mana usage / land tapping (feel free to keep a count of mana between steps)



Your hand:


Nothing


Your board (all untapped):


Birthing Pod
Voltaic Key
Kiora's Follower (no summoning sickness)
Omniscience


1 Forest, 6 Plains


1 life


Your graveyard:



Deceiver Exarch
Seismic Elemental
Storm Crow


Your opponent's hand:


Nothing


Your opponent's board (all untapped):


3 copies of Morkrut Banshee


Your opponent's graveyard:


Grave Titan


Original Stipulation: 9 life

I actually missed a line that leads to being able to do 20 damage!
New Stipulation: 20 life!


Your Library:


Forest
Blade Splicer
Fire Imp
Goblin Chieftain
Hellraiser Goblin
Pestermite
Wood Elves

Avalanche Riders
Flametongue Kavu
Hero of Bladehold
Hero of Oxid Ridge
Huntmaster of the Fells
Hellrider
Obstinate Baloth
Nekrataal
Karmic Guide
Morkrut Banshee

Puppeteer Clique
Reveillark
Thragtusk
Laquatus's Champion
Massacre Wurm
Sun Titan
Twilight Shepherd
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
Craterhoof Behemoth



Answer





  • Tap Forest, float a green.

  • Kiora's Followers Activate targeting Forest.

  • Tap Plains, use floating green to pod Kiora’s Followers - > Pestermite

  • Pestermite trigger targetting Birthing Pod

  • 1 Forest 5 Plains 1 Life

  • Tap Forest and Plains, pod Pestermite - > Obstinate Baloth

  • 4 Plains 5 Life

  • Voltaic Key targetting Birthing Pod

  • 3 Plains 5 Life


  • Tap plains, pay 2 life, pod Obstinate Baloth - > Karmic Guide

  • Karmic Guide Returns Deceiver Exarch to play.

  • Deceiver Exarch trigger targetting Birthing Pod

  • 2 Plains 3 Life

  • Tap plains, pay 2 life, pod Karmic Guide - > Twilight Shepherd

  • Cast Pestermite from Twilight Shepherd and target Birthing Pod.

  • Cast Obstinate Baloth and Kiora’s Followers, both returned from Twilight Shepherd.

  • Cast Karmic Guide returned from Twilight Shepherd, which reanimates Seismic Elemental

  • 1 plains, 5 life

  • Tap plains, pay 2 life, pod Kiora’s Followers - > Hellraiser Goblin



  • Swing 2/1 flyer (Pestermite), 2/1 flyer (Karmic Guide), 4/4 (Seismic Elemental, 5/5 flyer (Twilight Shepherd), 4/4 (Obstinate Baloth), 2/2 (Hell Raiser Goblin), 1/4 (Deceiver Exarch), all unable to be blocked due to seismic elemental's trigger.


    2 + 2 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 20 Damage




electricity - Why does it spark when I push a plug in the electrical socket?


When I slowly push a plug into the electrical socket I can often see sparks. Can anybody explain why? Can this be possibly harmful for the devices I plug in?



Answer




First of all, an electric spark is moving of the electric charge through the air. This is somehow curious, as air itself is an electric insulator and does not conduct charges. However, when the electric field in air exceeds certain value, air gets ionized and highly conductive, enabling the movement of the charge.


The next step to understand is why we get high electric fields. This is obvious from the expression for the electric field, which is


$$E = \frac{\Delta V}{d},$$


where $\Delta V$ is potential difference, and $d$ is distance. In Europe, you have typically 220 V potential difference in socket, and as you closing those two different potentials, thus reducing distance between them, you are getting larger and larger fields, until at some time air gets ionized and conductive.


In principle, every time you plug in a device, you bring these two different potentials close together, so I think every time you plug in a device, you create a spark. However, for purely resisitive devices, if the resistance of the device is large enough, the current will be small enough, so you won't see or hear the spark. If you however have a powerful device like boiler (these have small internal resistance), the current of the spark shall be large, and you shall observe the effect.


Most devices have capacitors and inductors and that too influence the spark currents. In case when capacitor with large capacitance is directly linked to plug connectors, you expect huge currents trying to fill capacitor as fast as possible and due to large charge required, this can mean large spark. On the other hand, inductors with large inductance inhibit large currents by creating back-voltage.


The only thing that can pose danger to your device is currents through it being too high, which creates huge Joule heating, which can destroy components. However, internal resistance and inductance of the device limit those currents to an acceptable value.


The exception to the rule are electric motors. A rule of the thumb is that when at rest, electric motor has a very small internal resistance. For example, if you block the motor movement while making a connection, the huge currents can simply destroy it by melting the wires within it. However, in normal usage the motor is not blocked and starts moving moving very soon, so all he gets is a short Joule heating shock. There is all science of how to make this short but possibly dangerous shock as small as possible for large powerful electric motors, which however I am not very knowledgeable at.


everyday life - Squinting at light sources


I am sure it's just your eyelashes creating a filtering effects, but if you look a a bright(ish) light source such as a lightbulb while squinting, if looks like you are seeing straight light rays emitting from the lightbulb, I assume you can't see an individual ray of light like this?




homework and exercises - Twin paradox modified for a periodic universe



I had received a homework problem by my professor. Please consider part (b) of the problem.


enter image description here


Can part (b) be solved only using special relativity? And how can you solve this? I think that Alice will be younger but I am not really sure.




quantum gravity - Does the Planck scale imply that spacetime is discrete?


On a quantum scale the smallest unit is the Planck scale, which is a discrete measure.


There several question that come to mind:



  1. Does that mean that particles can only live in a discrete grid-like structure, i.e. have to "magically" jump from one pocket to the next? But where are they in between? Does that even give rise to the old paradox that movement as such is impossible (e.g. Zeno's paradox)?


  2. Does the same hold true for time (i.e. that it is discrete) - with all the ensuing paradoxes?

  3. Mathematically does it mean that you have to use difference equations instead of differential equations? (And sums instead of integrals?)

  4. From the point of view of the space metric do you have to use a discrete metric (e.g. the Manhattan metric) instead of good old Pythagoras?


Thank you for giving me some answers and/or references where I can turn to.


Update: I just saw this call for papers - it seems to be quite a topic after all: Is Reality Digital or Analog? FQXi Essay Contest, 2011. Call for papers (at Wayback Machine), All essays, Winners. One can find some pretty amazing papers over there.



Answer



The answer to all questions is No. In fact, even the right reaction to the first sentence - that the Planck scale is a "discrete measure" - is No.


The Planck length is a particular value of distance which is as important as $2\pi$ times the distance or any other multiple. The fact that we can speak about the Planck scale doesn't mean that the distance becomes discrete in any way. We may also talk about the radius of the Earth which doesn't mean that all distances have to be its multiples.


In quantum gravity, geometry with the usual rules doesn't work if the (proper) distances are thought of as being shorter than the Planck scale. But this invalidity of classical geometry doesn't mean that anything about the geometry has to become discrete (although it's a favorite meme promoted by popular books). There are lots of other effects that make the sharp, point-based geometry we know invalid - and indeed, we know that in the real world, the geometry collapses near the Planck scale because of other reasons than discreteness.



Quantum mechanics got its name because according to its rules, some quantities such as energy of bound states or the angular momentum can only take "quantized" or discrete values (eigenvalues). But despite the name, that doesn't mean that all observables in quantum mechanics have to possess a discrete spectrum. Do positions or distances possess a discrete spectrum?


The proposition that distances or durations become discrete near the Planck scale is a scientific hypothesis and it is one that may be - and, in fact, has been - experimentally falsified. For example, these discrete theories inevitably predict that the time needed for photons to get from very distant places of the Universe to the Earth will measurably depend on the photons' energy.


The Fermi satellite has showed that the delay is zero within dozens of milliseconds



http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/08/fermi-kills-all-lorentz-violating.html



which proves that the violations of the Lorentz symmetry (special relativity) of the magnitude that one would inevitably get from the violations of the continuity of spacetime have to be much smaller than what a generic discrete theory predicts.


In fact, the argument used by the Fermi satellite only employs the most straightforward way to impose upper bounds on the Lorentz violation. Using the so-called birefringence,



http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2784




one may improve the bounds by 14 orders of magnitude! This safely kills any imaginable theory that violates the Lorentz symmetry - or even continuity of the spacetime - at the Planck scale. In some sense, the birefringence method applied to gamma ray bursts allows one to "see" the continuity of spacetime at distances that are 14 orders of magnitude shorter than the Planck length.


It doesn't mean that all physics at those "distances" works just like in large flat space. It doesn't. But it surely does mean that some physics - such as the existence of photons with arbitrarily short wavelengths - has to work just like it does at long distances. And it safely rules out all hypotheses that the spacetime may be built out of discrete, LEGO-like or any qualitatively similar building blocks.


Thursday, October 26, 2017

newtonian mechanics - Why does reduced mass help when talking about two body problems?


I hear people say that reduced mass, $\mu$, is used for two body problems, but what sort of problems? Is it so that the two body system can be treated as one body or is it to simplify calculations regarding how the two bodies act upon each other?


I can follow the derivation (which I shall go through shortly) in a mathematical sense but I can seem to be able to grasp the ideas behind why the steps were taken.


Derivation:


Step [1] - From Newton's laws of motion: $$F_{12}=-F_{21}$$ It follows that: $$m_1a_1=-m_2a_2$$ Step [2] - Simple rearrangement of the result from step 1 to make $a_1$ the subject (it seems a reasonable thing to do but I don't know why it's done). $$a_1=-\frac{m_2}{m_1}a_2$$ Step [3] - The relative acceleration, $a_{rel}$, can be found by subtracting the acceleration of one body from the other (I get how this is done and get that it would give the relative acceleration BUT I don't know why you would need the relative acceleration). $$a_{rel}=a_1-a_2=(1+\frac{m_1}{m_2})a_1=\frac{m_2+m_1}{m_1m_2}m_1a_1=\frac{m_2+m_1}{m_1m_2}F_{12}$$ Step [4] - According to Wikipedia the result from the last step can be used thus (I have no idea what's going on in this step): $$\frac{m_2+m_1}{m_1m_2}F_{12}=\frac{F_{12}}{\mu}$$ Thus: $$\mu=\frac{m_1m_2}{m_2+m_1}$$


Again, I can do the maths but my problem here is conceptual I believe. I have included the derivation in my question because I believe that it's possible that if you were able to shed some light on why particular steps were taken that this may help.




soft question - Should linear algebra and vector calculus from traditional courses be replaced with `geometric algebra`?



geometric algebra gives geometric meaning to linear algebra and much more. it can provide a coordinate free geometric interpretation of spaces. those who learn of it, tend to be dismayed they weren't taught physics in this framework. what are the pro's and con's of replacing linear algebra and vector calcunningulus with geometric algebra?


Good books on geometric algebra:





  • Geometric Algebra for Computer Science has exercises to self tests, and features prettyfied pictures for extra clarity.




  • Books by Hestenes have an incredible signal to noise ratio (extreme compression of information to Shannon Limit) and are definitely a must...




  • many introductions floating around, remember search for "geometric algebra" and not "algebraic geometry"




Also try to see the Pascal triangle structure of number of k vector basis blades in n dimensions!




Answer



For several years I have been teaching Clifford (geometric) algebra as part of the Vector Analysis Course for undergraduate physics majors in Ateneo de Manila University. I strictly use Cl_{n,0}, even for Special Relativity. 18-year old students do not complain how difficult geometric algebra is. They just learn the math and the geometric interpretations: geometric product, dot product, wedge product, cross product, exponentials of imaginary vectors for circular rotations, exponentials of vectors for hyperbolic rotations, etc. For linear algebra, I teach them how to rewrite simultaneous linear equations in vector form and use the wedge product to solve for the unknown parameters. All the properties of determinants are encoded in the wedge product of arbitrary number of vectors. Cylindrical and spherical coordinate systems are best taught in terms of exponential rotation operators, because students immediately see what are the axis of rotation, the angle of rotation, and the vector to be rotated. Vector calculus is also simpler because the gradient, divergence, and curl becomes part of a single spatial derivative operator which may act on scalars or vectors. This becomes very useful when we want to combine all the four Maxwell's equations into one. I think, the more one knows too much math such as tensors, spinors, and differential forms, the more it becomes difficult to understand geometric algebra. Geometric algebra is best taught to the little ones.


cosmology - Rotation of our Galaxy's inertial frame


Suppose in the universe, there are inertial frames in the vicinity of galaxies. Suppose also that these frames rotate slightly with respect to each other - that the universe is not quite a 'mill pond'.


If this were true, our Galaxy would have its own inertial frame, rotating wrt distant galaxies.


The rotation of our galaxy's frame would affect astronomical observations.


Does anyone know the upper bound on the rotation rate of our galaxy's inertial frame which is consistent with observations?




enigmatic puzzle - No Pun Intended


Part of the Fortnightly Topic Challenge #35: Restricted Title 1






  • This TV program has quite a diverse set of actors.





  • You're packed to go so soon?




  • There's nothing in the afterlife except darkness and complete silence.




  • Here, let me show what I got you for your birthday now.




  • Ughhhhh, my bracket's going to lose for sure. How was I supposed to know the 13th seed was going to beat the 4th seed?





  • Fatphobic people are so intolerant.




  • Most kids just look at a phone UI all day now, no one has a person to person conversation anymore!




  • The full book Gadsby is totally lipogrammatic, What an original vision.





  • Ulysses S. Grant won the war predominantly due to being more aggressive than the opposition.




  • Whiteboards are amazing!




  • Carve "Rest In Peace" into it, please.





  • The people here's addition skills suck; They're accidentally marking down the price by 25%!




  • Knowing calculus is really important for college.




  • The new iphone is so different! I can't wait to trade in my old one.




  • Most of systems programmings jobs is just looking stuff up on the web.





  • The person who used to be my brother works as a conductor.




  • The bowling ball hits all the pins down.




BTW, the final answer is one word, not three.



Answer




Community wikified my answer, and added the various puns from the other ones. To see which answer was from where, see noedne's and Riley's answers; the rest were from mine.


This TV program has quite a diverse set of actors.



Broadcast



You're packed to go so soon?



Already (All ready)



There's nothing in the afterlife except darkness and complete silence.




Death (Deaf)



Here, let me show what I got you for your birthday now.



Present



Ughhhhh, my bracket's going to lose for sure. How was I supposed to know the 13th seed was going to beat the 4th seed?



Upset




Fatphobic people are so intolerant.



Narrow-minded



Most kids just look at a phone UI all day now, no one has a person to person conversation anymore!



Interface



The full book Gadsby is totally lipogrammatic, What an original vision.




Novel



Ulysses S. Grant won the war predominantly due to being more aggressive than the opposition.



Generally (General Lee)



Whiteboards are amazing!



Remarkable




Carve "Rest In Peace" into it, please.



Engrave (In grave)



The people here's addition skills suck; They're accidentally marking down the price by 25%!



Discount



Knowing calculus is really important for college.




Integral



The new iphone is so different! I can't wait to trade in my old one.



Exchange (X-change)



Most of systems programmings jobs is just looking stuff up on the web.



Network




The person who used to be my brother works as a conductor.



Transistor (Trans sister)



The bowling ball hits all the pins down.



Strike







Collecting the first letter from each solution, we get



BAD PUN INGREDIENTS



Which tells us to



anagram PUN INGREDIENTS



yielding, courtesy of ManyPinkHats,




SUPERINTENDING,



which is appropriate because



the puzzle is in amusing conflict with its title.



mathematics - Write a true self-reflective statement about the digits from 0 to 9 (or prove it can't be done)


This statement contains 3 0's, 1 1, 4 2's, 1 3, 5 4's 92 5's, 6 6's, 53 7's, 58 8's, and 9 9's.


Clearly that statement is incorrect. It only has 1 occurrence of the character "0", not 3; and there are definitely not 92 instances of "5".



Can you rewrite it to make it true? You still must follow the same format, giving the exact number of times each digit has appeared in the statement.


Specifically your statement must be in the format: This statement contains A 0's, B 1, C 2's, D 3, E 4's F 5's, G 6's, H 7's, I 8's, and J 9's., where A is the number of 0's, B is the number of 1's, etc. The number of 1's (or any digit) includes the 1 needed for B 1's.


If not can you prove that this is impossible?



Answer



Here we go:



This statement contains 1 0's, 7 1's, 3 2's, 2 3's, 1 4's, 1 5's, 1 6's, 2 7's, 1 8's, and 1 9's.



Wednesday, October 25, 2017

gravity - Why In Thermosphere is He and O divided as measured?



If we look Thermosphere a bit closer. we found out that Helium and Oxygen is divided peculiarily. This picture below shows the Earth looked below the south pole. So the orbiting direction is shown in red arrow and the sun position with Yellow circle.


enter image description here


As it can be seen, there is least amount of Oxygen at Leading edge. And most amount of Helium. (at 6 o'clock) The situation is vice-versa at approx 16.30. The 720-620-660 are heights in Km.


The same thing can be presented also as follows. Here the sun is at 12.


enter image description here


In this picture above there is measurement data from 19 UTC and from 04 UTC (yellow lines) The date is 21.9.1998, which is near Equinox. Data source is Nasa's MSIS-E-90 Atmosphere Model. I have produced the the diagrams myself.


Question; Physical explanation, why Helium and Oxygen are divided this way in Thermosphere?


Some hints can be found from Feynman lectures "Electrictiy in Atmosphere"

There is this figure 9-5; enter image description here


and this Text;



Each piece of information we can get should give a clue or, at least, tell you something about it. Here is an interesting phenomenon: If we measure the current (which is more stable than the potential gradient) over the sea, for instance, or in careful conditions, and average very carefully so that we get rid of the irregularities, we discover that there is still a daily variation. The average of many measurements over the oceans has a variation with time roughly as shown in Fig. 9–5. The current varies by about ±15±15 percent, and it is largest at 7:00 p.m. in London. The strange part of the thing is that no matter where you measure the current—in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or the Arctic Ocean—it is at its peak value when the clocks in London say 7:00 p.m.! All over the world the current is at its maximum at 7:00 p.m. London time and it is at a minimum at 4:00 a.m. London time. In other words, it depends upon the absolute time on the earth, not upon the local time at the place of observation. In one respect this is not mysterious; it checks with our idea that there is a very high conductivity laterally at the top, because that makes it impossible for the voltage difference from the ground to the top to vary locally. Any potential variations should be worldwide, as indeed they are. What we now know, therefore, is that the voltage at the “top” surface is dropping and rising by 1515 percent with the absolute time on the earth.



More pictures about the same question can be found here; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312137081_Thermosphere_05_vs_09-UTC_2191998_gas_derivatesThermosphere Gas derivates


Also the Temperature variation in altitude shows anomalies, Example picture; Temperetures in thermosphere




riddle - Grandpa and numbers: Another Grandpa Mystery


Grandpa loves to make silly little statements. And he thinks they are riddles.


The other day he turned to me and said:



"This is not math but


Take a number


Add a number to it


And you are finished"




What is he talking about?



Answer



Take a number



D (500 in Roman numerals)



Add a number to it



one




And you are finished



done



Tuesday, October 24, 2017

wordplay - Cheating is efficient, but only until you get caught!


This is an entry into the 16th Fortnightly Challenge -




The Puzzleland Inc. is recruiting some fresh blood, and after some brain-bending tests, the candidates have been shortlisted to just two - of which you are one, of course. The final hurdle to cross is an interview; both the candidates will be called one by one, and asked a question. The one to answer the quickest will be appointed to the post of CEO - the Chief Enigmatic Officer.


On the day of interview, as luck would have it, your opponent is called first, as you are told to wait outside. You grin devilishly. You put on the headphone that is linked to a thought-reading device you secretly implanted in your rival's neck. As you turn on the switch, his train of thoughts crowd in you ear. Albeit the streaming is a bit noisy, you manage to listen to his mind...



Ah, interesting! But I don't get how this one is supposed to work; it obviously looks too short. Hmm...a CD maybe? Silence? What could mean silence? A gag? Shh...! That is not quite correct, I think...


Probably I am barking up the wrong tree...let me try something else.


OK, then... But I need the D. D is nothing? Nil? But what does the other part mean? The I is suspicious...maybe that is the D? I, three? ...could it be one? Hmm...ahh, I know - it's not telling, it's giving an example - and zero is nothing. Now THAT makes sense. This gives me a feeling of self-esteem. I should write it down quickly...the answer is ...




You are dismayed as the connection is suddenly interrupted. Shortly after, you are called inside. The interviewer announces, in a grave tone:



We have seen through your trickery. As you might expect, we are not going to ask you the same question that we asked him. Instead, your task is to figure out what the question was that we asked the other candidate. If you succeed, we will forget all that happened, and select you; but if you don't, the Police will take care of you.



You gasp. What are you going to answer?



Answer



This is something to do with



crossword clues.




Specifically (with thanks to @GentlePurpleRain for help coming up with this):



your rival is attempting to solve the following crossword clue: I say nothing (3). The solution is EGO, because the ego is part of the self ("I"), and "say" refers to giving an example (as in "a part of the self - the ego, say"), which is abbreviated as e.g., while "nothing" ~ zero ~ O.



This fits with most of what your rival is saying, as follows (with help from the OP for one or two lines):


Ah, interesting! But I don't get how this one is supposed to work; it obviously looks too short.



Only three letters.




Hmm...a CD maybe?



He wonders if the clue could be a Cryptic Definition.



Silence? What could mean silence? A gag? Shh...! That is not quite correct, I think... Probably I am barking up the wrong tree...let me try something else.



"I say nothing" sounds like it means something to do with silence, and "gag" and "shh" are 3-letter words, but ultimately he's barking up the wrong tree here.



OK, then... But I need the D.




Assuming this is 'regular' cryptic clue, he needs the Definition part.



D is nothing? Nil? But what does the other part mean?



He wonders if the "nothing" bit could be the definition. Nil is a three-letter word associated with the word "nothing" which appears in the clue. But that doesn't fit with the "I say" part.



The I is suspicious...maybe that is the D? I, three? ...could it be one?



Starting from the "I" part of the clue, he reached "one", another 3-letter word, as a possible solution.




Hmm...ahh, I know - it's not telling, it's giving an example - and zero is nothing. Now THAT makes sense.



Finally he gets it: the word "say" isn't say as in tell, but say as in giving an example, and the word "nothing" gives a zero or O.



This gives me a feeling of self-esteem. I should write it down quickly...the answer is ...



"a feeling of self-esteem" hints at the solution: EGO.





Original attempts at working out the meanings of the paragraphs of thought processes

The first paragraph seems to be about



a word with 2 or maybe 3 letters ("it obviously looks too short. Hmm...a CD maybe?"), where the clue contains something to do with the word "silence".



In the second paragraph, your rival is deciding



to move on and try a different clue from the crossword instead.



The third paragraph is about




a word which is known to contain a D and/or an I, where the clue contains something to do with the word "nothing". Your rival wonders if "nil" may be part of the solution, but eventually realises that in fact "zero" is, and that something else in the clue is an example rather than an instruction.




newtonian mechanics - Block on a block problem, with friction


Consider two blocks, one on top of the other on a frictionless table, with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ respectively. There is appreciable friction between the blocks, with coefficients $\mu_s$ and $\mu_k$ for static and kinetic respectively. I'm considering the fairly routine problem of determining the maximum horizontal force $F$ (say, to the right) that can be applied to the top block so that the two blocks accelerate together.


The problem is not hard to solve symbolically. If the two blocks move together, their accelerations are the same, and the top block doesn't move with respect to the bottom block, so only static friction is in play. In a standard coordinate system (with $x$ oriented to the right), the sum of horizontal forces for the top block is


$$F-F_{sf}=m_1a$$



and for the bottom block


$$F_{sf}=m_2a$$


where $F_{sf}$ is the force of static friction. Solving for $a$ in these two expressions, and then equating them, gives


$$F=\frac{(m_1+m_2)F_{sf}}{m_2}$$


The maximum such force will therefore be achieved when $F_{sf}$ is maxed out at $\mu_s m_1g$, so


$$F_{max}=\frac{m_1}{m_2}\mu_s(m_1+m_2)g$$


I understand this solution, but conceptually I don't have a response to the following nagging question: $F_{max}$ is clearly larger than the max static friction force $\mu_sm_1g$ (because $\frac{m_1+m_2}{m_2}>1$), so why doesn't the application of a force of magnitude $F_{max}$ to the top block cause kinetic friction to take over? This line of reasoning would suggest that applying a force $F$ of magnitude greater than $\mu_sm_1g$ would cause the top block to start moving with respect to the bottom block (in which case the blocks no longer accelerate together, as in the above solution). I'm at a loss, conceptually, to say what's wrong here. I suspect it has something to do with being careful about reference frames, but a clear explanation would be much appreciated.




What does it mean to say "Gravity is the weakest of the forces"?


I can understand that on small scales (within an atom/molecule), the other forces are much stronger, but on larger scales, it seems that gravity is a far stronger force; e.g. planets are held to the sun by gravity. So what does it mean to say that "gravity is the weakest of the forces" when in some cases, it seems far stronger?



Answer



When we ask "how strong is this force?" what we mean in this context is "How much stuff do I need to get a significant amount of force?" Richard Feynman summarized this the best in comparing the strength of gravity - which is generated by the entire mass of the Earth - versus a relatively tiny amount of electric charge:



And all matter is a mixture of positive protons and negative electrons which are attracting and repelling with this great force. So perfect is the balance however, that when you stand near someone else you don't feel any force at all. If there were even a little bit of unbalance you would know it. If you were standing at arm's length from someone and each of you had one percent more electrons than protons, the repelling force would be incredible. How great? Enough to lift the Empire State building? No! To lift Mount Everest? No! The repulsion would be enough to lift a "weight" equal to that of the entire earth!



Another way to think about it is this: a proton has both charge and mass. If I hold another proton a centimeter away, how strong is the gravitational attraction? It's about $10^{-57}$ newtons. How strong is the electric repulsion? It's about $10^{-24}$ newtons. How much stronger is the electric force than the gravitational? We find that it's $10^{33}$ times stronger, as in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more powerful!


special relativity - Light in Different Reference Frames


I think I'm just confused, but for some reason I thought that light moving straight in one frame would have to move in the same direction in another frame. I know there are photons-but because I have not learned about them I was thinking purely from the wave model. If light has no mass, shouldn't a disturbance sent in one direction, regardless of perpendicular speed, move in that direction in all frames? In particular I had a homework problem that was asking how the Michaelson Morley experiment's null effects could be accounted for with Length contraction. They used the path of light in the vertical direction (Not a straight line.) Clearly the math works out this way, but I'm not sure why the vertically moving light would have a horizontal velocity just because the frame it was shot from had that velocity. Why does light have this inertia? Can someone explain it via wave theory?




Monday, October 23, 2017

quantum mechanics - Why the statement "there exist at least one bound state for negative/attractive potential" doesn't hold for 3D case?


Previously I thought this is a universal theorem, for one can prove it in the one dimensional case using variational principal.



However, today I'm doing a homework considering a potential like this:$$V(r)=-V_0\quad(ra)$$ and found that there is no bound state when $V_0a^2<\pi^2\hbar^2/8m$.


So what's the condition that we have at least one bound state for 3D and 2D?



Answer



The precise theorem is the following, cf. e.g. Ref. 1.



Theorem 1: Given a non-positive (=attractive) potential $V\leq 0$ with negative spatial integral $$ v~:=~\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\! d^n r~V({\bf r}) ~<~0 ,\tag{1} $$ then there exists a bound state$^1$ with energy $E<0$ for the Hamiltonian $$ H~=~K+V, \qquad K~=~ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}{\bf \nabla}^2\tag{2} $$ if the spatial dimension $\color{Red}{n\leq 2}$ is smaller than or equal to two.



The theorem 1 does not hold for dimensions $n\geq3$. E.g. it can be shown that already a spherically symmetric finite well potential does not$^2$ always have a bound state for $n\geq3$.


Proof of theorem 1: Here we essentially use the same proof as in Ref. 2, which relies on the variational method. We can for convenience use the constants $c$, $\hbar$ and $m$ to render all physical variables dimensionless, e.g.


$$ V~\longrightarrow~ \tilde{V}~:=~\frac{V}{mc^2}, \qquad {\bf r}~\longrightarrow~\tilde{\bf r}~:=~ \frac{mc}{\hbar}{\bf r},\tag{3} $$



and so forth. The tildes are dropped from the notation from now on. (This effectively corresponds to setting the constants $c$, $\hbar$ and $m$ to 1.)


Consider a 1-parameter family of trial wavefunctions


$$ \psi_{\varepsilon}(r)~=~e^{-f_{\varepsilon}(r)}~\nearrow ~e^{-1}\quad\text{for}\quad \varepsilon ~\searrow ~0^{+} , \tag{4}$$


where


$$ f_{\varepsilon}(r)~:=~ (r+1)^{\varepsilon} ~\searrow ~1\quad\text{for}\quad \varepsilon ~\searrow ~0^{+} \tag{5} $$


$r$-pointwise. Here the $\nearrow$ and $\searrow$ symbols denote increasing and decreasing limit processes, respectively. E.g. eq. (4) says in words that for each radius $r \geq 0$, the function $\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)$ approaches monotonically the limit $e^{-1}$ from below when $\varepsilon$ approaches monotonically $0$ from above.


It is easy to check that the wavefunction (4) is normalizable:


$$0~\leq~\qquad\langle\psi_{\varepsilon}|\psi_{\varepsilon} \rangle ~=~ \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} d^nr~|\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)|^2 ~\propto~ \int_{0}^{\infty} \! dr ~r^{n-1} |\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)|^2$$ $$~\leq~ \int_{0}^{\infty} \! dr ~(r+1)^{n-1} e^{-2f_{\varepsilon}(r)} ~\stackrel{f=(1+r)^{\varepsilon}}{=}~ \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \int_{1}^{\infty}\!df~f^{\frac{n}{\varepsilon}-1} e^{-2f} ~<~\infty,\qquad \varepsilon~> ~0.\tag{6} $$


The kinetic energy vanishes


$$ 0~\leq~\qquad\langle\psi_{\varepsilon}|K|\psi_{\varepsilon} \rangle ~=~ \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\! d^nr~ |{\bf \nabla}\psi_{\varepsilon}(r) |^2 ~=~ \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\! d^nr~ \left|\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)\frac{df_{\varepsilon}(r)}{dr} \right|^2 $$ $$~\propto~ \varepsilon^2\int_{0}^{\infty}\! dr~ r^{n-1} (r+1)^{2\varepsilon-2}|\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)|^2~ \leq~\varepsilon^2 \int_{0}^{\infty} \!dr ~ (r+1)^{2\varepsilon+n-3}e^{-2f_{\varepsilon}(r)}$$ $$~\stackrel{f=(1+r)^{\varepsilon}}{=}~ \varepsilon \int_{1}^{\infty}\! df ~ f^{1+\frac{\color{Red}{n-2}}{\varepsilon}} e^{-2f} ~\searrow ~0\quad\text{for}\quad \varepsilon ~\searrow ~0^{+}, \tag{7}$$ when $\color{Red}{n\leq 2}$, while the potential energy



$$0~\geq~\qquad\langle\psi_{\varepsilon}|V|\psi_{\varepsilon} \rangle ~=~ \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \!d^nr~|\psi_{\varepsilon}(r)|^2~V({\bf r}) $$ $$ ~\searrow ~e^{-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \!d^nr~V({\bf r})~<~0 \quad\text{for}\quad \varepsilon ~\searrow ~0^{+} ,\tag{8} $$


remains non-zero due to assumption (1) and Lebesgue's monotone convergence theorem.


Thus by choosing $ \varepsilon \searrow 0^{+}$ smaller and smaller, the negative potential energy (8) beats the positive kinetic energy (7), so that the average energy $\frac{\langle\psi_{\varepsilon}|H|\psi_{\varepsilon}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{\varepsilon}|\psi_{\varepsilon}\rangle}<0$ eventually becomes negative for the trial function $\psi_{\varepsilon}$. A bound state$^1$ can then be deduced from the variational method.


Note in particular that it is absolutely crucial for the argument in the last line of eq. (7) that the dimension $\color{Red}{n\leq 2}$. $\Box$


Simpler proof for $\color{Red}{n<2}$: Consider an un-normalized (but normalizable) Gaussian test/trial wavefunction


$$\psi(x)~:=~e^{-\frac{x^2}{2L^2}}, \qquad L~>~0.\tag{9}$$


Normalization must scale as


$$||\psi|| ~\stackrel{(9)}{\propto}~ L^{\frac{n}{2}}.\tag{10}$$


The normalized kinetic energy scale as


$$0~\leq~\frac{\langle\psi| K|\psi \rangle}{||\psi||^2} ~\propto ~ L^{-2}\tag{11}$$



for dimensional reasons. Hence the un-normalized kinetic scale as


$$0~\leq~\langle\psi| K|\psi \rangle ~\stackrel{(10)+(11)}{\propto} ~ L^{\color{Red}{n-2}}.\tag{12}$$


Eq. (12) means that


$$\exists L_0>0 \forall L\geq L_0:~~0~\leq~ \langle\psi|K|\psi\rangle ~ \stackrel{(12)}{\leq} ~-\frac{v}{3}~>~0\tag{13}$$


if $\color{Red}{n<2}$.


The un-normalized potential energy tends to a negative constant


$$\langle\psi| V|\psi \rangle ~\searrow~\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \! \mathrm{d}^nx ~V(x)~=:~v~<~0\quad\text{for}\quad L~\to~ \infty.\tag{14}$$


Eq. (14) means that


$$\exists L_0>0 \forall L\geq L_0:~~ \langle\psi| V|\psi\rangle ~\stackrel{(14)}{\leq}~ \frac{2v}{3} ~<~ 0.\tag{15}$$


It follows that the average energy



$$\frac{\langle\psi|H|\psi\rangle}{||\psi||^2}~=~\frac{\langle\psi|K|\psi\rangle+\langle\psi|V|\psi\rangle}{||\psi||^2}~\stackrel{(13)+(15)}{\leq}~ \frac{v}{3||\psi||^2}~<~0\tag{16}$$


of trial function must be negative for a sufficiently big finite $L\geq L_0$ if $\color{Red}{n<2}$. Hence the ground state energy must be negative (possibly $-\infty$). $\Box$


References:




  1. K. Chadan, N.N. Khuri, A. Martin and T.T. Wu, Bound States in one and two Spatial Dimensions, J.Math.Phys. 44 (2003) 406, arXiv:math-ph/0208011.




  2. K. Yang and M. de Llano, Simple variational proof that any two‐dimensional potential well supports at least one bound state, Am. J. Phys. 57 (1989) 85.





--


$^1$ The spectrum could be unbounded from below.


$^2$ Readers familiar with the correspondence $\psi_{1D}(r)=r\psi_{3D}(r)$ between 1D problems and 3D spherically symmetric $s$-wave problems in QM may wonder why the even bound state $\psi_{1D}(r)$ that always exists in the 1D finite well potential does not yield a corresponding bound state $\psi_{3D}(r)$ in the 3D case? Well, it turns out that the corresponding solution $\psi_{3D}(r)=\frac{\psi_{1D}(r)}{r}$ is singular at $r=0$ (where the potential is constant), and hence must be discarded.


classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...