Wednesday, January 31, 2018

general relativity - Does a black hole have enough time to actually form a singularity?


I am trying to wrap my head around black holes, singularties and hawking radiation. Physics.se contains many intresting questions and answers, but from none I could so far read about the interaction between formation of a singularity and hawking radiation (most seem to talk about the point at which matter plunges into a black hole that already has a singularity).


From what I understand, from the perspective of a star collapsing into a singularity, the perceived time is just like in classical mechanics: the mass is accelerated towards the center of gravity, and when "everything" is there, it is a singularity. Now this takes a finite time, and the matter itself perceives just that. Part of the question is: how long is this time? I am assuming in the magnitude of milliseconds.


Now as I understand hawking radiation, as soon as there is an event horizon, it will start emitting negative mass/energy into the direction of the singularity. Time dilation gets infinitely stronger as we approach the singularity, so I would assume that from the perspective of those negative particles, they would all the time reduce their perceived distance to the particles of positive energy/mass that are already on their way to the singularity.


Since approaching the singularity, time dilation becomes kind of infinite, even the $10^{100}$ years or so it is supposed to take for hawking radiation to evaporate a black hole seem to be enough to send the necessary amount of negative energy/mass particles down to the singularity so that they can "chase" the positive energy/mass paticles very closely.



But will they reach them before a singularity forms, so that they cancel out each other to the point there is not enough gravitational force?


If this is just a matter of calculating "$n$s until matter reaches singularity" and "$m$s until negative mass/energy reaches singularity" and calculation shows that always $n

If this is a qualitative matter, in that some of my ideas are fundamentally wrong, please point those out (again if possible in a way that doesn't require too exotic concepts).




spring - Better understanding natural resonance frequency and simple harmonic motion


Let me see if I'm getting this understood correctly. I'm trying to make sure my interpretation of simple harmonic motion is the right interpretation, including my take on resonant frequency.


Okay, so if something is going to oscillate simple harmonically, it needs the following conditions:



  • It needs to be elastic - by that I mean an object is in some position where if it were to move in some given direction $+x$ let's say, the object's orientation would be such that there is a linear force opposing it trying to push it back to its original configuration. A spring has this property for example. When its compressed, it wants to decompress. When it's taught, it wants to relax back.

  • Its net force on it must always oppose the direction of motion, equal to $F = -kx$ where $k$ is some constant. Thus, the net force on the object must vary with direction in time, but it must never go farther in one direction than the other, since we're considering normal simple harmonic motion, so its force will be highest at maximum displacement, but the values $F$ will take will always be the same in each direction. There's a symmetry to it.


Those two points probably imply eachother, but whatever.


If an object oscillates, this is implied:


$$F_{net} \propto -kx$$



$$\implies mx'' = -kx$$ $$\implies x'' = -\frac{k}{m} x \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$$ This implies that the solution to this differential equation must satisfy the fact that taking its derivative twice returns the original function but with a negative.


The sine function satisfies this. Now, it needs to spit out $\sqrt\frac{k}{m}$ each time it's differentiated, so it needs to be a scalar on the argument of sine.


Define $\omega$ s.t. $\omega ^2 = \frac{k}{m}$


Then, our solution is of the form


$$sin(\omega t)$$


Questions I still have:




  • Why does everything have a natural resonant frequency, and not just things which can clearly oscillate like masses on springs?





  • This implies $\omega$ is a constant. So, for this spring, no matter what displacement I pull it at, it will oscillate at the same rate? This doesn't seem obvious, but seems like an implication of the system




  • Are there any holes in my interpretation?





Answer




Why does everything have a natural resonant frequency, and not just things which can clearly oscillate like masses on springs?




Because every structure that sits in equilibrium of some potential behaves, to the first order, like a SHO. This result is derived directly from the Taylor expansion of the potential


$$U(x)=U(x_{0})+\frac{1}{2}U^{\prime\prime}(x_0)\left(x-x_{0}\right)^{2}+\dots$$


Observe that the linear term vanishes because we expand the potential around a minima $x_{0}$. Thus Newton's law states that


$$m\ddot{x}=-\frac{{\rm d}U}{{\rm d}x}=-U^{\prime\prime}(x_0)\left(x-x_{0}\right)$$


so we can define an effective spring constant as $k\equiv U^{\prime\prime}(x_0)$.



This implies $\omega$ is a constant. So, for this spring, no matter what displacement I pull it at, it will oscillate at the same rate? This doesn't seem obvious, but seems like an implication of the system.



This statement is correct. In the case of a SHO, the frequency of oscillations is independent of the amplitude. This is a due to the linearity of the equation. We can write the equation of motion in the form



$$\ddot{x}=-\omega^{2}x$$


and as you can see, if $x$ is a solution, also $cx$ is a solution - with the same $\omega$.


definition - What is the difference between a tensor, vector, and a matrix?



I'm currently going through notes on a physics course and I'm having trouble understanding the difference between a tensor, a vector, and a matrix. I know that a vector is a kind of tensor and that a matrix is also a form of tensor, but what I'm having trouble understanding is how they differ, and how a vector is related to a matrix.




electromagnetism - Optical chirality and its possible hierarchy of generalizations


Optical chirality refers to a constant of motion of the electromagnetic field, which measures in some sense how chiral a light field is. Specifically, the pseudoscalar quantity $$ C=\frac{\varepsilon_0}{2}\mathbf{E}\cdot \nabla\times\mathbf{E}+\frac{1}{2\mu_0}\mathbf{B}\cdot \nabla\times\mathbf{B} \tag1 $$ obeys the continuity equation $$ \frac{\partial C}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{2\mu_0}\nabla\cdot\left(\mathbf{E}\times\nabla\times\mathbf{B}-\mathbf{B}\times\nabla\times\mathbf{E}\right)=0 $$ in free space. It was re-discovered by Yiqiao Tang and Adam E. Cohen, in



Yiqiao Tang and Adam E. Cohen. Optical Chirality and Its Interaction with Matter. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 163901 (2010); Harvard eprint.



after having been discovered, puzzled over, called 'zilch' for lack of a better name, and forgotten in the 1960s.


This quantity is useful because it is a direct measure of how strongly many chiral biological molecules will interact with a chiral electromagnetic wave, which is an important tool of biochemistry. This rediscovery is a huge step forward, but as Tang and Cohen note, it cannot be the whole story:



Similarly, there cannot be a single measure of electromagnetic chirality appropriate to all EM fields. There exist chiral fields for which $C$ as defined in Eq. (1) is zero. Indeed, the field of any static, chiral configuration of point charges is chiral, yet by Eq. (1), $C=0$.




(This is trivially seen as both curls vanish in the static case.) In response to this, Tang and Cohen offer some conjectures:



The optical chirality of Eq. (1) may be part of a hierarchy of bilinear chiral measures that involve higher spatial derivatives of the electric and magnetic fields [22]. We speculate that all linear chiral light-matter interactions can be described by sums of products of material chiralities and time-even pseudoscalar optical chiralities.



In addition to this, there is the possibility of non-linear chiral interactions, which involve the product of three or more force fields.




To come, finally, to my question: what is the current status of these conjectures? Are there descriptions of higher-order tensors (involving higher spatial derivatives) or nonlinear terms (involving more than two force fields), which are also chirally sensitive? Is there some ordered hierarchy which contains them? Is there some sort of completeness result that guarantees said hierarchy contains 'all' the relevant quantities?




reference frames - Why is the Moon's Centre of gravity different to its centre of mass?



All the places that I've seen an answer to this question simply state that it's because there is a stronger gravitational pull on the near side of the moon, facing the earth. But I'm wondering how this gravitational pull actually manages to shift the centre of gravity of the moon, and how does it tie into the idea that the centre of gravity is where a body's weight is evenly distributed?



Answer



The near side of the moon experiences more gravity because it is closer to Earth. The force of gravity from the Earth acting on the moon has an inverse relationship to the distance between the two bodies. So the part of the moon that is closer to Earth experiences greater gravity than the far side of the moon.


If there were no other bodies of mass acting on the moon, then the centre of gravity would be the centre of mass. But that's not the case here.


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Going from classical field to quantum field operator?


Let us say I have a classical field theory, with a field $\phi(\vec r,t)$ which satisfies the relevant Euler-Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian $\mathscr{L}$. Is the general procedure (i.e. one that will work for any $\mathscr{L}$) for going from this classical field to the quantum field operators in QFT?


I know that one can look at commutators, but is this really enough to uniquely specify the field operators?





logical deduction - Humphrey meets Laureen in town



Laureen is talking with Humphrey: "if the weather is good on Sunday I will go to the horse races. I will also bring my friend Sam with me, if he feels ok". on Sunday afternoon Humphrey meets Laureen in town.


which is true?
a) Sam is not well
b) It is raining and Sam is not well
c) It is good weather, but Sam didn't want to go to the horse races
d) It is good weather, but Sam isn't well
e) It is raining



Answer



Humphrey




is not at the races.



Therefore,



It is not "good weather".



Therefore,



e) it is raining.




Additional Notes:



Humphrey being at the races was not conditional on Sam's health. Sam may be well, he may not, that's not known however.



Monday, January 29, 2018

dissection - Dissecting Africa


A straightforward puzzle for the patient. There are no tricks or decryptions needed. The task is 'simple' albeit potentially challenging (and maybe time-consuming).





Dissect the Africa-grid below into 54 pieces of different shape and size.
- Each piece consists of fully connected squares, i.e. is a polyomino.
- The letters on each piece are anagrams.
- All anagrams belong to the same group of words, defining the dissection property.
- The anagrams may contain one or more 'white spaces'.
- The English language is used.

If you dissect it correctly, you may be able to spot a rather well-known word in an African native language. (Googling the word gives 125,000,000+ results)






DissectThisInto54Pieces



Answer



Got the dissection part done. No idea about the native African word, though.



The 54 pieces are the various nations of Africa
Africa



quantum spin - Why do we use this diagram/model for elementary particles?


The model of elementary particles is analagous to the periodic table, which is organized not only beautifully, but also functionally. The typical model for the elementary particles that pops up everywhere (a), while compact, leaves out almost half of the particles, (antiparticles), and personally I feel like it's unorganized and doesn't convey the information clearly (spin, charge, mass). Is there a reason this is what's used, instead of something more complete and organized? (like this (b))


(a) Typical model of Elementary Particles (b) My 10-minute mock up




What is the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics in a nutshell?


What is Lagrangian mechanics, and what's the difference compared to Newtonian mechanics? I'm a mathematician/computer scientist, not a physicist, so I'm kind of looking for something like the explanation of the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics you'd give to someone who just finished a semester of college physics.


Things I'm hoping to have explained to me:



  • What's the overall difference in layman's terms? From what I've read so far, it sounds like Newtonian mechanics takes a more local "cause-and-effect"/"apply a force, get a reaction" view, while Lagrangian mechanics takes a more global "minimize this quantity" view. Or, to put it more axiomatically, Newtonian mechanics starts with Newton's three laws of motion, while Lagrangian mechanics starts with the Principle of Least Action.


  • How do the approaches differ mathematically/when you're trying to solve a problem? Kind of similar to above, I'm guessing that Newtonian solutions start with drawing a bunch of force vectors, while Lagrangian solutions start with defining some function (calculating the Lagrangian...?) you want to minimize, but I really have no idea.

  • What are the pros/cons of each approach? What questions are more naturally solved in each? For example, I believe Fermat's Principle of Least Time is something that's very naturally explained in Lagrangian mechanics ("minimize the time it takes to get between these two points"), but more difficult to explain in Newtonian mechanics since it requires knowing your endpoint.




mathematics - The bird and the train


This question is one I found in a competitive exam paper, and has two solutions: one simple and one complex.



A train starts from the east end of a 200 km long east-west track at 50 km/h. At the same time, a bird starts flying in a straight line from the west end along the same track at 60 km/h. When the train and bird meet, the bird immediately turns around and goes to its starting point, then again turns around and meets the train. This goes on till the train reaches the bird's origin point. How much total distance has the bird covered?




  • Both the bird and the train neither speed up nor slow down during this entire time.




  • Bonus for posting more than one solution.





Answer




The bird travels



$240$ km in total.



Take the general case where the train starts $x$ km from the west end, and the bird starts at the west end. They travel towards each other at a relative speed of $110$ km/h, so they will meet each other after $\frac{x}{110}$ hours. The bird will then take the same amount of time to travel back, at which point the train will have travelled $2\times\frac{50x}{110}=\frac{10x}{11}$ km and the bird will have travelled $2\times\frac{60x}{110}=\frac{12x}{11}$ km. At this point we are back in the initial position, except that the train is now only $\frac{x}{11}$ km from the west end.


Now if we start the train at $200$ km, we can see that the bird travels $\frac{12}{11}\times 200$ km on its first round trip, $\frac{12}{11}\times \frac{200}{11}$ km on its second, and so on. Thus we can construct the total distance travelled as the infinite sum


$\begin{align}\frac{2400}{11}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{11^n} &=\frac{2400}{11}\times\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{11}} \\ &=240\end{align}$


So, as stated, the bird travels



$240$ km in total.




special relativity - Light clock with mirrors on a moving train



I am reading a new popular science book where a thought experiment proposed by Albert Einstein is explained.


It is a thought experiment with a light clock. The light clock is emitting light straight into a mirror, the mirror reflects the light and when the light makes the round trip clock-mirror-clock this registers the passage of a certain amount of time, e.g. 1 millionth of a second.


In the first part of the experiment the clock is standing in a train which is not moving so the clock and the mirror are still. As seen in the first picture (below).


light clock standing still


In the second part of the thought experiment the train is moving and the book suggests that the light travels a longer distance because the train is moving and therefore it kind of travels on a diagonal as presented in the second picture (below).


enter image description here


Now I disagree with this suggestion. I see no reason for the light to change trajectory or travel a longer distance. I argue that even when the train is moving the first picture still holds true.



There is also one more thing that it seems to me is wrong with that picture. There is no mirror against the clock at t0, no clock against the mirror at t1 and again no mirror against the clock at t2. This placement of the clock and mirror in time is crucial because it results in the longer diagonal path of the light but the clock and the mirror are moving at the same time! So the only illustration that makes sense is one where the clock is always against the mirror.


In the experiment it is said that light travels a longer trajectory with reference to an observer outside of the train standing still beside the railway.


I think that the train travels with reference to the still observer but the light travels with reference to the train. So I argue that regardless of whether the train is moving or not the light travels the same distance for the same time.


After all when it comes to measuring distances the reference is central.


More food for thought: It could just as well be a ping pong (table tennis) ball clock. If you are playing table tennis on a train the ball travels directly along the length of the table while the train is moving, would you suggest that the ball is traveling on a diagonal trajectory? I think not.


Please share all your arguments.



Answer



I believe the crux of your concern is here:


I see no reason for the light to change trajectory


So the short answer is it doesn't. The explanation in your book blows.



There are two points it is failing to convey properly; first, there is no change in trajectory, and secondly, this happens in "classical" mechanics too. Let's start with that second point...


If you replaced the photons with rubber balls you have the same diagram.


For the two people tossing the ball back and forth on the train, there is no change in trajectory if the train is motionless or moving. To their eye, they are passing the ball directly back and forth. Let's say the train is 2m wide, so it's moving a total of 4m. And it takes 2 seconds, so it's 4/2 = 2m/s.


However, someone watching this from the embankment when the train is in motion would see the second diagram, that the ball is taking a longer path in "the real world". They see the first person toss the ball when they were in the station, and catch it again when they are at that sign over there. The distance between the station and the sign is 100m, so over that same 2 seconds, that means the ball is going 50m/s.


But it's vital to note that these are both the exact same ball toss. The trajectory does not change. All that changed is the frame of reference you based your measurements on. Did the ball move 2m/s or 50m/s? Both, what changed was not the ball, but the frame of reference.


This is the entire crux of the galilean transform. It gives you a little bit of math that tells you how to convert between the two cases based on the velocity of the frames. It has been a key point for classical mechanics since we invented classical mechanics.


So what is the difference in SR?


By the late 1800s we knew that there was something very odd about light. It was increasingly clear from a series of experiments dating into the 1700s that light did NOT follow this transformation. The Earth is moving in opposite directions in the summer and winter, so we would expect an effect like the one above when we looked at light from distant stars. We would see this as a shift in color, which we could measure very accurately at that time. And that was simply not happening. No matter where or how we looked, everyone saw the same thing, essentially the first of the two diagrams.


But how could this be? The galilean transform was clearly applying to physical objects, but apparently not to light. Yet physical objects give off and absorb light. This is not a minor point; there's all sorts of effects that would be obvious if it was the case that the transform didn't apply to light. For instance, objects would cool down differently if they were moving at different speeds. And we definitely didn't see that! So by the end of the 1800s, a whole lot of people were trying to explain why we know it has to be occurring, but we don't see it.


And that's what SR answers.



So here it is... we know that everyone sees the same speed of light. But what is speed? Speed is not a "thing", it's a calculated value. It's calculated by dividing distance by time. And we already know that the distance we measure is based on your frame of reference...


So isn't it perfectly obvious? The solution is that time is also based on your frame of reference.


And once you make that leap, the entire mystery just vanishes. All that remains is how it changes fro frame to frame. Since we know that c is constant, you just work the problem backwards - in order for us not to see something weird, time must change across frames like this. That's the formula in your book.


So when you do use photons, the people on the train measure the distance and time and divide to get c, and the person on the embankment measures a different distance and a different time and divides to get... c. And this doesn't just apply to light, it applies to the rubber balls too, but we don't notice in that case because they're moving so slowly.


Mystery gone. Poof.


The real question isn't what's so special about SR, but why anyone had to "invent" this in the first place. This shouldn't be surprising. We were always perfectly happy with the idea that we have different measurements in different frames of reference, in fact, it's obvious. So why did we think time was different?


Einstein didn't so much invent something new as point out that we had this huge invisible prejudice, and if you see it, and realize what it implies, then all the mystery vanishes. SR isn't complicated, it simplifies things dramatically.


special relativity - Why does only one twin travel in the twin paradox?


The wikipedia page repeatedly says that the twin travelling in space is the only one which travels, and also is the only one which faces acceleration and deceleration. So it does not age, while the twin which remains in one place ages.


However, this seems wrong as there is no such thing as staying in one place. The twin which presumably stays on earth is travelling at the same relative velocity, relative to the twin in the spaceship. Since the spaceship twin's acceleration is just the rate of change of velocity, so when the spaceship twin's velocity changes relative to the earth twin, the earth twin's relative velocity compared to the space twin also changes, and so the earth twin experiences the same relative acceleration as the space twin (in the opposite direction).


In fact, the space twin sees the earth twin as accelerating away from him, then decelerating and coming back, while he thinks his spaceship is at rest all the time. So then why should the earth twin age more than the space twin? Why not the other way around?




logical deduction - The completely generalized poisoned-bottle problem


Since there have been quite a few poisoned-bottle problems posted to the site already, I thought I'd post a general formula to cover all future variations of this problem (at least where a single poisoned bottle is concerned).




You have $n \le (m+1)^k$ bottles of wine, one of which is poisoned. The poisoned wine kills any person who drinks it at the stroke of midnight on the day that they drank it. You have $k$ prisoners to test the wine by making them drink it and possibly killing them, and $m$ days to conduct these death trials. How do you plan out the tests so that you can figure out which bottle is poisoned?




Answer



Each prisoner has $m+1$ possible states from the trials — dead in 1 day, dead in 2 days, ..., dead in $m$ days, not dead. This makes for a total of $(m+1)^k$ total possible states.


Since this is an information puzzle, we want to map each bottle to a possible state.


If we assign each bottle a $m+1$-ary number with $k$ digits (or alternatively, an ordered $k$-tuple with integers from $0$ to $m$), we can make this represent the days on which we need to give the prisoners these bottles as testing. Specifically, on the $i$th day, we give the $p$th prisoner any bottle where the $p$th digit is $i$, so that if the prisoner dies on that day, then we know that the poisoned bottle must have the $p$th digit equal to $i$.


In this way, we can narrow the possibilities down to a single bottle. For example, if $m = 3$ and $k = 4$, and the bottle (out of $256$) is labelled $0130$ (out of $0000$, $0001$, $0002$, $0003$, $0010$, $0011$, etc. up until $3333$), then the following will happen:





  1. On the first day, the second prisoner dies. So we know that the second digit on the poisoned bottle's label is $1$.




  2. On the second day, nobody dies, so we know that none of the bottles labelled with a $2$ are poisoned.




  3. On the third day, the third prisoner dies and nobody else does, so we know that the third digit is $3$, and the rest are $0$. Therefore, the poisoned bottle is the one labelled $0130$.




Sunday, January 28, 2018

algorithm - Maze Solving Robot


Archie the archeologist has discovered an Egyptian temple, and plans to send in a robot to explore it. He uncovered the ancient engineers' papyruses which explain almost everything about the temple's layout. However, the engineers left out one crucial detail to stymie the efforts of thieves: the details of the maze room.


Here is all the papyrus said about the maze room:



  1. It is a $20$ meter by $20$ meter square, whose walls are aligned with the compass directions.

  2. The floor is colored like a $20\times 20$ checkerboard.

  3. Between each adjacent square, there either is a wall, or isn't.

  4. One square is the "start" square: the only entrance to the maze involves being dropped onto this square from a trap door

  5. Another square is the "finish" square: once you step on it, you immediately fall through a trap door to the throne room

  6. It is possible to get from start to finish



To program the robot, you give it a finite list of compass directions, either North, South, East or West. The robot then goes down the list, moving one meter in the current direction unless doing so would make it hit a wall, in which case it doesn't move.



Can Archie program the robot so that, starting from the start square, it will be guaranteed to eventually reach the finish square?



A note: you do not need to explicitly describe the program, only convince Archie whether this task is possible. The grad student will take care of creating/writing the actual program.



Answer



Sure you can. There's finitely many possible mazes, so solve each one in sequence. To solve a maze, imagine you're in that maze. Figure out where you are in the maze by simulating starting on the start space and following the instructions corresponding to the sequence of steps you've taken so far. Then, make the moves that would take you from there to the exit.




Algorithm





  • Generate the ordered set of all potential legal mazes with all potential entry and exit squares. Call this set $M$.




  • Let the total list of moves executed up to but not including step $n$ be $H_n$. Let the list of moves executed during step $n$ be $h_n$.




  • For each model $\mathfrak{m} \in M$:




    • Assume $\mathfrak{m}$.

    • Compute the robot's presumptive location subject to executing $H_n$.

    • Compute $h_n$ such that the robot reaches the presumptive exit.

    • Execute $h_n$.

    • Append $h_n$ to $H_n$.






I had tried a different solution using synchronizing words to get to a fixed position in a given maze, but wasn't able to guarantee the DFA associated with the maze meets the conditions that guarantee one, like those in this result.



word - Twelve Labours - #07 Cleats 'N' Balls


This puzzle is part of the ‘Twelve Labours’ series, but can be solved independently. Previous instalments can be found here: Prologue | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06




Emerging from the barbers with a new look that he really hadn’t planned on, Hercules was relieved to see from his to-do list that he was finally halfway through his labours for the day. But time was ticking on...



Hauling his ever-heavier flatbed trolley quickly up the road to Cleats ‘N’ Balls, he was rather out of breath when he walked in through the door. “Cleats” – as it was often known – stocked all kinds of sporting supplies and also doubled as the reception area for the golf course that lay just behind it. It had been run by the same family for generations, the current manager being a young woman called Pasiphaë, who truly loved this job.


“Here are the team kits your mother ordered,” she said with a huge smile, handing Hercules a bundle of shirts, shorts and socks. “The boys will look super smart in those. Can I interest you in a game of golf while you’re here? On the house...”


“No, I’ve got a lot to be getting on with today, thank you,” replied Hercules, shortly.


“Your mother will be disappointed,” said Pasiphaë, with a sly look and a raised eyebrow. “After all – there’s something else she ordered too... and I’ll only tell you what it was if you can beat our golf course.”


Hercules closed his eyes for a moment and breathed deeply, before Pasiphaë gestured towards a map on the wall:


enter image description here


“This is our Herugolf course,” she explained, before pointing out the list of rules on the wall nearby:



Rules of Herugolf: (Adapted from Nikoli)





  1. Move (hit) all circles (balls) one or more times, and bring them to a cell with a red H (hole). Each ball must end up in a different hole.




  2. Show the movement of a ball by an arrow, with the tip of the arrow in the cell where it stops. The arrow cannot cross other balls, holes, or arrows.




  3. When it is first hit, a ball travels across as many cells as the number inside it, in a straight line, either vertically or horizontally (no diagonals, no changing direction partway through a move).





  4. Each subsequent shot follows the same rules but crosses 1 cell fewer than the previous shot (e.g. a ball numbered ‘3’ crosses 3 cells on its first shot, 2 on its second, and 1 on its third). The direction of travel may (but doesn’t have to) change after (not during) a shot. When the next shot length becomes 0, or the ball stops at a hole, the ball cannot move any further.




  5. A ball cannot leave the grid (“out of bounds”) and cannot stop at the end of a shot in a water hazard or sand trap (shaded cells), although it may pass through them if the shot ends on the grass (unshaded cells).





“If you can complete our course you’ll receive a hint as to where you might usually find this 10-letter item – from that you should be able to work out what it is.” Pasiphaë reached behind the counter and snatched up a sheet of paper, which she passed to Hercules. “You’ll also be needing one of these more detailed map printouts to guide you through the course. Good luck!”


TASK: Logically deduce the solution to the Herugolf puzzle (below) and resolve the resulting hint to learn what other item (singular) Hercules’ mother has ordered from Cleats ‘N’ Balls. Please explain your reasoning with diagrams to show the logical steps that led you to the solution.


enter image description here




Answer



To start:



The 5 near the bottom middle must go right. The 5 near the bottom right must go left, or it will make the hole to its right inaccessible. Then, both of those are pushed up, and both only have one way to make it to a hole.
enter image description here



A few more steps in the center follow from that:



The hole that one ball spiraled around can only be accessed in one way.
The 4 near the middle of row 2 must go left; this pushes the 5 right and gives it only one way to reach a hole.

The hole it reaches also can only be reached by one ball: the 3 near the top middle.

enter image description here



The right side can be completely resolved:



The 5 must go up to not cover a hole. Then it must go right, then there's only one way for it to make it to a hole. Then the top hole must be filled by a 3 hooking around the top, and then the others follow easily.
enter image description here



There's progress on the left side too:



The 4 in row 4 must go left to not cover any holes, and it must go to the bottom hole.

The top hole in the left column can only be reached by the 4 in the top row. Similarly, the hole close to it can only be reached by the 3 directly to its right.

enter image description here



And finishing off the puzzle:



The 3 on the bottom can't go up: it would push the unmoved 3 upwards, trapping the 4 on the left. So it must go right.
The two 4s on the bottom both must go up, and they can easily be resolved.
Now, there's only one way to satisfy the 3 near the lower left, then the 4 on the left, and finally the 3 on the bottom.

enter image description here





Extracting an answer:




enter image description here The unvisited cells spell "SOCCER PITCH VERTICES", in reverse. So the answer is the item found at that location: a CORNER FLAG.



cosmology - How do we know for certain that space is expanding?


How do we know for certain that space is expanding?


Let's say that in the year 1950, we observe that galaxy 1 is 5 billion light years away from us and galaxy 2 is 10 billion light years away from us, putting both galaxies at a distance of 5 billion light years from each other. Then in 2013, we observe that they are now 7 billion light years away from each other so we conclude space is expanding.


We see that galaxies are move away from each other but how does that prove that space is expanding? Could this illusion of expanding space simply be due to something larger in mass pulling the farther galaxy 2 away from galaxy 1? This larger mass could be accelerating the velocity of galaxy 2 faster then it's accelerating the velocity of galaxy 1.




quantum mechanics - Expectation values of $x$, $y$, $z$ in hydrogen?


The expectation value of $r=\sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}$ for the electron in the ground state in hydrogen is $\frac{3a}{2}$ where a is the bohr radius.


I can easily see from the integration that the expectation values of $x$ , $y$, $z$ individually is $0$ because of the factor $\cos\phi$, $\sin\phi$ and $\cos\theta$(.$\sin\theta$) respectively for $x$ $y$, $z$ integrating out to $0$.


What does this mean? Is it an artifact of the spherically symmetric potential? Since $r$ has a non zero value but what makes up $r$ ie $x$, $y$, $z$ (or rather the squareroot of the sum of their squares) each has individually $0$ and i can simultaneously determine their values since they commute with each other, which means $x,y,z$ are all simultaneously $0$ and $r$ is not?!




What is the best method of scrambling a rubik's cube?


If I wanted to solve a physical Rubik's cube multiple times, for practice, what is the best, most random way, to scramble the solved cube?


The best way I can think is to hold it behind my back and turn randomly until, when I look at it, it looks random enough.


Is there a better way?



Answer



If you're willing to take the time: The World Cube Association has a specific method for shuffling their cubes. They use a program called TNoodle to do the scrambling; the program generates a "scramble sequence" which can be followed to produce a scrambled cube.



Their code actually features a nice interface to generate the scrambles:


enter image description here


I have yet to figure out what the "Adjust Events" options do, but producing the scramble sequences just comes down to clicking the "Scramble!" button.


Here's the result of running their program:


enter image description here


There is also an online interface here. I used it to scramble my new 30x30x30 Rubik's cube:


enter image description here


newtonian mechanics - If there is no gravity, does that mean there's no mass as well?



I have demonstrated that weight only is measured based on the gravitational pull of where you live.


For example, the gravity on the surface of Mars is three times smaller than the gravity on the surface of Earth.


So my question is simple: If we take into account that weight is only measured based on gravitational pull on that mass, if there was no gravity how would we define mass?


That is, would mass weigh anything if no gravitational pull acted on it? Then what would be mass?





pattern - What is a Tellygraph Word™?


This is in the spirit of the What is a Word/Phrase™ series started by JLee with a special brand of Phrase™ and Word™ puzzles.


If a word conforms to a special rule, I call it a Tellygraph Word™.


Can you tell me how to get a word that conforms to the rule?


Examples of Tellygraph Words


And, if you want to analyze, here is a CSV version:




Tellygraph Words™,Not Tellygraph Words™
ANVIL,FORGE
ANXIETY,STRESS
FILTHY,DIRTY
HAMLET,HOVEL
INFLAME,IGNITE
INHALE,BREATHE
KNIFE,BLADE
NATIVE,LOCAL

NEAT,CLEAN
TWINKLE,SHINE
VITAL,CRITICAL
VIXEN,HARLOT
WEALTHY,WELL-OFF
WHINE,FUSS

Answer



A Tellygraph Word™ is, in essence,



a word containing no letters that are drawn using a curved line (BCDGJOPQRSU).




It's called a Tellygraph Word™ because



if you look at the top edge or the bottom edge of the word, the letters can be interpreted as Morse Code.



For example,



The word ANVIL The top edge of the word is $\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot - \centerdot$. The bottom edge is $\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot\centerdot - -$ (The first five dots on the top are from the top of the A, the tops of the two arms of the N, and the tops of the two arms of the V.)



Saturday, January 27, 2018

acoustics - Why does a container with fluid make different sounds at different fluid levels?


Have you ever noticed that when you are filling a container with fluid. As it approaches the top, it makes a different sound? You can tell by listening when your about to reach the top. Why is this?




riddle - Find the Cell Number, free the Mayor


Last night, the mayor of a small town was kidnapped. 2000 suspects have been brought into the local prison based off eyewitness reports as to what the suspect looked like.One of these 2000 suspects is the kidnapper .You,the local detective, have to find out the culprit. But this particular criminal is intelligent, leaving no clues or leads whatsoever. However, the culprit does appreciate good intelligence. There is a note on your desk that reads:


"Figure out my riddle, decode my confusing code, And then I will lift the town's most burdening load, Yes you guessed right, if you figure it out, I think it will be fair, to give you my jail cell number, so I can tell you about the Mayor"


"0 is 1 and 5 is 248,832, root the sum of me and 7 less squared and the answer is bad luck for you"



I am your first two digits


"Don't go too fast, that's more bad luck, to counteract it, you'll have to use a hex


My name is 1011-1010-1101 and that's not all, my purpose is to perplex


Tell me my name and my favourite singer, and you'll get out soon


If you're able to do all of this and tell me now, I'll gladly fly you to the moon.


Count the leters of your answers, and sum it all into one,


these are the next two digits of the code,


You've won the battle my dear friend , but the war has only begun"




Answer



Updated:




1215?



"0 is 1 and 5 is 248,832, root the sum of me and 7 less squared and the answer is bad luck for you" I am your first two digits



12: 120 =1, 125=248832
root the sum of me and 7 less squared: root(x2+(x-7)2)=13 => root(122+52)=13 => root(169)=13 so x matches 12



"Don't go too fast, that's more bad luck, to counteract it, you'll have to use a hex


My name is 1011-1010-1101 and that's not all, my purpose is to perplex




BAD - in hexadecimals 1011=B, 1010=A, 1101=D



Tell me my name and my favourite singer, and you'll get out soon If you're able to do all of this and tell me now, I'll gladly fly you to the moon.



I'm guessing his singer is Frank Sinatra - "Fly to moon" song



Count the leters of your answers, and sum it all into one,


these are the next two digits of the code,




15: "BAD" - 3 letters, "Frank Sinatra" - 12 letters



chess - Get 6 pawns in file A or H



This is somehow inspired by my other chess related question: Possible pawn combinations


How can you get 6 pawns (white or black) on a chessboard on the files A or H using legal moves?
Start with a normal chess board, with the standard configuration of pieces.
If you choose white, provide the list of moves to reach a position where 6 white pawns are on file A or H rows 2 to 7.
Regular chess moves apply.
- if the king is checked it needs to get out of check
- If mate "happens" before reaching the desired position you failed.


Here is a possible layout of the desired position (I chose white):
Since there are 15 captures required, black will end up with just the king. I removed also all the white pieces and 2 extra pawns, but they can still be present on the board.
Also the kings can end up in any position.



As of Sid's recommendation Make it in the lowest number of moves you can.




Answer



A solution in 31 moves.



https://lichess.org/UTEzGBSi#62
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Nd4 Nd5 3. Nc6 dxc6 4. g4 Bf5 5. gxf5 h5 6. f4 Nd7 7. e4 Ne5 8. fxe5 Qd6 9. exd6 exd6 10. exd5 g6 11. Na3 Bg7 12. Rb1 Bd4 13. h4 Bc5 14. d4 g5 15. hxg5 Rh6 16. dxc5 dxc5 17. Bd2 Re6+ 18. fxe6 fxe6 19. Ba6 exd5 20. c4 dxc4 21. Ba5 Ke7 22. b4 cxb4 23. g6 bxa3 24. Rb6 bxa6 25. Rxh5 cxb6 26. Rb5 bxa5 27. Qb3 cxb3 28. g7 bxa2 29. g8=Q cxb5 30. Qg4 Ke8 31. Qa4 bxa4
I improved this from 32 moves by having the black player move pawns instead, saving a half move.



A proof that this is optimal.




I'll assume black is the player arranging pawns and white is helping. White needs to get their 15 non-king pieces onto each of the 15 "death squares" for black's pawns to capture, illustrated here with opposite colors. We can count the number of moves for each white piece to get to any such space: 0,1,1,2,2,3,3,4 for pawns, and 1 for each non-pawn piece except the far knight (3) and far rook (2). That forces 26 white moves.

But, some of these are incompatible. The close rook is blocked by the pawn in front that wants to never move, so one of them must take an extra move. The close bishop and knight both share a death square one move away (a3 or h3). Each issue costs a move to resolve. Finally, at least one promotion is required, so some pawn must take at least 5 moves to promote, then one to reach a death square, replacing 4 moves at most with 6, for 2 extra. That's 4 extra white moves, for 30 total.

My solution has the promoting pawn make an extra post-promotion move for 31 total. Can it be cut? The answer is no, and this will take some careful analysis.

The pawn would need to move to its death square right after promoting. Where can it end? The death squares c3, c4, d5, d6, e6 are reserved for the white c through g pawns that cannot reach a different death square without an extra move. So, the promoted pawn must go to a death square on the a-file or b-file or c6. It can't do so by making a diagonal move along the line the black pawn is moving without capturing it. This means it must promote on a8, b8, c8, or d8. The easiest seems to be d8, to promote to knight and jump to c6.

The promoting pawn must start on the h file, the only one that would otherwise take 4 moves to reach a death square. This means it must capture 4+ times to promote to d8 (or more to a8, b8, or c8). White already must capture times with their d,e,f,g pawn in place to get into place. So, white must capture 10+ black pieces. But, black must have their 6 pawns survive, and their king, leaving only 9 black pieces to be captured. So, saving the 31st move is not possible.



electromagnetic radiation - Absorption of light



I have two questions:





  1. When an atom absorbs part of spectrum from white light, why doesn't it radiate the photon back? What happens to the photon?




  2. How does the wave theory of light explain absorption of light?






Friday, January 26, 2018

cipher - A strange poster


Can you solve the cipher on this poster?



(click for better quality)


Hint 1




It looks like it was made in a factory



Hint 2



This painting might help



Hint 3



As you turn the poster over you notice this printed on the reversestrange circle




Hint 4



Here's a better resolution cipher if you've figured out the first part of this puzzle better resultion cipher



Hint 5



Herring aren't usually Bottom feeders ? Right





word - Just another riley riddle


Just another riley riddle:


My prefix is a lie,

My infix is what some people pledge to,

My suffix is to have less

What is the word?



Answer




My very quick and unprocessed guess



Conflagration



My prefix is a lie,



'con' man



My infix is what some people pledge to,




I pledge allegiance to the 'Flag' of _____.



My suffix is to have less



You're left with less food, if you have to 'ration' it.



quantum mechanics - Expectation value of time-dependent Hamiltonian


I'm trying to solve a problem in QM with a forced quantum oscillator. In this problem I have a quantum oscillator, which is in the ground state initially. At $t=0$, the force $F(t)=F_0 \sin(\Omega t)$ is switched on and after time $T$ turned off again. I need to find $\langle \hat{H} \rangle$ at time $T$.


I started out with this Hamiltonian:


$$\hat H=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega_0^2\hat{x}^2-\hat{x}F_0\sin(\Omega t)$$


And I want to solve this problem in the Heisenberg picture. Then



$$\langle \hat{H}\rangle=\langle\psi(T)|\hat{H}_S|\psi(T)\rangle=\langle\psi(0)|\hat{H}_H|\psi(0)\rangle\quad,$$


where $\hat{H}_H$ is the Hamiltonian in the Heisenberg picture and $|\psi(0)\rangle$ is the ground state of the harmonic oscillator.


Since $\hat{H}_H=U^{\dagger}(T)\hat{H}_SU(T)$, I need to find the time evolution operator $U$. I previously asked a question regarding this operator, but don't see how to apply it to this problem.



Answer



My approach would be: first determine the time evolution of $\hat{x}(t)$ and $\hat{p}(t)$. For $\hat{x}$ you have $$ \frac{d}{dt}\hat{x}_H(t) = i[H_H,\hat{x}_H(t)] = \frac{i}{2m} [\hat{p}_H(t)^2,\hat{x}_H(t)] = \frac{\hat{p_H(t)}}{m} $$ and for $p$ you have (assuming $0\leq t \leq T$) $$ \frac{d}{dt}\hat{p}_H(t) = i[H_H(t),\hat{p}_H(t)] = -m\omega_0^2 \hat{x}_H(t) + F_0\sin(\Omega t) $$ These are coupled differential equations, which you can decouple by differentiating them once more with respect to time and performing a substitution. For instance,


$$ \frac{d^2}{dt^2} \hat{x}_H(t) = \frac{1}{m} \frac{d}{dt} \hat{p}_H = -\omega_0^2 \hat{x}_H(t)+\frac{F_0}{m}\sin(\Omega t) $$ where I substituted $\frac{d}{dt} \hat{p}_H(t)$ by its equation of motion found earlier. You can also get an equation like this for $\hat{p}_H(t)(t)$, which I leave for you..


Now, these equations can be solved using your favorite method, provided you give them suitable boundary conditions. Note that you only need one boundary condition for $x$ and $p$ (which is $x_H(0)=\hat{x}_S$ and $p_H(0)=\hat{p}_S$ It will give you some expression for $\hat{x}_H(t)$ and $\hat{p}_H(t)$ in terms of $\hat{x}_S$ and $\hat{p}_S$. The Heisenberg Hamiltonian is then easily determined by substituting $\hat{x}_H(t)$ and $\hat{p}_H(t)$.


With that expression in hand you should be able to find $\langle H(t)\rangle$ (note that you should consider the cases where $t<0$ and $t>T$ separately).


EDIT: The proof regarding my statement below: In the Schroedinger picture the Hamiltonian is


$$\hat H_S=\frac{\hat{p}_S^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega_0^2\hat{x}_S^2-\hat{x}_SF_0\sin(\Omega t)$$



and the Heisenberg picture is given by $H_H = U^\dagger(t) H_S U(t)$. So if you take for instance the first term you get:


$$U^\dagger(t) \frac{\hat{p}_S^2}{2m}U(t) =\frac{1}{2m} (U^\dagger(t) \hat{p}_S U^\dagger(t))(U(t)\hat{p}_SU(t)) =\frac{1}{2m} \hat{p}_H(t)^2 $$


You can do the same for the other terms. In the end you just effectively replace $p_S\rightarrow p_H(t)$ and the same for $x$.


thermodynamics - Heat preserving performance of container relative to content


This question has been addressed in the case of a thermos bottle: Performance of a thermos bottle relative to contents


I am asking the question again without the hypothesis that it is a thermos bottle.


Given a container with a warm liquid inside ("warm" meaning warmer than the medium surrounding the container), will it cool faster, slower or equally, when it is half-full than when it is full.



To simplify the analysis, it is assumed that the opening and cap of the container have the same properties with respect to heat as the rest of the container, so that they may be ignored in the analysis.



Answer



I started asking myself this question because I was somehow unsatisfied with the answers to the previous question "Performance of a thermos bottle relative to contents" concerning a very specific kind of container. There were assumptions made in the answers. Even though these assumptions were fair, given that a thermos bottle is a rather precise and well known object, the reasonning in the answers did not make them explicit. I tried to avoid it, by reasonning explicitly about the cork of the bottle, but I still used properties of the bottle shape without saying so explicitly (I became aware of it later). And even though my assumption was close to the actual facts, a thermos bottle is not a cylinder. The bottom is often somewhat spherical, which could have called for an extra line of justifications (how high should the bottle be compared to the radius of the bottom half sphere, unless the top is also considered a half-sphere ?).


Sometimes, we also make (explicit or implicit) assumptions that are not needed.


The other thing that bothered me is that people will often vote for simple answers they understand quickly (not necessarily the best answer or even a correct one). At least that is the feeling I get. If warranted, this would justify making lots of unstated assumptions when answering. Not to mention the fact that fast answers get a better chance at upvotes, when acceptable.


Then, considering the thermos question, I started wondering about what could make our statements wrong, and what could be the assumptions that are often made implicitly, just for that kind of problem (though I actually made one or two explicit in stating this new problem). Here are some such assumptions, probably an incomplete list (other ideas are welcome):




  • role of the cork: can it be ignored as not significant ?





  • homogeneity of the bottle sides: is it the same kind of material all over ?




  • shape of the container: is it just a bottle, which we tend to assume ?




  • heat conductivity of the bottle side: is it isotropic ?





  • uniformity of liquid cooling: well, that is always wrong, but liquid conductivity is so efficient that it seems a good approximation. Is it?




Then I wondered whether falsifying these assumptions could also falsify the conclusion.


Once I had satisfied myself that it was the case, I asked the question, carefully stated so as not to induce any assumption (for example by always using the word "container" instead of "bottle"). I was not trying to trap anyone, only experimenting. I unfortunately got few reactions (thank you to those who did react). I should have started that more anonymously as some users clearly wondered what I was after (comments welcome).


So here is my answer.


The picture is a cross-section image of a container that will cool faster when it is full than when it is half-full. It consists of a large disk on top of a sphere, with the same volume so that only the sphere contains liquid when it is half-full. The opening between them is large so that heat can flow easily between the two parts when it is full.


weird container composed of a flat hollow disk atop a sphere with equal content


Clearly, the disk has a very large surface to volume ratio and will act effectively as a radiator to cool the liquid it contains, while the shere has the smallest possible ratio and will not cool fast. However, when the container is full, heat will flow through the liquid from the sphere to the disk so that all the liquid content will cool rather fast, though the disk will get cooler faster than the sphere.


If the container is only half-full, only the sphere contains warm liquid, with a small surface/volume ratio. Hence it will cool more slowly.



If the container is large enough, this should be sufficient.


It can be improved by remarking that a horizontal disk shape is not very good for convection heat transfer. Replacing the hollow disk with an inverted bell shape would work better.


You can even reinforce further the effect by using for the side of the container a material that is more heat conductive transversally than laterally, so that heat goes out quickly but is not conducted efficiently from one part of the container side to another. That avoids heat being transferred to the disk when the container is half full, and still permits the disk to cool efficiently the liquid it contains when full. It can be easily produced by using a heat insulating material with copper nails piercing it at close regular intervals.


The same effect could be achieved with a bottle having a standard shape, but with isolation only in the bottom part. This is somewhat close to what I said about the effect of a conductive cork in the thermos case.


Of course, this is no major discovery in elementary physics. At best a moderately easy puzzle game. But it may be telling about our reasonning process.


Coming back to the remark about votes. I am wondering whether the initial downvote for that question (without an explicitly related explanatory comment) was motivated by such an unstated assumption. Was it really justified?


Now, it is possible that people who are very proficient in a field will vote more accurately. It is probably more the case, but I think not always (I do have one example in mind, not from physics). Proficiency is an ill-defined concept, and schools of thought are often biased, even in hard sciences.


quantum mechanics - When QM particle in a box is in the first excited state, will it be ever found at the middle point, ie. at the nodal point?



Reading the wikipedia article about the particle in the box, there is this image:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box


Animations from B to F show wave function of a particle in a box starting from ground state up to excited states. The animation C shows wave function behavior in the first excited state and at the middle point both real part (blue) and imaginary part (red) of the wavefunctions are zero all the time. Does it mean that particle will never ever be found at that point? Similarly, for second excited state in the picture D we have two points where this happens, so does that mean that there are two points in space where particle will never ever be found?


I can't really tell from the picture if this continues for higher excited states. Is there some law that says for the n-th excited state there will be n points in space where probability of finding particle is zero?



Answer



The probability of finding a particle at a point is always zero.


Recall that $\rho(x) = \lvert\psi(x)\rvert^2$ is a probability density, not a probability, and so the probability to find the particle somewhere inside the interval $[a,b]$ is given by $$ P([a,b]) = \int_a^b \rho(x)\mathrm{d}x.$$ Since points have zero measure ($\int_a^a \rho(x)\mathrm{d}x = 0$ regardless of $a$), this is always zero for single points. So it is not evident that there is any meaning to saying "the particle will never be found at $x_0$" because quantum mechanics only allows us to talk meaningfully about a region (however small) in which the particle can be found.


This is supported by the fact that the "eigenstates" $\lvert x\rangle$ of the position operator are not actual states since they are non-normalizable ($\langle x \vert x\rangle$ cannot be made finite/well-defined), so there is no actual measurement whose result could be $\lvert x\rangle$, a fully localized particle.


However, you are asking about the nodes of the wavefunction of a particle trapped in a box. Indeed, even though you should not think of them are "points where the particle can never be found", the $n$-th excited state has $n$ of these nodes in its wavefunction.





garyp suggests an alternative interpretation of "the particle can never be found at $x_0$" in the comments that actually then is correct for the nodes:


For the nodes $n_i$, we have $$\lim_{a\to 0}\frac{P([n_i-a,n_i+a])}{P([x_0-a,x_0+a])} = 0$$ for any $x_0$ that isn't a node itself. This means, in words, that if we take regions of equal size centered around the points $n_i$ and $x_0$ and shrink them, it becomes more and more likely to find the particle around $x_0$ compared to finding it around $n_i$, until in the limit the ratio becomes zero suggesting it is infinitely more likely to find the particle "at" any other $x_0$ then it is to find it "at" $n_i$. Note that the latter part of this sentence should only be understood heuristically due to the actual probability of finding a particle at a point being zero as discussed at the beginning.


Thursday, January 25, 2018

electromagnetism - The equivalent electric field of a magnetic field


I know that Lorentz force for a charge $q$, with velocity $\vec{v}$ in magnetic field $\vec{B}$ is given by


$$\vec{F} =q \vec{v} \times \vec{B}$$


but there will exist a frame of reference where observer move at same velocity with that of charge $q$, so according to him $v=0$. hence he will see no magnetic force is exerted on charge $q$. I have work on this problem for a while and found that the special relativity predicts equivalent electric force will acting upon charge instead. I want to know the relationship between this equivalent electric force and magnetic force. Thanks in advance



Answer




I haven't read them, but this, this, this and this thread (I thank a diligent Qmechanic) are related and clear up the but why-questions you might have.




The transformation of the quantities in electrodynamics with respect to boosts are


$$ \begin{alignat}{7} \mathbf{E}'&~=~ \gamma \left(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}\right) &&+ \left(1 - \gamma\right) \frac{\mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{v}}{v^2} \mathbf{v} \\[5px] \mathbf{B}'&~=~\gamma\left(\mathbf{B}-\frac{1}{c^2}\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{E}\right)&&+\left(1-\gamma\right)\frac{\mathbf{B} \cdot \mathbf{v}}{v^2} \mathbf{v} \\[5px] \mathbf{D}'&~=~ \gamma \left(\mathbf{D}+\frac{1}{c^2} \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{H} \right) && + \left( 1 - \gamma \right) \frac{\mathbf{D} \cdot \mathbf{v}}{v^2} \\[5px] \mathbf{H}'&~=~ \gamma \left(\mathbf{H} - \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{D}\right) && +\left(1 - \gamma\right) \frac{\mathbf{H} \cdot \mathbf{v}}{v^2}\mathbf{v} \\[5px] \mathbf{j}' & ~=~ \mathbf{j} - \gamma \rho \mathbf{v} && + \left(\gamma - 1 \right) \frac{\mathbf{j} \cdot \mathbf{v}}{v^2} \mathbf{v} \\[5px] \mathbf{\rho}' & ~=~ \gamma \left(\rho - \frac{1}{c^2} \mathbf{j} \cdot \mathbf{v}\right) \end{alignat} $$where $\gamma \left(v \right)$ and the derivation of the transformation is presented on this Wikipedia page and is most transparent in a space-time geometrical picture, see for example here. Namely, the electromagnetic field strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$ incorporates both electric and magnetic field $E,B$ and the transformation is the canonical one of a tensor and therefore not as all over the place as the six lines posted above.


In the non-relativistic limit $v

enter image description here


For the traditional force law, the first formula confirms the prediction that the new $E$ magnitude is $vB$.


Also, beware and always write down the full Lorentz law when doing transformations.




Lastly, I'm not sure if special relativity predicts equivalent electric force will acting upon charge instead is the right formulation you should use, because while the relation is convincingly natural in a special relativistic formulation, the statement itself is more a consistency requirement for the theory of electrodynamics. I'd almost say the argument goes in the other direction: The terrible transformation law of $E$ and $B$ with respect to Galilean transformations was known before 1905 and upgrading the status of the Maxwell equations to be form invariant when translating between inertial frames suggests that the Lorentz transformation (and then special relativity as a whole) is physically sensible.



thermodynamics - Can Increment / maximization of Entropy be the "Cause" behind any phenomena?



I understand that the increment/maximization of Entropy (of the universe) is "Accompanied" with all "Natural" phenomena we see. In many of the questions, I and others have asked on Stack Exchange, that why a certain phenomenon happens, in the response many (most) of the times it is said: "It happens to increase or maximize the entropy" or "It happens because in the final condition the extropy will be maximized". I have given some examples of such kind of questions and their responses, at the end of this post.


My question is: Can the maximization of entropy be the reason behind any phenomena to occur? Let me explain my question in more detail.


When I walk on the road on a sunny day, my shadow "accompanies" me. It happens all the time. It is statistically always true! But, we can never say that the motion of my shadow is the "Cause" behind my motion. Similarly, the increment or maximization of entropy of the universe is statistically observed to be always "Accompanied" by all the natural phenomena, but can that be the cause behind any natural phenomena to happen?


Do the atoms and molecules of a system somehow collectively "Know" (or programmed) that they together have to maximize the entropy? I doubt that!


As I understand, the atoms and molecules of a system just interact with each other with some forces and show some collective behavior. The only thing they experience is some "Interaction Force". If we consider this understanding to be right, then only the interaction forces can be the "cause" behind any natural phenomena.


Another argument is, maximization of entropy is a condition which still has to come in the future in a system, and if we assume it to be the cause, then there are again two more problems:




  1. How can the effect precede the cause?





  2. In this kind of line of thought, it is assumed that atoms and molecules already know or are programmed in some way to achieve a certain future. How is that possible?




In summary, in the explanation of any natural phenomena, I think, we cannot just stop at saying that since the entropy will be maximized in a certain direction so the system will move in that direction! There must be some even deeper or fundamental "Cause" than "Entropy Maximization" for that system to behave in a certain way.


The following are some posts which emphasis on "Entropy Maximation" to be the "Cause" behind certain phenomena.


Why do bodies tend to attain thermal equilibrium?


Why most distribution curves are bell shaped? Is there any physical law that leads the curves to take that shape?


And there can be many more examples.



Answer




For this subject I can recommend the following book by P W Atkins 'The second law' (1984)
That book is written to be accessible to a large audience.



Let me first describe a particular demonstration that is in that book.


Take a grid of cells, 5 by 10 is large enough. Place a colored marker on the cells of a 5 by 5 square at one end of the grid, and a different colored marker on the 25 cells of the other end of the grid. Let's call the colors 'red' and 'white'.


The you start a process of random exchange of two adjacent markers. At the start that will mostly exchange markers of the same color. Over time the markers become more and more mixed.


The way to quantify this tendency towards mixed state is to count the number of states. In the total space of all possible states the states with the markers mixed outnumber the states with the markers significantely separated - by far.



I remember witnessing a demonstration that the above abstract example is a close analogy to.


The demonstration involved two beakers, stacked, the openings facing each other, initially a sheet of thin cardboard separated the two.



In the bottom beaker a quantity of Nitrogen dioxide gas had been had been added. The brown color of the gas was clearly visible. The top beaker was filled with plain air. Nitrogen dioxide is denser than air.


When the separator was removed we saw the brown color of the Nitrogen dioxide rise to the top. In less than half a minute the combined space was an even brown color.


And then the teacher explained the significance: in the process of filling the entire space the heavier Nitrogen dioxide molecules had displaced lighter molecules. That is: a significant part of the population of Nitrogen dioxide had moved against the pull of gravity. This move against gravity is probability driven.


Statistical mechanics provides the means to treat this process quantitively. You quantify by counting numbers of states. Mixed states outnumber separated states - by far.


The climbing of the Nitrogen dioxide molecules goes at the expense of the temperature of the combined gases. That is, if you make sure that in the initial state the temperature in the two compartments is the same then you can compare the final temperature with that. The final temperature of the combined cases will be a bit lower than the starting temperature. That is, some kinetic energy has been converted to gravitational potential energy.


I think the above example counts as a case of probability acting as a causal agent.



Another example, in my opinion, is buildup of osmotic pressure, which I wrote about in an answer to a question titled Details of forces involved in osmosis at a microscopic level


newtonian gravity - What are common methods for calculating the time dependency of elliptical orbit?


After playing a game called "Kerbal Space Program" I got interested in orbital mechanics and started messing with simplified calculations to determine $\Delta v$ requirements. In which I compared two trajectories to get into orbit/land from orbit to see how much it would matter if you would burn vertical or horizontal (Hohmann) at the surface. Graphs of some results can be seen here.


However after this I also wanted to know how much time it would take to perform these maneuvers. I assumed that changes in velocity are instantaneous, so this would be equal to the time between the two changes in velocity. For the Hohmann-like-transfer it is simple, since you travel from periapsis tot apoapsis, which takes half of the orbital period (due to symmetry). But for the other transfer, which applies a vertical change in velocity at the surface, it is very difficult (if there is a sidereal rotational velocity). I tried solving it using Kepler's second law, given this formula:


$$ r=\frac{a(1-e^2)}{1+e\cos{\theta}} \tag{1} $$


Since the area underneath the path from $\theta_0$ to $\theta_1$ can be calculated like this:



$$ A_{\theta_0,\theta_1}=\int_{\theta_0}^{\theta_1}{\frac{1}{2}r^2d\theta} \tag{2} $$


Which can be used to determine the amount of time it would take, since the total area of the ellipse would take one orbital period $T=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{a^3}{\mu}}$:


$$ t_{\theta_0,\theta_1}=T\frac{\int_{\theta_0}^{\theta_1}{\frac{1}{2}r^2d\theta}}{\int_{0}^{2\pi}{\frac{1}{2}r^2d\theta}}=T\frac{\int_{\theta_0}^{\theta_1}{\frac{1}{2}r^2d\theta}}{\pi a^2\sqrt{1-e^2}} \tag{3} $$


I am not that good at solving integrals, so I both tried to solve it with MATLAB and WolframAlpha, which gave me this as the result:


$$ \int{\frac{1}{2}r^2d\theta}=a^2\sqrt{1-e^2}\left(\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}\tan{\frac{\theta}{2}}}{1+e}\right)-\frac{e\sqrt{1-e^2}\sin{\theta}}{2(1+e\cos{\theta})}\right) \tag{4} $$


So:


$$ t_{\theta_0,\theta_1}=\sqrt{\frac{a^3}{\mu}}\left[2\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}\tan{\frac{\theta}{2}}}{1+e}\right)-\frac{e\sqrt{1-e^2}\sin{\theta}}{1+e\cos{\theta}}\right]^{\theta_1}_{\theta_0} \tag{5} $$


However when I tried to determine the integral with symbolic parameters and bounderies, MATLAB returned "Warning: Explicit integral could not be found." probably because there is not a general solution for both closed and open orbits. But if I use this formula and filled in the boundaries myself, it seemed that I got wrong results. However when I let MATLAB calculate the integral for given values of $a$, $e$, $\theta_0$ and $\theta_1$ I do get results which seem correct.


So is this a good approach to find a time dependency of an (elliptical) orbit. If so is there an (continuous) equation derivable from this. And what might be a better approach?


EDIT 1: The unexpected results form this formula might be caused by the fact that $\tan^{-1}$ returns results from $-\frac{\pi}{2}$ to $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Since when I calculated the time from $\theta=0$ to $\theta=\pi$ I got results which agree with the conservation of energy and angular momentum. For this is used the following equations to determine the time derivatives:



$$ \omega=\frac{\delta\theta}{\delta t}=\frac{\delta \theta / \delta \theta}{\delta t / \delta \theta}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{a^3\left(1-e^2\right)^3}}\left(1+e\cos{\theta}\right)^2 \tag{6} $$


$$ \dot{r}=\frac{\delta r}{\delta t}=\frac{\delta r / \delta\theta}{\delta t / \delta\theta}=\omega\frac{\delta r}{\delta\theta}=\omega\frac{ae(1-e^2)\sin{\theta}}{\left(1+e\cos{\theta}\right)^2} \tag{7} $$


Which yields that the specific orbital energy $\epsilon$ and specific angular momentum $h$ are constant when substituting theses therms into there expressions:


$$ \epsilon=\frac{v^2}{2}-\frac{\mu}{r}=\frac{\dot{r}^2+\omega^2r^2}{2}-\frac{\mu}{r}=-\frac{\mu}{2a} \tag{8} $$


$$ h=\omega r^2=\sqrt{a\mu\left(1-e^2\right)} \tag{9} $$


Edit 2: To show that equation $(5)$ is equivalent to Kepler's equation without relying on Wolfram Alpha or Mathematica to do trigonometric simplifications, you can multiply both sides by $\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{a^3}}$, which turns the left hand side into the mean anomaly. The first term can easilly be shown to be equal to the eccentric anomaly, because the relation between them is defined as


$$ \tan \frac{\theta}{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1+e}{1-e}} \tan\frac{E}{2}, \tag{10a} $$


from which follows


$$ \tan\frac{E}{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1-e}{1+e}} \sqrt{\frac{1+e}{1+e}} \tan \frac{\theta}{2} = \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e} \tan \frac{\theta}{2}, \tag{10b} $$


$$ E = 2 \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e} \tan \frac{\theta}{2}\right). \tag{10c} $$



For the second term it is a little more work to show that it is equal to minus $e\sin E$. The minus and $e$ can be factored out in both terms, such that we need to prove that


$$ \sin E = \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}\sin{\theta}}{1+e\cos{\theta}}. \tag{11} $$


The following trigonometric identities will be used:



  • $\tan x = \frac{\sin x}{\cos x}$

  • $\sin 2x = \frac{2 \tan x}{1 + \tan^2 x}$

  • $\sin^2 x + \cos^2 x = 1$

  • $\sin 2x = 2 \sin x \cos x$

  • $\cos 2x = \cos^2 x - \sin^2 x$



We have an expression for $\tan\frac{E}{2}$ as a function of $\theta$ from equation $\text{(10a)}$, this will initially be represented by $\alpha$


$$ \sin E = \frac{2 \tan \frac{E}{2}}{1 + \tan^2 \frac{E}{2}} = \frac{2 \alpha}{1 + \alpha^2}. \tag{12a} $$


Substituting equation $\text{(10b)}$ for $\alpha$ into the last equation yields


$$ \sin E = \frac{2 \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e} \tan \frac{\theta}{2}}{1 + \left(\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e} \tan \frac{\theta}{2}\right)^2} = \frac{2 \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{1+e} \frac{\sin \frac{\theta}{2}}{\cos \frac{\theta}{2}}}{1 + \frac{1-e^2}{(1+e)^2} \frac{\sin^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}}{\cos^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}}} = \frac{2 \sqrt{1-e^2} \sin \frac{\theta}{2} \cos \frac{\theta}{2}}{(1+e) \cos^2\!\frac{\theta}{2} + (1-e) \sin^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}} = \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} \sin \theta}{\cos^2\!\frac{\theta}{2} + \sin^2\!\frac{\theta}{2} + e \left(\cos^2\!\frac{\theta}{2} - \sin^2\!\frac{\theta}{2}\right)} = \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} \sin \theta}{1 + e \cos\theta}. \tag{12b} $$


So this shows that equation $\text{(11)}$ is true and equation $\text{(5)}$ is equivalent to Kepler's equation.



Answer



Your equation is equivalent to Kepler's equation, just in terms of true anomaly $\theta$ instead of eccentric anomaly $E$. Read more about it here.


$\tan \frac{\theta}{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1 + e}{1 - e}} \tan \frac{E}{2} \\ E = 2 \tan^{-1} \left( \sqrt{\frac{1 - e}{1 + e}} \tan \frac{\theta}{2} \right) = 2 \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{\sqrt{1 - e^2}}{1 + e} \tan \frac{\theta}{2} \right) \\ n t = M = E - e \sin E \\ t = \frac{P}{2 \pi} ( E - e \sin E )$


Having Wolfram Alpha or Mathematica do the trig simplification, we get (moving $i$ inside the square root)


$\sin E = \frac{\sqrt{1-e^2} \sin \theta}{1 + e \cos \theta}$



thermodynamics - Should entropy have units and temperature in terms of energy?



I've been thinking about entropy for a while and why it is a confusing concept and many references are filled with varying descriptions of something that is a statistical probability (arrows of time, disorder, etc.). Could this confusion be in the nature of it's units and how it is scattered around in different equations?


When Maxwell published his paper on the molecular distribution of velocities in 1859. This has led to the identification of temperature with the mean kinetic energy of atoms or molecules in the gas. At that point we could have redefined temperature to units with energy which make sense instead of K. This would make the new $T_a=kT$ where $T_a$ is the new absolute temperature in the units with energy.



Once temperature is in the units of energy this makes entropy unitless (makes more sense to me):


$S = ln(W)$


In addition this makes other equations more clear:


Maxwell's gas law identity has the form (for atomic particles of mass m) $\frac{3kT}{2} = \frac{m<ν^2>}{2}$ where T is the absolute temperature and $<ν^2>$ , the average of the squared velocity of the atoms, and k Boltzmann’s constant.


But with $T_a$, the relation $\frac{3kT}{2} = \frac{m<ν^2>}{2}$ will become simpler $\frac{3T_a}{2} = \frac{m<ν^2>}{2}$


And the gas constant R in the equation of state for ideal gases would be changed into Avogadro number $N_{AV} = 6.022 × 10^{23}$ and the equation state of one mole of an ideal gas will read: $PV = N_{AV}T_a$, instead of $PV = RT$


Why bother?


This would make entropy identical conceptually and formally to information by redefining temperature in terms of units of energy. This creates a strong association between entropy and probability and makes the second law (which isn't absolute anyway) less mysterious.


Would it make sense to have temperature in units of energy at other levels of physics and entropy unitless say in the case of black holes entropy?



Answer




I agree mostly with Jerry and Danu in their comments, in that your proposed definition would make much sense, and indeed the Boltzmann constant is unity in natural (Planck) units.


A unitless entropy would have a great deal of appeal, especially given the tight links between the thermodynamic entropy and the information-theoretic Shannon entropy - they would be equal in your units for a thermalized system of perfectly uncorrelated (statistically independent) constituents - the special case envisaged by Boltzmann's Stosszahlansatz (molecular chaos, although Boltzmann's own word means "collision number hypothesis"). Your entropy would then be measured in nats: you would have to use units wherein the Boltzmann constant were $\log 2$ to get entropy in bits. Note, however, that the thermodynamic entropy calculated from marginal distributions $N \sum p_j \log p_j$ is not in general equal to the Shannon entropy in these units: one in general has to take into account correlations between particles, which lessens the entropy (because particle states partially foretell other particle states). See, for a good explanation of these ideas


E. T. Jaynes, "Gibbs vs Boltzmann Entropies", Am. J. Phys. 33, number 5, pp 391-398, 1965 as well as many other of his works in this field


There is one last point to note, however, and that is that the idea of temperature being proportional to average constituent energy is in general only approximately true. It is true for an ideal gas, as you know. However, the most general definition of thermodynamic temperature is that the efficiency of an ideal reversible heat engine working between two infinite heat reservoirs at different temperatures defines the ratio of these temperatures: it is:


$$\frac{T_1}{T_2} = 1 - \eta$$


where $\eta$ is the efficiency of the heat engine, $T_2$ the higher temperature and the temperature of the reservoir which the engine draws heat from and $T_1$ the lower temperature of the other reservoir which the engine dumps waste heat into. Once a "standard" unit temperature is defined (e.g. as something like that of the triple point of water), then the full temperature definition follows. This definition can be shown to be equivalent to the definition (in your units, with $k=1$:


$$T^{-1} = \partial_U S$$


i.e. the inverse temperature (sometimes quaintly called the "perk") is how much a given system "thermalizes" in response to the adding of heat to its internal energy $U$ (how much the system rouses or "perks up"). See for a good summary the section "Second Law of Thermodynamics" on the Wikipedia page for Temperature.


So let's apply this definition to a thermalized system of quantum harmonic oscillators: suppose they are at distinguishable positions. At thermodynamic equilibrium, the Boltzmann distribution for the ladder number (number of photons / phonons in a given oscillator) is:


$$p(n) = \left(e^{\beta\, \hbar\,\omega }-1\right) e^{-\beta\,\hbar\, \omega \, (n+1)}$$



The mean oscillator energy is then:


$$\left = \frac{\hbar\,\omega}{2}\,\coth\left(\frac{1}{2}\,\beta\,\hbar\,\omega \right)$$


The Shannon entropy (per oscillator) is then:


$$S = -\sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty p(n) \log p(n) = \frac{\beta\,\hbar\,\omega\,e^{\beta \,\hbar\,\omega}}{e^{\beta\,\hbar\,\omega}-1} - \log \left(e^{\beta\,\hbar\,\omega}-1\right)$$


so the thermodynamic temperature is then given by (noting that the only way we change this system's energy is by varying $\beta$):


$$T^{-1} = \partial_{\left} S = \frac{\mathrm{d}_\beta S}{\mathrm{d}_\beta \left} = \beta$$


but this temperature is not equal to the mean particle energy at very low temperatures; the mean particle energy is:


$$\begin{array}{lcl}\left &=& \frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{1}{12}\,\beta\,\hbar^2\omega^2-\frac{1}{720}\,\beta^3 \,\hbar^4\,\omega^4+\frac{\beta^5\,\hbar^6\,\omega^6}{30240}+O\left(\beta^7\right) \\ &=& T+\frac{1}{12}\,T^{-1}\,\hbar^2\,\omega^2-\frac{1}{720}\,T^{-3}\,\hbar ^4\, \omega^4+\frac{T^{-5}\,\hbar^6\,\omega^6}{30240}+O\left(T^{-7}\right)\end{array}$$


so that you can see that the your original definition as the mean particle energy is recovered for $T>>\hbar\omega$, the photon energy.


Wednesday, January 24, 2018

kinematics - Does an airplane's speed include the speed of the Earth?


After take off, does airplane's speed include Earth's movement/speed? Do airplanes turn with Earth movement/rotation?




waves - Why do you only hear the bass when someone nearby is wearing earphones?


When someone nearby is listening to music through earphones or headphones, usually you can only hear the bass (unless it's really loud where you can hear the singer's voice and the other instruments too).



Why are the bass sounds more audible?


The answer probably has to do with the bass sound waves having the highest wavelengths. I was able to gain some insight from this question however not a real answer as it focuses on the way sound waves travel across a room and through walls and not on ear/headphones.



Answer



You don't.


You actually hear the high frequency notes from headphones. The bass really doesn't travel at all well, but the attack noise from the drum or bass guitar is what leaks from headphones.


This is why on the tube you hear "tsss tsss tsss tsss" and very little else.


From @leftaroundabout's answer on the post that valerio92 linked:



Normal headphones are basically dipole speakers, and especially for bass frequencies (wavelength much larger than the speakers) this describes their behaviour well. So the amplitide decreases ∝ 1/r4. At higher frequencies, they also have some monopole components which decay more slowly, with the familiar inverse-square. So if you're listening from far away, you'll mostly hear those treble frequencies and little or no bass. OTOH, while wearing the headphones there's little difference since you're in the near field where neither frequency range has decayed substantially at all.




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 \...