Wednesday, October 31, 2018

homework and exercises - Understanding the integral for the electric dipole moment of a charge distribution


In problem 3.35 of Griffiths' Introduction to electrodynamics, he states:




A solid sphere, radius $R$, is centered at the origin. The “northern” hemisphere carries a uniform charge density $\rho_0$, and the “southern” hemisphere a uniform charge density $−\rho_0$. Find the approximate field $E(r,θ)$ for points far from the sphere ($r \gg R$).



The dipole moment is by definition


$$\textbf{p}=\iiint \textbf{r}'\rho(\textbf{r}') \;\mathrm{dV}$$


But Griffiths uses $z=r'\cos \theta$ and says


$$\textbf{p}=\iiint \textbf{z}\rho(\textbf{r}') \;\mathrm{dV}$$


How does this work? Aren't you supposed to use $r'$ in the integral?


In my calculations I get


$$\textbf{p}= \iiint_\text{northern hemisphere} \textbf{r}'\rho_0 \;\mathrm{dV} -\iiint_\text{southern hemisphere} \textbf{r}'\rho_0\;\mathrm{dV}$$


which gives $$\textbf{p}=0$$



when evaluated, which is wrong. Where have I setup my integral wrong?




visual - Seven Places at Once - Another Google Earth Challenge?


This puzzle is based on Where is it? - The Google Earth Challenge series started by Conifers, :D


As usual, no reverse image are allowed.





Hey, check these out! These seven places are so special because the devil from hell did an experiment to combine a chicken sandwich and popcorn by accident. Silly, now where are they?



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




Answer



Continuing from Birjolaxew's discovery of



Popcorn, Indiana, USA,





Accident, Maryland, USA:

Accident






Chicken, Alaska, USA:

Chicken





Devil Town, Ohio, USA:

Devil





Experiment, Georgia (state), USA:

Experiment






Hell, Michigan, USA:

Hell





Popcorn, Indiana, USA, as already discovered by Birjolaxew.

Popcorn






Sandwich, Massachusetts, USA, as already discovered by tjs352.

Sandwich



So the connection is,



as you said, the devil from hell doing an experiment to combine a chicken sandwich and popcorn by accident. I don't know if there's any significance to all the places chosen being in the USA - e.g. instead of choosing the more famous Sandwich in England which gave its name to the food called a sandwich - but the USA is certainly known for its odd place names which could be standard English words!



cipher - What was my friend doing?


I asked my friend what he did last week and he gave me this note.




  • ivoesfe ivoesfe ivoesfe

  • hppe nfo hppe nfo

  • uif tjohjoh sbjo

  • pof gmfx
    dvdlppt oftu


  • qbbnfsjdbosjt

  • nvujoz
    cpvouz

  • tbqmbdfvo



What was my friend doing?



Answer



It's a




ROT-1 cipher:

- hundred hundred hundred
- good men good men
- the singing rain
- one flew
  cuckoos nest
- paamericanris
- mutiny
  bounty
- saplaceun






Now we just have to make sense of this:



Credit to C. Woods for noting this is a rebus where the answers are movie titles: (and also providing all solutions)

1. 300
2. A Few Good Men
3. Singing in the Rain
4. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
5. American in Paris
6. Mutiny on the Bounty
7. A Place in the Sun






So the final answer is



He was watching the movies listed above



riddle - The circle of three




I'm the first, but also second


I'm rather odd, but also not


I am the circle of three



What am I?



Answer



You are:



2




I'm the first, but also second



The first prime, but also the second (depending on convention: 1 used to be regarded as prime).



I'm rather odd, but also not



2 is the oddest prime (it is even).



The circle of three




???



energy - Bass and Treble-Car Steroes



In a car which phenomenon, diffraction or the resonant frequency of the car, lends itself more to the ability of bass to go farther?


Related Answer: Why do bass tones travel through walls?




Tuesday, October 30, 2018

superconductivity - How does a massive photon arise in the Condensed Matter Analogue of the Higgs Mechanism?



I've tried the wikipedia pages, papers (too complex) and other forum answers on this seemingly popular topic, to no avail. Without going into too much mathematics (sorry), could someone please explain the condensed matter analogue of the Higgs Mechanism?


E.g. I've heard that the U(1) symmetry is broken in a superconductor, and that you can think of this as resulting in the photon gaining a nonzero mass.


How is U(1) symmetry broken (why does the cooper pair BEC break U(1) symmetry), and how does this directly imply a photon mass? Thank you




homework and exercises - Convert acceleration as a function of position to acceleration as a function of time?



Suppose I have acceleration defined as a function of position, $a(x)$. How to convert it into a function of time $a(t)$? Please give an example for the case $a(x)= \frac{x}{s^2}$.




particle physics - Can colliders detect B violation?



I think there is some theoretical uncertainty whether high-energy collisions can violate B. It is known that at high temperature (higher than the Higgs scale) you violate B by SU(2) instantons. But in a situation where you have a very energetic 2-particle collision at arbitrarily high energy, I am not sure if there is a non-negligible probability of producing a Baryon violating configuration. I don't know of any calculation of B violation expected in accelerators, although there might be an argument that it should be very close to zero, because of the non-thermalizing nature of 2-particle collisions.


Can you detect standard model B violation in colliders? Does LHC look for rare B violating events, or would such rare events be indistinguishable from a proton or neutron escaping undetected?




Monday, October 29, 2018

electromagnetic radiation - The rule breaker, emissivity + reflectivity = 1


If emissivity and reflectivity are inversely proportionate, why does glass have a high emissivity of around 0.95-0.97 as well as being very reflective for IR Radiation?


normally it works but not with glass!


Can anyone explain this?




logical deduction - A first choice die


You and your friend have met to play a game of dice. This is a very simple game where both players roll a die at the same time, and the player with the lower score pays a coin to the other player. In case of tie, no money is exchanged and the turn is repeated.


You propose your friend to make the game more interesting by replacing the usual playing dice with three special dice you have designed. Your dice have a number of dots between 1 and 6 on each face like regular dice, but some numbers are repeated on different faces and some numbers are missing, and no two dice are identical. Apart from this twist, those are pretty normal playing dice, not unbalanced towards any side. At each turn, you propose, first your friend will pick a die and then you will pick one of the remaining two dice.


Your friends accepts, thinking that, if at all, he's being offered an advantage. If one of your dice were stronger than the other two, your friend could use that die at every turn because he can choose first, and that would make his winning chances better. But you know this isn't going to be the case, and in fact, no matter which die your friend chooses, you will be always able to pick a stronger one.


How did you design your dice such that your chances to win are always better than your friend's?




Answer



There are many examples. This is one:



A: 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6
B: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5
C: 1, 2, 2, 4, 6, 6



The probability of A winning versus B (or B vs. C, C vs. A) is...



17/36. The probability of a draw is 4/36, so that only 15 out of 36 rolls lose. So the overall winning expectation is higher.




Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice


gravity - What is the mass of individual components in a gravitationally bound system?


When material of rest mass M falls from infinity onto a black hole accretion disk, it gets heated and then emits so much light that the energy radiated away can measure up to about 30% or so of M c^2. Let's say that ε is the fraction of rest mass energy radiated away.


My first question is, after this accreted material has crossed the event horizon, does the mass of the black hole (as an observer would measure by, say, examining keplerian orbits of nearby stars) grow by M or (1 - ε) M? I am quite certain that the answer is (1 - ε) M, but I am open to correction here.



My second question is, if the mass does indeed grow by (1 - ε)M, then if you wanted to compute, say, the gyroradius of electrons circling magnetic field lines in the accretion disk after it has cooled, would you use the regular electron mass or would you somehow include the mass defect?


The fine print: It would be helpful to agree on answers to the explicit questions before abstracting the answers. On the abstract side, I am comfortable with the idea that "the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts" when it comes to mass in bound systems. But that quote is often employed to compare the mass of the bound system with the masses of the unbound (free) components. I am trying to understand what the relation is between the masses of the components of the bound system to the total mass of the bound system, if an unambiguous relationship exists.



Answer





  1. The mass of the black hole only grows by $(1-\epsilon)M$, i.e. the mass that hasn't been radiated away yet. That's guaranteed by the mass conservation. However, one must be careful about dividing mass and energy to "individual places" in general relativity; in this case, it can be kind of done, but more detailed questions "where the mass/energy resides" could be meaningless. Only the total mass/energy is conserved in general relativity (in asymptotically flat and similar spaces).




  2. The local physics of electrons moving in magnetic fields etc. is always the same. The electron mass is always the same constant. To describe what electron is doing in a situation like this, go to a freely falling frame, find out what the values of the electromagnetic fields are in this frame, and use exactly the same electron mass etc. as you would use in the absence of any black hole.





If you wanted to use a non-freely-falling frame (or coordinate system) to describe the behavior of an electron near the event horizon, you must be very careful to do it right. For example, the gravitational field near the event horizon makes the usual static coordinates extremely deformed relatively to the flat metric – a component of the metric tensor goes to zero or infinity near the event horizon – and there is a nonzero curvature etc. So I am sure that all people who think that general relativity is still essentially the same Newtonian mechanics – and in between the lines, you make it likely that you belong to this set – would almost certainly make the calculations incorrectly in a curved system. That's why I am urging you to go to a freely falling frame.


newtonian mechanics - If $F=ma$, how can we experience both gravity and a normal force even though we are not accelerating?


As I sit in my chair, I experience a gravitational force pushing me into the chair and I'm also experiencing the normal force of the chair pushing back at me so I don't fall. According to Newton's Laws, $F=ma$ and I understand that gravitational acceleration near Earth is $-9.8\: \mathrm{m/s^2}$ so the normal force is $9.8\: \mathrm{m/s^2}$ times my mass.


What I don't understand is that if acceleration is change in velocity and my velocity is not changing (thus acceleration is zero), how is there a force?




terminology - Definition of mean free time in the Drude model


In the Drude model they derive a formule for the conductivity of a conductor. I wonder though how the main free time $\tau$ is defined in this formula. Wikipedia says that it is "the average time between subsequent collisions". But I have two possible interpretations of this:



  1. the average time an electron travels before colliding (which it seems to imply).


  2. The average amount of time electrons have been travelling at a given time $t$ ($\tau$ will be substantially smaller in this definition).


The first definition seems to me how they describe it, while the second definition seems to be implied by the formulas. I wonder the same for "mean free path", which seems to be analogous.



Answer



This is a really good question, with a mind-bending answer. Check this out:


(A) Pick a random electron at a random time. How long (on average) do I need to wait until the next time it collides?


(B) Pick a random electron at a random time. How long (on average) has it been since the last time it collided?


(C) Pick a random electron that just collided. How long (on average) do I need to wait until the next time it collides?


(D) Pick a random electron that just collided. How long (on average) has it been since the last time it collided?


The answer is that all four of these are the same. (All four of them are what's called "mean free time".) It's mind-bending because it seems like (C) should be the sum of (A) plus (B), not the same as (A) and (B). But if you think about it, (C) and (A) have to be the same, because the fact that the electron just collided - something that happened in the past - cannot give any information about the statistics of what will happen to that electron in the future. We are assuming that collisions occur randomly! Similarly, (B) and (D) have to be the same. (A) and (B) have to be the same, obviously, because of time-reversal symmetry, and likewise (C) and (D) have to be the same.



Here's something that might help you come to peace with this apparent paradox (the so-called "Inspection Paradox"): An average where you pick a random electron at a random time is different than an average where you pick a random collision-to-collision free trajectory. (The former is relevant for (A-B), the latter is relevant for (C-D).) Compared to the former, the latter gives disproportionate weight to very short free trajectories. In other words, the ensemble of collision-to-collision free trajectories that you look at in (C) and (D) are, on average, shorter in duration than the ensemble of collision-to-collision free trajectories that you look at in (A) and (B).


Sunday, October 28, 2018

gravity - Why does gravitational singularity break the laws of physics?


I am assuming there are two constituents that obliterate our current model of physics;




  1. that it's infinitely dense




  2. that it's infinitely small





Please correct me if I am wrong.




mathematics - Inheritance by cards




An old farmer passes away in his sleep. After a suitable period of mourning, his three sons find their father's will in his study.


Amongst other, simpler bequests is the following:


"I wish my small flock of sheep to be well cared for, with the responsibility split between my three suns. Therefore take the pack of cards from my desk drawer, pull out three aces which you will place face up on the desk, then deal out the first three cards from the pack below them to form three fractions. These are the portions into which i wish my flock to be split between my sons."


The sons do as requested, pull out the aces and deal out the three cards, which are a 2, a 3 and a 9, forming fractions one-half, one-third and one-ninth.


Then they go out into the field and count the flock, which turns out to contain 17 sheep.


What cunning sheep-accountancy trick can they use to split the flock according to their father's instructions, without amputating any ovine limbs?



Answer



I think there was a similar puzzle somewhere here.


Borrow one sheep from somewhere else so you have 18. Split in 1/2 (9), 1/3 (6), 1/9 (2).



9+6+2 = 17


Now give back the borrowed sheep.


thermodynamics - What leads to the existence of critical temperature?


We know that $T_c$ is the temperature above which no amount of pressure could force a gas to liquefy.


But why is this? Somehow I don't buy the point that the gas molecules exert too much pressure back to get close and turn into a liquid. If we had tens of thousands of atmosphere pressure(such as on the inside of hot planets), we should be able to liquefy any gas at any temperature.



Answer



Your description of critical temperature isn't quite right.


If you increase the temperature of a liquid beyond the critical point, the atoms are moving so quickly that persistent structure fails to form and so you have something that behaves a lot like a very dense gas.


Similarly, if you increase the pressure of a gas beyond the critical point, it becomes very dense so that it's like a liquid but without persistent structure.


In other words, it's not so much that the liquid phase does not form, but rather the liquid and gas phases become indistinguishable (rather intuitively) and you end up with what's called a supercritical fluid.


Here's the phase diagram of CO$_2$ for clarity:



enter image description here


Do quantum states contain exponentially more information than classical states?


Do quantum states contain exponentially more information than classical states? It might seem so at first sight, but what about in light of this talk?




quantum mechanics - Born's rule and Schrödinger's equation


In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the equation of evolution of the quantum state is given by Schrödinger's equation and measurement of a state of particle is itself a physical process. Thus, should be governed by the Schrödinger's equation.


But we predict probabilities using Born's rule.



Do we use Born's rule just because it becomes mathematically cumbersome to account for all the degree of freedoms using the Schrödinger equation, so instead we turn to approximations like Born's rule.


So, is it possible to derive Born's rule using Schrödinger's equation?



Answer



Indeed, in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the equation of evolution of the quantum state is given by Schrödinger's equation and measurement of a state of particle is itself a physical process and thus, should and is indeed be governed by the Schrödinger's equation.


Indeed, people like to predict probabilities using Born's rule, and sometimes they do this correctly, and sometimes incorrectly.


Do we use Born's rule just because it becomes mathematically cumbersome to account for all the degree of freedoms using the Schrödinger equation?


Yes and no. Indeed sometimes you can just use the Born rule to get the same answer as the correct answer you get from using the Schrödinger rule. And when you can do that, it is often much easier both computationally and for subjective reasons. However, that is not the reason people use the Born rule, they use it because they have trouble knowing how to relate experimental results to wavefunctions. And the Born rule does exactly that. You give it a wavefunction and from it you compute something that you know how to compare to the lab. And that is why people use it. Not the computational convenience.


Is it possible to derive Born's rule using Schrödinger's equation?


Yes, but to do so you need to overcome the exact reason people use the Born rule. All the Schrödinger equation does is tell us how wavefunctions evolve. It doesn't tell you how to relate that to experimental results. When a person learns how to do that, then they can see that the job done by Born's rule is already done by the unitary Schrödinger evolution.


How are probabilistic observations implied by causal evolution of the wave function?



The answer is so simple it will seem obvious. Just think about how you verify it in the lab, and then write down the appropriate system that models the actual laboratory setup, then setup the Schrödinger for that system.


For the Born rule you use one wavefunction for one copy of a system, then you pick an operator, and then you get a number between zero and one (that you interpret as relative frequency if you did many experiments on many copies of that one system). And you get a number for each eigenvalue in a way that depends on the one wavefucntion for one copy of a system even though you verify this result by taking a whole collection of identically prepared particles.


So that's what the Born rule does for you. It tells you about the relative frequency of different eigenvalues for a whole bunch of identically prepared systems, and so you verify it by making a whole bunch of identically prepared systems and measuring the relative frequency of different eigenvalues.


So how do you do this with the Schrödinger equation? Given the state and operator in question you find the Hamiltonian that describes the evolution corresponding to a measurement of the operator (as an example my other answer to this question cites an example where they explicitly tell you the Hamiltonian to measure the spin of a particle). Then you also write down the Hamiltonian for the device that can count how many times a particle was produced, and the device that write down the Hamiltonian for the device that can count how many times a particle was detected with a particular outcome, and the device that takes the ratio. Then you write down the Schrödinger equation for a factored wavefunction system that has a huge number of factors that are identically wavefunctions, and also where there are sufficient numbers of devices to split different eigenfunctions of the operator in question and the device that counts the number of results. You then evolve the wavefunction of the entire system according to the Schrödinger equation. When 1) the number of identical factors is large and 2) the devices the send different eigenfunction to different paths make the evolved eigenfunctions mutually orthogonal, then something happens. The part of the wavefunction describing the state of the device that took the ratio of how many got a particular eigenvalue evolves to have almost all of its $L^2$ norm concentrated over a state corresponding to the ratio that the Born rule predicts and is almost orthogonal to the parts corresponding to states the Born rule did not predict.


Some people will then apply the Born rule to this state of the aggregator, but then you have failed. We are almost there. Except all we have is a wavefunction with most of its $L^2$ norm concentrated over a region with an easily described state. The Born rule tells us that we can subjectively expect to personally experience this aggregate outcome, the Born rule says this happens with near certainty since almost all the $L^2$ norm corresponds to this state of the aggregator. The Schrödinger equation by itself does not tell us this.


But we had to interpret the Born rule as saying that those numbers between 0 and 1 correspond to observed frequencies. How can we interpret "the wavefuntion being highly concentrated over a state with an aggregator reading that same number" as corresponding to an observation?


This is literally the issue of the question, interpreting a mathematical result about a mathematical wavefunction as being about observations.


The answer is that we and everything else are described by the dynamics of a wavefunction, and that a part of a wave with small $L^2$ norm that is almost entirely orthogonal doesn't really affect the dynamics of the rest of the wave. We are the dynamics. People are processes, dynamical processes of subsystems. We are like the aggregator in that we are only sensitive to some aspects of some parts of the rest of the wavefunction. And we are robust in that we are systems that can act and time evolve in ways that can be insensitive to small deviations in our inputs, so the part of the wavefunction that corresponds to the aggregator having most of the $L^2$ norm concentrated on having the value predicted by the Born rule (ant that state with that concentration on that value is what the Schrödinger equation predicts) is something that can interact with us, the robust information processing system that also evolves according to the Schrödinger equation interacts with us in the exact same way as a state where all the $L^2$ norm was on that state, not just most of it.


This dynamical correlation between the state of the system (the aggregator) and us, the interaction of the two, is exactly what observation is. You have to use the Schrödinger equation to describe what an observation is to use the Schrödinger equation to predict the outcome of an observation. But you only need to do that on states very very very close to get the Born rule since the Born rule only predicts the outcomes of an aggregator's response to large numbers of identical systems. And those states are exactly the ones we can give a purely operational definition in terms of the Schrödinger equation.


We simply say that the Schrödinger equation describes the dynamics, including the dynamics of us, the things being "measured" and the whole universe. The way a measurement works is that you have a Hamiltonian that acts on your subsystem $|\Psi_i\rangle$ and your entire universe $|\Psi_i\rangle\otimes |U\rangle$ and evolves it like:



$$|\Psi_i\rangle\otimes |U\rangle\rightarrow|\Psi_i'\rangle\otimes |U_i\rangle.$$


The essential aspects of it being a measurement is that when $|\Psi_i\rangle$ and $|\Psi_j\rangle$ are in different eigenspaces they are originally orthogonal, but that orthogonality transfers over to $|U_i\rangle$ and $|U_i\rangle$ in such as way as to ensure the Schrödinger time evolution evolutions of $|\Psi_i'\rangle\otimes |U_i\rangle$ remain orthogonal. (And also we need that $|\Psi_i'\rangle$ is still in the eigenspace.) That's our restriction on the Hamiltonians that are used in the actual Schrödinger


What is the problem?


The problem is that we had to say how to relate a mathematical object to us and where probability words entered. And there isn't any probability. We just have ratios that look like the ratios that probability would predict for us if there were probabilities. And we have to bring up how our observations and experiences relate to the mathematics.


Historically there were strong objections to this, that talking about how human people dynamically evolve should not be relevant to physics. Seems like Philosophy the old fashioned objections would go. But if you think of people as dynamical information processors, then we can characterize them as a certain kind of computer that interacts with the wavefucntion of the rest of the world in a particular way. And other kinds of computer are possible, things we call quantum computers. And now we can make this excuse no longer. We need to talk about the difference between a classical computer that is designed to be robust against small quantum effects, and one that can be sensitive to these effects so that it can vontinue to interact before it has gotten to the point in the evolution where the Born rule could be used.


We must now own up to the fact that the Schrödinger equation evolution is the only one we've seen, and that is what corresponds to what we actually observe in the laboratory experiments where the Born rule is used. And we must own it so that we can correctly describe what happens in experiments where the Born rule doesn't apply, where as always we must use the Schrödinger equation.


Saturday, October 27, 2018

quantum field theory - Non-relativistic QFT Lagrangian for fermions



Take the ordinary Hamiltonian from non-relativistic quantum mechanics expressed in terms of the fermi fields $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ and $\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x})$ (as derived, for example, by A. L. Fetter and D. Walecka in Quantum Theory of Many-particle Systems, page 19):


$$\hat{H}~=~\int\hat\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x})T(\mathbf{x})\hat\psi(\mathbf{x})d^3x$$ $$ + \frac{1}{2}\iint\hat\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x})\hat\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x'})V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'})\hat\psi(\mathbf{x'})\hat\psi(\mathbf{x})d^3xd^3x' \tag{2.4}$$


The field $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ and $\Pi(\mathbf{x})=i\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x})$ ($\hbar=1$) satisfy the usual canonical quantization relations, but if I try to build a Lagrangian as:


$$L=\int\Pi(\mathbf{x})d_t\psi(\mathbf{x})d\mathbf{x}-H.$$


It turns out that, because:


$$d_t\psi(\mathbf{x})=-iT(\mathbf{x})\psi(\mathbf{x}) - i\int\psi^\dagger(\mathbf{x})V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'})\psi(\mathbf{x'})\psi(\mathbf{x})d\mathbf{x'}.$$


If I combine both expressions the Lagrangian turns out to be zero (a proof of the last equation can be found in Greiner's Field Quantization, chapter 3, it can be derived using $[a,bc]=[a,b]_\mp c\pm b[a,c]_\mp$).


My questions are:



  1. What is wrong in this derivation?



(Greiner manages to get the Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian but he makes some integration by parts that he gives as obvious but that for me should have an extra term)



  1. How can you derive $$\frac{\delta H}{\delta\psi}=-d_t\Pi$$ from the previous hamiltonian? From this expression, the Euler-Lagrange equations can be derived easily, but I can't seem to find the way to get it.




special relativity - Why is it necessary that different observers agree on the value of the spacetime interval $ds^2$?


What's the physical reason that all (inertial) observers agree on the value of the spacetime interval $$ds^2 = (c dt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 -dz^2 \, ?$$



What would be the physical implications if different (inertial) observers wouldn't find different values of $ds^2$, analogous to how they find different time intervals and different distances?


EDIT: none of the linked questions (to which this question supposedly is a duplicate) explain why a constant speed of light implies that all observers agree on the value of the spacetime interval.




Friday, October 26, 2018

optimization - Maximize 'chains' in a Sudoku


Yet to be solved.


Take 2 numbers such that $N, M \in \{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9\}; N \ne M$.



Start with a solved 9x9 Sudoku grid. Find any $N_1 = N$.
Find an $M_1 = M$, in the same row as $N_1$.
In the same column as $M_1$, find $N_2 = N$.
Find an $M_2 = M$, in the same row as $N_2$.


Keep repeating the process till you reach the cell you started with. You would have formed a 'chain' of linked up cells.



A 'complete chain' exits between $M$ and $N$ iff there are nine $N$s and nine $M$s in this chain (all $N$s and $M$s are chained together).



Create the maximum possible 'complete chains' in a Sudoku.


Edit:



Please try adding a proof to why a certain number is the absolute maximum.



Answer




Here is a Sudoku where 27 out of the 36 pairs have complete chains:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3
9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2

8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1



special relativity - If photons have no mass, how can they have momentum?


As an explanation of why a large gravitational field (such as a black hole) can bend light, I have heard that light has momentum. This is given as a solution to the problem of only massive objects being affected by gravity. However, momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so, by this definition, massless photons cannot have momentum.


How can photons have momentum?



How is this momentum defined (equations)?



Answer



There are two important concepts here that explain the influence of gravity on light (photons).


(In the equations below $p$ is momentum and $c$ is the speed of light, $299,792,458 \frac{m}{s}$.)




  1. The theory of Special Relativity, proved in 1905 (or rather the 2nd paper of that year on the subject) gives an equation for the relativistic energy of a particle;


    $$E^2 = (m_0 c^2)^2 + p^2 c^2$$


    where $m_0$ is the rest mass of the particle (0 in the case of a photon). Hence this reduces to $E = pc$. Einstein also introduced the concept of relativistic mass (and the related mass-energy equivalence) in the same paper; we can then write


    $$m c^2 = pc$$



    where $m$ is the relativistic mass here, hence


    $$m = p/c$$


    In other words, a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum.




  2. De Broglie's relation, an early result of quantum theory (specifically wave-particle duality), states that


    $$\lambda = h / p$$


    where $h$ is simply Planck's constant. This gives


    $$p = h / \lambda$$





Hence combining the two results, we get


$$E / c^2 = m = \frac{p}{c} = \frac {h} {\lambda c}$$


again, paying attention to the fact that $m$ is relativistic mass.


And here we have it: photons have 'mass' inversely proportional to their wavelength! Then simply by Newton's theory of gravity, they have gravitational influence. (To dispel a potential source of confusion, Einstein specifically proved that relativistic mass is an extension/generalisation of Newtonian mass, so we should conceptually be able to treat the two the same.)


There are a few different ways of thinking about this phenomenon in any case, but I hope I've provided a fairly straightforward and apparent one. (One could go into general relativity for a full explanation, but I find this the best overview.)


logical deduction - Coloring a 4 by 4 grid


I made this simple puzzle a couple of years ago. There are three colors which appear in every row and every column. Moreover, every color appears 5 or 6 times in total. Find the color of the square with the question mark.



enter image description here



Answer



I get:



44block Top right is fairly obvious, the 3rd row needs a red and green, and the red can't go in column 2.

Top row and last column now need red/green, and first column, last row need a blue, so the blues go.

Now we have 6 blues, and so we must have 5 reds and 5 greens. As top row/last column both need red/green, this gives us 5 reds, so ? is green.



Thursday, October 25, 2018

soft question - Should these be called "weights" or "masses"?




Picture of small metal disks slotted onto as hook, such as could be attached to a spring to study Hooke's law


Yeah, those circular metal disks. Weights or masses? I call them weights because when I attach them to a spring I'm interested in their weight, but it feels odd saying a "Pick up the 100g weight". "Pick up the weight with a mass of 100g sounds better" but it still feels wrong.


I don't like to call them masses, because I've never heard anyone else call them masses, unless it's someone trying to correct me for making the 'mistake'.



Answer



It is absolutely fine to call these objects "weights", since you are interested in their weight - i.e. the force of gravity on them. You are not using them for their inertial properties.


Dictionary definition of weight: (Dictionary.com - definition 5)



a body of determinate mass, as of metal, for using on a balance or scale in weighing objects, substances, etc.



NB - this definition makes it explicit that a weight has mass. In other words - while you call it a weight (the object), the physical property is mass (100 gram). Which, at a particular point on earth, translates into a weight.



general relativity - Vacuum-ether and spacetime


In the past you could not give an explanation for various phenomena in which there was an action at a distance, like magnetism or gravity, that occurred in a vacuum;


For this reason, ether was hypothesized as something that would bring the information of the positive charge to the negative charge (remaining in the field of magnetism), in short, was inconceivable that this attractive force could exist in empty space.


At a later stage it was thought to force fields ... Then with General Relativity about gravity is thought to a deformation of the space-time, for which (for example) the Earth has a fixed course in its turn around the Sun


Now excuse me if my question to the introduction I wrote inaccuracies, but did not know how to explain otherwise... I come to the question whether in the past had broken into the ether because it was inconceivable that a force could be transmitted in a vacuum, now why it can deform according to the General Relativity?


If it is empty what deform? Then I have to re-introduce the ether for something to deform?


I hope that no one gets a laugh for this my silly question, but instead to help me understand a little better as far as possible.




Wednesday, October 24, 2018

geometry - Find a straight tunnel



There is a circular area with radius 1 km. And there is a tunnel, which is just under the surface, but invisible - unless you dig. It is known that the tunnel goes under the area (at least touches it at one point), it is straight and infinitely long (in both directions).
You have a plow and can dig along some lines with it. When you plow and cross the tunnel you will find it. How much (how long) and where do you have to plow to guarantee that you will find the tunnel?
You are allowed to plow outside of the area as well as inside. You can take the plow out of the ground and move it over the ground without plowing.




For example, you could choose to plow just along the perimeter, and then your result would be $2\pi\approx6.28\ \text{km}$. The task is to make this number as small as possible.


I don't know any good approach, but two people told me that at least $4.83\ \text{km}$ is possible to achieve, and one told that less than $4.8\ \text{km}$ is also possible.




quantum mechanics - Obtain the Lagrangian from the system of coupled equation



In this particular paper,


"Interaction between a moving mirror and radiation pressure: A Hamiltonian formulation" by C.K.Law, PhysRevA.51.2537


\begin{equation} \ddot{Q}_{k}=-\omega^{2}_{k}Q_{k}+2\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\sum_{j}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{j}+\dfrac{\ddot{q}q-\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}+\dfrac{\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}\sum_{j\ell}g_{jk}g_{j\ell}Q_{\ell} \tag{2.6} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} m\ddot{q}=-\dfrac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q}+\dfrac{1}{q}\sum_{k,j}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j} \tag{2.7} \end{equation} where $\:k,j,\ell \in \mathbb{N}^{+} \equiv \lbrace 1,2,3,\cdots \rbrace.$


Here the position-dependent frequencies $\omega_{k}$ are given by \begin{equation} \omega_{k}(q)=\dfrac{k\pi}{q} \tag{2.8} \end{equation} and the dimensionless coefficients $\:g_{kj}\:$ are given by


\begin{equation} g_{kj} = \begin{cases} (-1)^{k+j}\dfrac{2kj}{j^{2}-k^{2}}& \text{, $k \ne j$} \tag{2.9-2.10}\\ \qquad \quad 0 & \text{, $k=j$} \end{cases} \end{equation}



\begin{equation} \begin{split} & L\left(q,\dot{q},Q_{k},\dot{Q}_{k}\right)=\\ &\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\left[\dot{Q}_{k}^{2}-\omega_{k}^{2}(q)Q_{k}^{2}\right]+\dfrac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-V(q)-\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q} \sum_{j,k}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{k}Q_{j}+\dfrac{\dot{q}^{2}}{2q^{2}}\sum_{j,k,\ell}g_{kj}g_{k\ell}Q_{\ell}Q_{j} \end{split} \tag{3.1} \end{equation}


how to obtain the Lagrangian as given in Eq 3.1 from the system of coupled Equation 2.6 & 2.7


Problem i am facing is to identify the canonical momentum in such Equation and also unable to formulate in Euler-Lagrangian form so as to get the lagrangian.


Τhe canonical momenta $\:P_{k},p\:$ conjugate to $\:Q_{k},q\:$ respectively are given in the paper by the following equations \begin{align} P_{k}&=\dot{Q}_{k}-\frac{\dot{q}}{q}\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j} \tag{3.3}\\ p&=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\sum_{jk}g_{kj}P_{k}Q_{j} \tag{3.4} \end{align}


I have tried the back-step process where i had tried to get the system of eqns. from the given Lagrangian with no success. May be i need a different approach


I will be very grateful for any kind of help regarding this matter.



Answer



MAIN SECTION : The Lagrangian


Let express the equations of motion and the Euler-Lagrange equations with zero right hand sides \begin{equation} \bbox[#FFFF88,12px]{\ddot{Q}_{k}+\omega^{2}_{k}Q_{k}-2\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\sum_{j}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{j}-\dfrac{\ddot{q}q-\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}-\dfrac{\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}\sum_{j\ell}g_{jk}g_{j\ell}Q_{\ell}=0} \tag{01a} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \bbox[#FFFF88,12px]{m\ddot{q}+\dfrac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\sum_{k,j}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j}=0} \tag{01b} \end{equation}



\begin{equation} \bbox[#E1FFFF,12px]{\dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{Q}_{k}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial Q_{k}}=0} \tag{02a} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \bbox[#E1FFFF,12px]{\dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q}=0} \tag{02b} \end{equation}


where $\:L\left(q,\dot{q},Q_{k},\dot{Q}_{k}\right)\:$ the Lagrangian.


We proceed to the following definitions in order to handle the large amount of variables and indices by means of compressed simplified expressions : \begin{equation} \mathbf{Q}\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \begin{bmatrix} Q_{1}\\ Q_{2}\\ \vdots\\ Q_{k}\\ \vdots\\ \end{bmatrix} \qquad \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \begin{bmatrix} \dot{Q}_{1}\\ \dot{Q}_{2}\\ \vdots\\ \dot{Q}_{k}\\ \vdots\\ \end{bmatrix} \qquad \mathbf{\ddot{Q}}\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \begin{bmatrix} \ddot{Q}_{1}\\ \ddot{Q}_{2}\\ \vdots\\ \ddot{Q}_{k}\\ \vdots\\ \end{bmatrix} \tag{03} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \mathrm{G} \stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \begin{bmatrix} 0& g_{12} & g_{13} & \cdots & g_{1k} & \cdots \\ g_{21} & 0 & g_{23} & \cdots & g_{2k} & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\ g_{k1} & g_{k2} & g_{k3} & \cdots & 0 & \cdots\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \end{bmatrix} =-\mathrm{G}^{\rm{T}} \tag{04} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \Omega\left(q\right)\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \begin{bmatrix} \omega_{1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \cdots \\ 0 & \omega_{2} & \cdots & 0 & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & \omega_{k}& \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \end{bmatrix} = \dfrac{\pi}{q} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \cdots \\ 0 & 2 & \cdots & 0 & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\ 0 & 0 & \cdots & k & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \end{bmatrix} =\Omega^{\rm{T}}\left(q\right) \tag{05} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} \phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv}\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q} \tag{06} \end{equation}


We define also the real scalar below, something like the inner product of real vectors


\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{P}\boldsymbol{>}\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv} \sum_{k}Q_{k}P_{k} \tag{07} \end{equation}


Under these definitions and using equations (A-01), see AUXILIARY SECTION, we have the following expressions (08) in place of the equations of motion (01) and (09) in place of (02):



\begin{equation} \mathbf{\ddot{Q}}+\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}-2\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\dot{\phi}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}+\phi^{2}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\rm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{0} \tag{08a} \end{equation}


\begin{equation} m\ddot{q}+\dfrac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=0 \tag{08b} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}=\mathbf{0} \tag{09a} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial q}=0 \tag{09b} \end{equation} while the Lagrangian of the system, see equation (3.1) in the question, using equations (A-02) is expressed as \begin{equation} \begin{split} & L\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=\\ &\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}-\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\dfrac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-V(q)-\phi\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}-\dfrac{1}{2}\phi^{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \end{split} \nonumber \end{equation} \begin{equation} \text{-----------------------------------------------------------} \tag{10} \end{equation} and in even more compact form \begin{equation} L\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)= \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\left\Vert \phi\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right\Vert^{2}-\left\Vert\Omega\mathbf{Q}\right\Vert^{2} \right)+\dfrac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-V \tag{10$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{equation} We'll try to build the Lagrangian step by step by a trial and error procedure.


So, we expect the 1st term of equation (08a) to come from a Lagrangian part $\:L_{1}\left(\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)\:$ such that by (09a) \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L_{1}}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}\right)= \mathbf{\ddot{Q}}\Longrightarrow \dfrac{\partial L_{1}}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}=\mathbf{\dot{Q}} \tag{11} \end{equation} From the rule (A-3.d), see AUXILIARY SECTION, $\:L_{1}\:$ is \begin{equation} L_{1}\left(\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{12} \end{equation} since \begin{equation} \dfrac{\partial\left(\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial\mathbf{\dot{Q}}}=2\mathbf{\dot{Q}} \tag{13} \end{equation}


For the 2nd term of equation (08a) we expect a Lagrangian part $\:L_{2}\left(q,\mathbf{Q}\right)\:$ such that by (09a) \begin{equation} -\dfrac{\partial L_{2}}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}= \Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q} \tag{14} \end{equation} so \begin{equation} L_{2}\left(q,\mathbf{Q}\right)=-\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{15} \end{equation} since from the rule (A-3.c) and the symmetric (more exactly : diagonal) matrix $\:\Omega^{2}=\left(\Omega^{2}\right)^{\rm{T}}\:$ \begin{equation} \dfrac{\partial\left(\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial\mathbf{Q}}=\left[\Omega^{2}+\left(\Omega^{2}\right)^{\rm{T}}\right]\mathbf{Q}=2\Omega^{2}\mathbf{Q} \tag{16} \end{equation} But as the Lagrangian part $\:L_{2}\left(q,\mathbf{Q}\right)\:$ is a function of $\:q\:$ also, it produces items in the equations of motion if inserted to the 2nd term of (09b) : \begin{equation} -\dfrac{\partial L_{2}}{\partial q}=+\dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{\partial\left(\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial\mathbf{Q}}=+\boldsymbol{<}\Omega \dfrac{\partial \Omega}{\partial q} \mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{17} \end{equation} that is exactly the 3rd term in equation (08b).


On the other hand the first two terms of (08b) are those of a particle moving in a potential, so they come from a Lagrangian part $\:L_{3}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\:$ : \begin{equation} L_{3}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)=\dfrac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-V(q) \tag{18} \end{equation} This part $\:L_{3}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\:$ if inserted to (9a) produces nothing (no term in equations of motion). Now, in (08a) half of the 3rd term and the 4th term give \begin{equation} -\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\dot{\phi}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}=\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(-\phi\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right) \tag{19} \end{equation} so we expect a Lagrangian part $\:L_{4}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)\:$ such that by (09a) \begin{equation} \dfrac{\partial L_{4}}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}= -\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q} \tag{20} \end{equation} that is \begin{equation} L_{4}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=-\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{21} \end{equation} But, because of the antisymmetry of $\:\mathrm{G}\;$, this part may be expressed also as \begin{equation} L_{4}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=+\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G} \mathbf{\dot{Q}},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{22} \end{equation} so inserting this in the 2nd term of (09a) \begin{equation} -\dfrac{\partial L_{4}}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}= -\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}} \tag{23} \end{equation} which is the other half of the 3rd term in (08a). This means that $\:L_{4}\:$, if inserted in (09a), produces the 3rd and 4th terms of (08a) \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L_{4}}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L_{4}}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}=-2\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\dot{\phi}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q} \tag{24} \end{equation} The output of the insertion of $\:L_{4}\:$ in (09b) would be examined later together with $\:L_{5}\:$. The 5th term of (08a) may be come from a Lagrangian part $\:L_{5}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)\:$ such that by (09a)
\begin{equation} -\dfrac{\partial L_{5}}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}=\phi^{2}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q} \tag{25} \end{equation} so \begin{equation} L_{5}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=-\dfrac{1}{2}\phi^{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{26} \end{equation} since from (A-03.c) and the symmetry of $\:\mathrm{G}^{2}\:$ \begin{equation} \dfrac{\partial\left(\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{Q}}=\left(\mathrm{G}^{2}+\left(\mathrm{G}^{2}\right)^{\rm{T}}\right)\mathbf{Q}=2\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q} \tag{27} \end{equation} It can be proved, see A PROOF SECTION, that the sum $\:L_{45}=L_{4}+L_{5}\:$ \begin{equation} L_{45}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=L_{4}+L_{5}=-\dfrac{1}{2}\phi^{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}-\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{28} \end{equation} if inserted in (09b) produces the 4th term of (08b) \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}=+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{29} \end{equation}


In equation (30) below we sum up the found Lagrangian parts and the final Lagrangian is \begin{equation} \begin{split} & L\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)=\\ &\underbrace{\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{1}}\underbrace{-\dfrac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{2}}\underbrace{+\dfrac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-V(q)}_{L_{3}}\underbrace{-\phi\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{4}}\underbrace{-\dfrac{1}{2}\phi^{2}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{5}} \end{split} \nonumber \end{equation} \begin{equation} \text{-----------------------------------------------------------} \tag{30} \end{equation} identical to that given in the paper, equation (10).


Equations (31) are the equations of motion (08) with braces under items indicated from which Lagrangian terms $\:L_{m}\:$ these items come from :
\begin{equation} \underbrace{\mathbf{\ddot{Q}}}_{L_{1}}\underbrace{+\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}}_{L_{2}}\underbrace{-2\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\dot{\phi}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}}_{L_{4}}\underbrace{+\phi^{2}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\rm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q}}_{L_{5}}=\mathbf{0} \tag{31a} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \underbrace{m\ddot{q}+\dfrac{\partial V(q)}{\partial q}}_{L_{3}}\underbrace{-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{2}}\underbrace{+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}_{L_{4}+L_{5}}=0 \tag{31b} \end{equation}
Note that the canonical momenta $\:\mathbf{P},p\:$ conjugate to $\:\mathbf{Q},q\:$ respectively are

\begin{align} \mathbf{P}&=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \mathbf{\dot{Q}}}=\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\frac{\dot{q}}{q}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q} \tag{32a}\\ p&=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{P}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{32b} \end{align} where for the proof of (32b) \begin{align} p&=\dfrac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}-\frac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber\\ &=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}+\frac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber\\ &=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \underbrace{\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\frac{\dot{q}}{q}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}}_{\mathbf{P}}\boldsymbol{>}=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{P}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{32b$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{align} Equations (32a) and (32b) are identical to (3.3) and (3.4) of the paper respectively, given below \begin{align} P_{k}&=\dot{Q}_{k}-\frac{\dot{q}}{q}\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j} \tag{3.3}\\ p&=m\dot{q}-\dfrac{1}{q}\sum_{jk}g_{kj}P_{k}Q_{j} \tag{3.4} \end{align}




AUXILIARY SECTION : Compressed simplified expressions and partial differentiation rules


Equations (A-01) are useful for the conversion of the equations of motion from the form (01) to the form (08) : \begin{align} &\omega^{2}_{k}Q_{k}=\left[\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k} \tag{A-01.a}\\ &\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}=\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k} \tag{A-01.b}\\ &\sum_{j}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{j}=\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right]_{k} \tag{A-01.c}\\ &\sum_{j\ell}g_{jk}g_{j\ell}Q_{\ell}=-\sum_{\ell}\left(\sum_{j}g_{kj}g_{j\ell}\right)Q_{\ell}=-\sum_{\ell}\left( \mathrm{G}^{2}\right)_{k\ell}Q_{\ell}=-\left(\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q}\right)_{k} \tag{A-01.d}\\ &\dfrac{\ddot{q}q-\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}=\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\right)=\dfrac{d\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)}{dt}=\dot{\phi}\left(q,\dot{q}\right) \tag{A-01.e}\\ &\sum_{k,j}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j}=\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}-\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-01.f} \end{align} The proof of (A-01.f) runs as follows \begin{equation} \sum_{k,j}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j}=\underbrace{\sum_{k}\omega^{2}_{k}Q^{2}_{k}}_{\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}+\underbrace{\sum_{k,j\ne k}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j}}_{-\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}} \tag{A-01.f$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{equation} since \begin{align} &\sum_{k,j\ne k}(-1)^{k+j}\omega_{k}\omega_{j}Q_{k}Q_{j}=\left(\dfrac{\pi}{q}\right)^{2}\sum_{k,j\ne k}(-1)^{k+j}kjQ_{k}Q_{j}= \nonumber\\ &\left(\dfrac{\pi}{q}\right)^{2}\sum_{k,j\ne k}\underbrace{(-1)^{k+j}\dfrac{2kj}{j^{2}-k^{2}}}_{g_{kj}}\dfrac{j^{2}-k^{2}}{2}Q_{k}Q_{j}=\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{k,j}g_{kj}\left(\omega^{2}_{j}-\omega^{2}_{k}\right)Q_{k}Q_{j}= \nonumber\\ &-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{j}\underbrace{\left(\omega^{2}_{j}Q_{j}\right)}_{\left[\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}\right]_{j}}\overbrace{\sum_{k}g_{jk}Q_{k}}^{\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{j}}-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{k}\underbrace{\left(\omega^{2}_{k}Q_{k}\right)}_{\left[\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k}}\overbrace{\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}}^{\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k}}=-\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-01.f\;$^{\boldsymbol{\prime\prime}}$} \nonumber \end{align} \begin{equation} \text{-----------------------------------------------------------} \tag{A-01.f$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime\prime}}$} \end{equation}


Equations (A-02) and (A-03) are useful for the conversion of the Lagrangian from the form (3.1), see equation in question, to the form (10) and for the construction of this Lagrangian step by step from the equations of motion (08) : \begin{align} &\sum_{k}\dot{Q}_{k}^{2}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}=\left\Vert\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right\Vert^{2} \tag{A-02.a}\\ &\sum_{k}\omega_{k}^{2}(q)Q_{k}^{2}=\boldsymbol{<} \Omega^{2}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<} \Omega\mathbf{Q},\Omega^{\rm{T}} \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<} \Omega\mathbf{Q},\Omega\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\left\Vert\Omega\mathbf{Q}\right\Vert^{2} \tag{A-02.b}\\ &\sum_{j,k}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{k}Q_{j}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}=-\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-02.c}\\ &\sum_{j,k,\ell}g_{kj}g_{k\ell}Q_{\ell}Q_{j}=-\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\left\Vert\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right\Vert^{2} \tag{A-02.d} \end{align} Equations (A-02.c) and (A-02.d) are proved respectively as follows \begin{align} &\sum_{j,k}g_{kj}\dot{Q}_{k}Q_{j}=\sum_{k}\left(\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}\right)\dot{Q}_{k}=\sum_{k}\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k}\left[\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right]_{k}= \nonumber\\ &\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{Q}, \mathrm{G}^{\rm{T}}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{Q}, -\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}=-\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}, \mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-02.c$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{align} \begin{align} &\sum_{j,k,\ell}g_{kj}g_{k\ell}Q_{\ell}Q_{j}=\sum_{k}\left(\sum_{j}g_{kj}Q_{j}\right)\left(\sum_{\ell}g_{k \ell}Q_{\ell}\right)=\sum_{k}\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k}\left[\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\right]_{k} \nonumber\\ &=\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{\rm{T}}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=-\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-02.d$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{align}


Equations (A-03) below are in a sense partial differentiation rules of a scalar function of a vector variable $\:\mathbf{S}\:$ with respect to this variable. The scalar functions are usually inner products and the variable vector is $\:\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{Q}\;\text{or}\;\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\:$. In the following $\:\mathbf{A},\mathbf{R}\:$ are vectors and $\:\mathrm{F}\:$ linear transformation all of them independent of the variable vector $\:\mathbf{S}\:$. Usually $\:\mathrm{F}=\Omega,\Omega^{2},\mathrm{G},\mathrm{G}^{2}\:$ :


\begin{align} &\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{A},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}}=\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}} =\mathbf{A} \tag{A-03.a}\\ &\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{R},\mathrm{F}\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}}=\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{F}^{\rm{T}}\mathbf{R},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}} =\mathrm{F}^{\rm{T}}\mathbf{R} \tag{A-03.b}\\ &\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{F}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}}=\left(\mathrm{F}+\mathrm{F}^{\rm{T}}\right)\mathbf{S} \tag{A-03.c}\\ &\dfrac{\partial\left( \boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}\right)}{\partial \mathbf{S}}=2 \mathbf{S} \tag{A-03.d} \end{align} (A-03.b) is a special case of (A-03.a) with $\:\mathbf{A}=\mathrm{F}^{\rm{T}}\mathbf{R}\:$ and (A-03.d) is a special case of (A-03.c) with $\:\mathrm{F}=\mathrm{I}\:$.


An identity useful in the following section is \begin{equation} \mathrm{G}^{\rm{T}}=-\mathrm{G} \:\Longrightarrow \: \boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}=0, \quad \text{for any real vector }\: \mathbf{S} \tag{A-04} \end{equation} since \begin{equation} \boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{S},\mathrm{G}^{\rm{T}}\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}=\boldsymbol{<}\mathbf{S},\left(-\mathrm{G}\right)\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>}=-\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{A-04$\;^{\boldsymbol{\prime}}$} \end{equation}




A PROOF SECTION : Proof of equation (29) given equation (28).



We'll prove equation (29) from (28), the two equations repeated here for convenience \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}=+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{29} \end{equation} where \begin{equation} L_{45}\left(q,\dot{q},\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\right)\stackrel{\text{def}}{\equiv}-\dfrac{1}{2}\phi^{2}\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}-\phi\left(q,\dot{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{28} \end{equation}


\begin{align} -\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}&=\phi\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber\\ &=\left(\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\right)\dfrac{\partial \left(\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\right)}{\partial q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\dfrac{\partial \left(\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q}\right)}{\partial q}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber \end{align} so \begin{equation} -\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}=\left(-\dfrac{\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{3}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{B-01} \end{equation} Now \begin{align} \dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}&=-\phi\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial \dot{q}}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}-\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial \dot{q}}\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}\;\Longrightarrow \nonumber\\ \dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}&=\left(-\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{1}{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{B-02} \end{align} Differentiating (B-02) with respect to $\:t\:$ \begin{align} &\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)=\left(-\dfrac{\ddot{q}q-2\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{3}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{\dot{Q}},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber\\ &+\left(-\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(\dfrac{\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{1}{q}\right)\underbrace{\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}}_{=0,\text{see (A-04)}} \nonumber\\ &+\left(-\dfrac{1}{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\ddot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{B-03} \end{align} Adding (B-01) and (B-03) \begin{align} &\dfrac{d}{dt}\left(\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}= \nonumber\\ &\left(-\dfrac{\ddot{q}q-\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{3}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{2\dot{q}}{q^{2}}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\dot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}+\left(-\dfrac{1}{q}\right)\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{\ddot{Q}}\boldsymbol{>}= \nonumber\\ &+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\left(\dfrac{\ddot{q}-\dot{q}^{2}}{q^{2}}\right) \mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}+\dfrac{2\dot{q}}{q}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\mathbf{\ddot{Q}},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\underbrace{\dot{\phi}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}+2\phi\mathrm{G}\mathbf{\dot{Q}}-\mathbf{\ddot{Q}}}_{=\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}+\phi^{2}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\text{ see (08a)}},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \nonumber\\ &+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q}+\phi^{2}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}=+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}+\dfrac{\phi^{2}}{q}\underbrace{\boldsymbol{<}\mathrm{G}^{2}\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>}}_{=0,\text{see (A-04)}} \nonumber \end{align} so \begin{equation} \dfrac{d}{dt}\left( \dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial L_{45}}{\partial q}=+\dfrac{1}{q}\boldsymbol{<}\Omega^{2}\left(q\right)\mathbf{Q},\mathrm{G}\mathbf{Q}\boldsymbol{>} \tag{B-04} \end{equation} QED.


general relativity - What would a closed timelike curve look like?


What exactly are closed timelike curves. In a metric in which they would exist, what would they look like. What would it be like travelling through them? It obviously wouldn't look like a door. Would it be a region of space that if you wonder into, it can happen that see your past self?





riddle - What is the solution?


What is a word made up of 4 letters,


yet is also made up of 3,


Sometimes is written with 9 letters, and then with 4,


Rarely consists of 6,


and never is written with 5 ?



Answer



Can I say that:



The question is "What is the solution?"

And following the pattern in the clue (each number describes the number of letters in the first word in the phrase), then:


The solution is a phrase made up of 11 letters


(space is not a letter)

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

riddle - Puzzle House #1: Entrance Hall


So, after typing in the solution to the Calculator Bomb, I stepped into my house, and was immediately overwhelmed by the number of traps and puzzle-seeming things littered around the room. Whoever did this, they definitely pulled out all the stops. The door leading to the kitchen was locked, and all the other doors out of the entrance hall were so barred that I didn't even want to try to undo them.


I looked around for another note from the person who did this, and I found:



Hello again. Miss us? We thought the calculator wouldn't stop you. So, we've trapped your entire house with puzzles. If you make it all the way to the back of the closet in the bedroom on the top left, you'll find a button that will undo all of this.




Of course, the door closest to the stairs that led to the bedroom they were speaking of was boarded up. There was another staircase, in the back, but I'd have to get there. Which was much easier said than done, considering the circumstances.


Having done a few Escape the Room challenges, I solved a simple puzzle found underneath my carpet, which opened a box, giving me this paper. It read:


Some thought but one, though some had thought a few.


Even shark teeth break arks unless they're new.


Vexed arias play through Asia, the sweetest song.


Everlasting melody has gone moldy before too long.


Never seeing that the singe is already near,


Fourth, third, differences first, second, is the order here.


(end of paper)


The lock on the kitchen door had a keypad and spots to type in four digits from 0 to 9. There was also a warning on the lock.




WARNING: If the wrong combination is typed in, even once, this lock will explode, which will not be fun for you. The order you type the numbers in matters. Oh, and still don't try to call the police. We are watching...



I couldn't find anything else of use around the room.


Good luck. I hope you have it (again)


(This is my first word-based puzzle. I hope it's good!)


Clarification: The paper is the only thing required to solve the puzzle. The rest is flavor.


Hint #1:



In each line except the last, two words are the same, but not quite... and the last line says 'differences first'...




Hint #2:



Notice something similar about the similar words? Perhaps a location will give a clue...





quantum field theory - Is there any thing other than time that "triggers" a radioactive atom to decay?


Say you have a vial of tritium and monitor their atomic decay with a geiger counter. How does an atom "know" when it's time to decay? It seems odd that all the tritium atoms are identical except with respect to their time of decay.




simulations - Numerical relativity coordinate system displayed


In a picture or video of a numerical relativity simulation, such as a neutron star merger into a black hole, how do they set up their coordinate system? Lets take the point in a video corresponding to x=10km, y=20km, z=30km, t=1ms. Spacetime itself is distorted, in a very complex way, so how do you make sense of these numbers?


Website to find some nice videos: http://numrel.aei.mpg.de/images


Just to clarify: There are simulations in which space-time is fixed to the a well defined metric (e.g. Kerr black hole accretion disk MHD simulation with no disk self-gravity). But for true numerical relativity, in which the shape of space-time itself has to be simulated, there is no "clean" metric.



Answer



There is a huge variance in how these coordinates are set up, and very often the coordinate systems are chosen for computational convenience (having more data points in place where the metric varies a lot, and fewer far from, say, your colliding black holes), in addition to more physical choices. Once you have run the simulation and have found a solution, however, you can apply math and create any coordinate system you wish for visualizations.


electromagnetism - How do I find the polarity of a U-shaped electromagnet?


How do I find the polarity of a U-shaped electromagnet ?


U shaped solenoid


Current flowing clockwise --> South Pole


Current flowing anticlockwise --> North Pole


However the direction of flow of current changes when seen from top as compared to bottom. From the examples, I find that one should view the direction from the bottom. So why is this so ?


In this image:


Another solenoid


I believe the polarity at P is North and that at Q is South. Am I right ?



Is there any other method to determine the polarity of a U-shaped electromagnet ?



Answer



The current direction $I$ is from the positive terminal of the voltage source to the negative terminal.


enter image description here


Look end on along the axis of the electromagnet.
Clockwise current $I$ direction $\Rightarrow$ south pole
Anticlockwise current $I$ direction $\Rightarrow$ north pole


general relativity - On motivation for the definition of ADM mass


The ADM mass is expressed in terms of the initial data as a surface integral over a surface $S$ at spatial infinity: $$M:=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\lim_{r\to \infty}\int_S(k-k_0)\sqrt{\sigma}dS$$ where $\sigma_{ij}$ is the induced metric on $S$, $k=\sigma^{ij}k_{ij}$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of $S$ embedded in $\Sigma$ ($\Sigma$ is a hypersurface in spacetime containing $S$). and $k_0$ is the trace of extrinsic curvature of $S$ embedded in flat space.


Can someone explain to me why ADM mass is defined so. Why is integral of difference of traces of extrinsic curvatures important?





statistical mechanics - The definition of Density of States


The density of states (DOS) is generally defined as $$D(E)=\frac{d\Omega(E)}{dE},$$ where $\Omega(E)$ is the number of states in a volume $V$. But why DOS can also be defined using delta function, as $$D(E)~=~\sum\limits_{n} \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\delta(E-\epsilon_n(\mathbf{k}))?$$




riddle - Find this Cricket terminology


Congrats Niranj Patel for finding the answer of Steve's crossword




Find this Cricket Terminology.




A part of me is famous for a drink,


I'll make the batsman out in a blink !


Sometimes I may be equivalent to a wrong'un,


But definitely make the batsman stun.


Again, I'm not right


This is my riddle for tonight.


Finally, a part of me is a guy


That's all, give it a try !




Answer




Are you the



Slow left arm wrist-spin bowling technique formerly known as Chinaman?



A part of me is famous for a drink,



Since we are talking about cricket, the drink is probably tea, which is a drink famously from China, and also served in china teacups. ("Punch bowl" also crossed my mind, but I liked the other one better)



I'll make the batsman out in a blink!




The chinaman spin is surprisingly strong, and in a surprising direction, so it's easy to miss altogether, resulting in the batsman instantly losing his wicket



Sometimes I may be equivalent to a wrong'un,



In cricket terminology, a "wrong'un" is a delivery that spins "the other way" than usual. A chinaman bowler is always left-handed, but the spin is like that of a right-handed spin bowler, so that probably counts.



But definitely make the batsman stun.



(Didn't really have anything for this.)




Again, I'm not right



Chinaman bowling is done with the left hand



This is my riddle for tonight.



Tonight is special, because tonight we don't talk (with or without Alan Partridge) about what happened at the "chinaman square" exactly 30 years ago.



Finally, a part of me is a guy




Chinaman



That's all, give it a try !


The closest I've ever been to actually seeing anyone play cricket is that I spotted some cricket grounds in Regent's Park on my trip to London once, so this is absolutely my very bestest try :-)


Monday, October 22, 2018

spectroscopy - How to define the light "color" from a given spectral distribution?


The following question may be naive and incomplete in some way I don't know. I'm not a specialist on spectroscopy, colours and light curves, color spaces, etc.


Suppose you have a simple power-law function ; $f(\omega, \alpha) = \omega^{\alpha}$, which describes the spectral distribution of light angular frequencies as this : $$\tag{1} I = \kappa \int_0^{\omega_{\text{max}}} f(\omega, \alpha) \, d\omega, $$ where the exponent $\alpha$ is a given constant (a characteristic of the spectral distribution) and $\omega_{\text{max}}$ is another constant (the maximal value of the angular frequency allowed). $I$ is the total bolometric intensity of light at the detector's location, in watt/m^2 (the detector is a theoretical ideal device). $\kappa$ is just another arbitrary constant.



Then the question is this :



Assuming that $\omega_{\text{max}}$ is an angular frequency (rad/sec) which is in the visible spectrum or above it (i.e. ultra-violet), how can we define the color of the light described by the $\alpha$ index and the maximal value $\omega_{\text{max}}$ ?



By color, I mean something that could be compared in some way with the perception that we would have of that "$\alpha$-light", in the visible spectrum only.


For example, if $\alpha = 0$, the spectral distribution would be "flat" (i.e. uniform). What would be the color of light if $\omega_{\text{max}}$ corresponds to pure violet light, and $0 \le \omega \le \omega_{\text{max}}$ ? I guess white light !


If $\alpha = 2$, then the distribution would favour the violet and blue frequencies over the orange and red frequencies, so the light would look like blueish in some way, isn't ?


I hope the question is clear enough and doesn't bring me to the all messy/complicated problems of human/eye/brain/psychology perception ! I'm looking for something simple and "physical" only, if it exists ! In other words : is there a simple approximate "trick" to define a "color" from $\alpha$ and $\omega_{\text{max}}$ alone ? I'm just looking for some kind of approximation, to give an idea of what color the light might have.




fluid dynamics - How does one derive the equation for the speed of sound?


In my acoustics books I see


$$c^2 = \frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}\rho}$$



where $c$ is the speed of sound, $P$ is the pressure and $\rho$ is the density. Where does this equation come from? In my books it appears almost as a definition. Could you explain this, or at least point me to an article or a book that addresses this question? Thanks.




newtonian mechanics - Does the mass point move?


There is a question regarding basic physical understanding. Assume you have a mass point (or just a ball if you like) that is constrained on a line. You know that at $t=0$ its position is $0$, i.e., $x(t=0)=0$, same for its velocity, i.e., $\dot{x}(t=0)=0$, its acceleration, $\ddot{x}(t=0)=0$, its rate of change of acceleration, $\dddot{x}(t=0)=0$, and so on. Mathematically, for the trajectory of the mass point one has


\begin{equation} \left. \frac{d^{n}x}{dt^n}\right|_{t=0} = 0 \textrm{ for } n \in \mathbb{N}_0\mbox{.} \end{equation}


My physical intuition is that the mass point is not going to move because at the initial time it had no velocity, acceleration, rate of change of acceleration, and so on. But the mass point not moving means that $x(t) \equiv 0$ since its initial position is also zero. However, it could be that the trajectory of the mass point is given by $x(t) = \exp(-1/t^2)$. This function, together with all its derivatives, is $0$ at $t=0$ but is not equivalent to zero. I know that this function is just not analytical at $t=0$. My question is about the physical understanding: How could it be that at a certain moment of time the mass point has neither velocity, nor acceleration, nor rate of change of acceleration, nor anything else but still moves?




What happened to the Fibonacci sequence?


I'm sure you've seen some of these numbers before:


1 3 8 13 21 30 36 45 54 63

Whats the next number in the sequence? And what have I done to the Fibonacci sequence?



Answer



every number is the sum of letters (without spaces) of all the previous numbers.




3 = one (3 letters)
8 = three (5) + one (3)
13 = Eight (5) + three (5) + one (3)
21 = Thirteen (8) + Eight (5) + three (5) + one (3)
30 = twentyOne (9) + 21
36 = Thirty (6) + 30
and so on....



It's still a Fibonacci series of count of letters of n-1th value & number of n-2th value


optics - Why does the road look like it's wet on hot days?


Often, I'll be driving down the road on a summer day, and as I look ahead toward the horizon, I notice that the road looks like there's a puddle of water on it, or that it was somehow wet. Of course, as I get closer, the effect disappears.


I know that it is some kind of atmospheric effect. What is it called, and how does it work?




Answer



The phenomenon is called Mirage (EDIT: I called it Fata Morgana earlier, but a Fata Morgana is a special case of mirage that's a bit more complex). The responsible effect is the dependence of the refractive index of air on the density of air, which, in turn, depends on the temperature of the air (hot air being less dense than cold air).


Mechanism Leading to a Fata Morgana


A non-constant density leads to refraction of light. If there's a continuous gradient in the density, you get a bent curve (i) as opposed to light coming straight at you (d). Your eye does not know, of course, that the light (i) coming at it was bent, so your eye/brain continues the incoming light in a straight line (v).


This mirroring of the car (or other objects) then tricks you into thinking the road is wet, because a wet street would also lead to a reflection. In addition, the air wobbles (i.e. density fluctuations), causing the mirror image to wobble as well, which adds to the illusion of water.


lateral thinking - A quick rebus puzzle


This riddle depends on the colour of the pictures. So it is not friendly for colourblind people. All inconveniences are regretted


A simple one this time. No hidden meaning or clues. Let's see how fast this one gets solved. :)



Do note that the path shown in the second picture has no significance whatsoever to the puzzle.



enter image description here


Hint below



As I have said before, the path is not important here. But do take a closer look at the trees. Colourblind people may not be able to differentiate though and I apologize in advance for that





Answer



A wild guess, but is it



The grass is greener on the other side



Because



The two pictures have bamboo (a grass) and the right photo is greener than the left.




everyday life - When passed, why does my car 'rock' on the highway when I'm stopped, but not when I'm moving?


I am the blue car in this scenario. If I am stopped on the highway and am passed by a car going fast (about 65 mph), I feel my car rock in the left/right direction. I think I understand why this happens: the wake of the red car in the air pushes my car back and forth.


stopped car being passed by fast car in opposite direction


But if I'm moving slowly forward (say 5 mph or less), I don't feel anything when the car passes. I would think that, if anything, the force would be stronger, because the velocity difference is now 70 mph. I'm moving slowly enough that the rocking would still be quite noticeable. Why don't I feel the rocking any more in this scenario?


slowly-moving car being passed by fast car in opposite direction


Update: As suggested by RedGrittyBrick, I recorded some accelerometer data from my phone to try to better understand what's happening. My phone was mounted to the dash with a mount that holds it in place; it was approximately positioned so that the x (left/right), y (up/down), and z (forward/back) coordinates match that of the car. From watching the x-axis data as it was recorded, I think his explanation is the most likely one: it is so slight that I don't notice it being so significant when moving slowly.



If you want to view the data yourself, you can see the raw data yourself. There's 17 minutes of raw data there, not all of it useful; IIRC it was towards the end, look for where the data is least noisy to find where I'm stopped; if you see a slight left-then-right on the x axis, that's me being passed. If anyone knows of a good way to view and analyze this data (or point me in the direction of what tool(s) to use to do that myself), maybe you can get a more accurate interpretation of it (and I can assist in telling you what was going on in the real-world in association with the data).


What I'd like to know specifically is: in objective terms, how strong is the rocking from when I'm moving slowly compared to when I'm stopped? There was too much vibration for me to see it real-time, but maybe it can still be extracted from the data?



Answer



Related questions





Observer stationary


A vehicle passing a stationary vehicle can produce a complex pressure wave


enter image description here


From MEASUREMENT OF THE AERODYNAMIC PRESSURES PRODUCED BY PASSING TRAINS



In this you can see that the stationary vehicle is first pushed away and then sucked back towards the passing vehicle. Lastly the opposite sequence occurs at the tail end of the passing vehicle.


Observer moving


When the observer's vehicle is moving relatively slowly, I don't have an explanation for why any objectively measured forces would be much reduced.


However a slowly moving vehicle is producing a lot more shaking and vibration than a stationary one and this may mask a human observer's perception of additional motions. Our perception may be affected in a non-linear way by a base level of shaking induced by motion. Also, as a driver, I notice bumping and shaking much much less than I do as a passenger, this is perhaps due to my concentration being focussed elsewhere and my anticipation of motion induced by control inputs. If so the former might be a factor in the passing vehicle observation when the observer is actively driving.


Maybe some experimentation with phone accelerometers would produce some useful data?


visual - Race to the Past: A Historical Scavenger Hunt


This was intended to be for History Fortnight, but I didn't quite get it finished up in time. (I now have a history of just missing these cutoffs.) Here's the puzzle, though you'll definitely need the bigger version to have a go at it.


enter image description here





  • The final answer is a person who would've been quite good at History Fortnight.

  • I'm American, so dates are MM/DD/YYYY.

  • There are cryptic clues (in crpytic-crossword style) but also non-cryptic clues. All cryptic clues are followed by (n) for clarity, even when there are already boxes for their solutions.

  • A complete answer will have all boxes filled in and the correct final answer identified. (And any additional notes are welcome!)

  • The colors do help keep track of which answers go where, but shouldn't be necessary for those color-blind folks out there.

  • There's no easy way to make a text version of this, so it's tagged .

  • The flow of information is not meant to be difficult to follow. Let me know if you're not sure about something, but a careful look should give you the gist of it.




Answer



Filled out scavenger hunt:



enter image description here



Thanks to Deusovi and whoever helped on the comments to that answer!


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 \...