Monday, February 3, 2020

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 \vec F) \cdot \vec x \ \ \ $ (or $\ \tau_x = (\vec r \times \vec F) \cdot \vec x \ $)


But in my Physics class I saw:


$\vec M = \vec r \times \vec F \ \ \ $ (or $\ \vec \tau = \vec r \times \vec F \ $)


In the first formula, the torque is a triple product vector, that is, a scalar quantity. But in the second, it is a vector. So, torque (or moment of a force) is a scalar or a vector?



Answer



It is obviously a vector, as you can see in the 2nd formula.


What you are doing in the first one is getting the $x$-component of that vector. Rememebr that the scalar product is the projection of one vector over the other one's direction. Actually you should write $\hat{x}$ or $\vec{i}$ or $\hat{i}$ to denote that it is a unit vector. That's because a unit vector satisfies


$\vec{v}\cdot\hat{u}=|v| \cdot |1|\cdot \cos(\alpha)=v \cos(\alpha)$


and so it is the projection of the vector itself.


In conclusion, the moment is a vector, and the first formula is only catching one of its components, as noted by the subindex.



quantum mechanics - Do the canonical commutation relations have any connection to geometry?


I was wondering if the canonical commutation relations have any connection to geometry? If so, could you explain the connection in fairly simple and intuitive terms?




projectile - Could one fire a bullet with sufficient speed to leave the Earth?


Consider a gun or rifle fired directly upwards. My original question was what speed would be required to escape the Earth.


The escape velocity from the surface of the Earth is the classic $$v_e = \sqrt{ 2GM \over r } \approx 11,000 \text{ m/s}$$ and bullets typically (see for example) leave the muzzle with a maximum speed one order of magnitude lower, ~$1,000$ m/s. Terminal velocity of bullets in STP is another magnitude lower, ~$100$ m/s.


Even if a bullet were fired with speed $v_e$ that of course would not be sufficient due to drag which would slow the bullet down. So a theoretical required speed $v_T > v_e$.



  • If the bullet were fired with anything close to $v_e$ or $v_T$, would it would burn up very rapidly in STP? I understand that rockets typically don't achieve anything like $v_e$ until they are high in the atmosphere at least in part for this reason

  • And hence is there no speed possible in realistic conditions with which a bullet could be fire and escape the Earth?

  • If it is possible, what model of drag should one use to calculate $v_T$ and concretely, does anyone have an estimate of its value?





Sunday, February 2, 2020

velocity - Light traveling through a medium


Does the frequency of light change when it travels across an interface between two media? What happens to the light wavelength and the light velocity at the interface?


I've gotten different answers some say all three change and some say frequency is constant or some say that the wavelength is constant...


What's the right answer?



Answer



Frequency is constant. If it were otherwise, you would have more (or fewer) wave crests hitting the interface per unit time than leaving it, which would lead to some sort of pileup that gets worse and worse as time progresses. Another way to think about it is the atoms/electrons/electric field lines/whatever at the interface respond immediately to their neighbors (the wave is essentially continuous), even if those neighbors are in a different medium.


Wavelength can change, and it does so in such a way that $f \lambda = c/n$ at all locations. Here $f$ is the frequency, $\lambda$ is the wavelength, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, and $n$ is the index of refraction. As you can see, going from air ($n \approx 1$) to glass (say $n = 1.4$) will result in the wavelength of optical light to decrease by a factor of $1.4$. Also note that in general $n$ can depend on $f$, leading to colors dispersing as in rainbows and chromatic aberration.


visible light - What is the trajectory of a photon moving through a vacuum?


Since electromagnetic energy is carried by photons and moves in forms of waves, does it mean that a single photon when propagating through space doesn't follow the straight path but instead always moves up and down, up and down like a wave. If so another question arises the speed of propagation of light in vacuum is fixed meaning that it will always take the same amount of time for it to travel from point A to point B, but if a photon always moves up and down it will also mean that it travels longer distance than the distance between A and B and so it ill travel faster than light propagates, is it even possible, could you please clarify these concepts for me?




electric circuits - On this infinite grid of resistors, what's the equivalent resistance?



I searched and couldn't find it on the site, so here it is (quoted to the letter):



On this infinite grid of ideal one-ohm resistors, what's the equivalent resistance between the two marked nodes?


Nerd Sniping



With a link to the source.



I'm not really sure if there is an answer for this question. However, given my lack of expertise with basic electronics, it could even be an easy one.



Answer



Nerd Sniping!


The answer is $\frac{4}{\pi} - \frac{1}{2}$.


Simple explanation:



Successive Approximation! I'll start with the simplest case (see image below) and add more and more resistors to try and approximate an infinite grid of resistors.


Simulation results



Mathematical derivation:



$$R_{m,m}=\frac 2\pi \left( 1 + \frac 13 + \frac 15 + \frac 17 + \dots + \frac 1 {2m-1} \right)$$


Saturday, February 1, 2020

thermodynamics - Slow thermal equilibrium


I have a question which is inspired by considering the light field coming off an incandescent lightbulb. As a blackbody radiation field, the light is in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$, which implies that each normal mode has a mean energy given by Planck's law, and a random phase. Thus, if I were to look, microscopically, at the electric field, I would see a fairly complicated random function that can only really be considered constant at timescales $\tau\ll \hbar/k_B T$ (at which the corresponding modes have next to no amplitude and therefore do not affect the electric field's time dependence).



This illustrates a general aspect of thermal and thermodynamic equilibrium: they are only relevant concepts when the systems involved are looked at on timescales far longer than their relevant dynamics.


My question, then, is this: are examples of slowly-varying systems (where by "slowly" I mean on the timescales of seconds, or preferably longer) that can be considered to be in thermal equilibrium on timescales longer than that known?



Answer



Globular clusters are an example of such a system. Their velocity distributions are close enough to Maxwellian that, observed instantaneously, they would appear to be in thermal equilibrium unless you paid very close attention to the high velocity tail, which is truncated. Depending on the number of stars in the cluster, you may not even be able to tell this apart from shot noise in the measurement. Over longer timescales, though, the cluster is evaporating. This happens because occasionally a star will gravitationally scatter a little bit and end up on an orbit whose energy is slightly positive and escape the system. This lowers the binding energy of the system, making it easier for another star to scatter onto an orbit that lets it escape, and so on. Eventually all that is left is a pair of stars locked in a Keplerian orbit.


There are some more details on the relevant timescales in this answer, and an excellent reference on the topic is this book (chapter 7, particularly 7.5, 7.5.2). Here is some content available online that explains that GCs are well-modelled by quasi-Maxwellian distribution functions, that they can in some contexts be treated as isothermal, etc. Be warned, the rabbit hole of globular cluster dynamics is deep.


air - Reason for strange "canyons" of dust on the cooling platform


I took apart my cooling platform Something like this :Cooling Platform


And I found something like this inside :


Canyon of dust 1 Canyon of dust 2 Canyon of dust 3


I wonder why around the hollows are the "canyon like" structures.


PS: I also drop this platform on the floor, maybe this could be a reason ?


EDIT :


Everybody seems (except Brandon Enright answer) to ignore the word "dust" in this question. Those structures are not in the plastic itself. It is dust ON the plastic.


Proof :


Dust canyon



Completely wiped out with my finger :


Dust canyon wiped



Answer



I've seen this too. The circles that the "dust canyons" are around are marks from the injection molding process. Specifically, they're the ejector pin marks made when the pins push the part out of the mold. The force of pushing the part out probably creates radial stress cracks in the grain of the plastic. If you use a microscope to look at the surface of the plastic you'll probably see a rougher patch in the shape of those canyon lines and that's what dust is clinging on to.


There are a lot of different types of injection molding defects. Splay marks are a similar feature of injection molding that could look like your image.


Friday, January 31, 2020

newtonian gravity - How is a result of no time variation in the gravitational constant $G$ related to a measurement of no local expansion?


In this answer @PhillS linked to the paper Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity which has given me a great start. While its main focus is on the Equivalence Principle (EP) they also mention that no local expansion was seen. The last sentence in the abstract is:




" The search for a time variation in the gravitational constant results in G/G ˙ = (4 ±9) ×10 −13 yr − 1 ; consequently there is no evidence for local ( ∼1 AU) scale expansion of the solar system."



Briefly, the data here is 34 years of laser ranging from Earth of a retroreflector array on the moon. While the distance between a given measurement site and the reflector on the moon can vary by as much as 50,000km (due mostly to the Moon's elliptical orbit and the size of the earth) these can be and have been painstakingly modeled. The amazing result is that in 34 years the residual scatter is only about 2cm!!


What I'm looking for is a midrange answer - not (exclusively) high level cosmology, but more than just balloon and raisin cake analogies. Something that will help towards understanding the relationship between the two.


Question: How is a result of no time varying $G$ related to a measurement of no local expansion?


Bonus mini-question: If I understand correctly and the null measurement of expansion is from the earth-moon ranging data, why does the sentence say "local (~1 AU) scale" when the earth-moon distance is only 0.0027 AU?


Lunar Libration image from here


enter image description here


Lunar Laser Ranging images from here



enter image description here enter image description here



Answer



If cosmological expansion applies on the scale of the earth moon system, then in some short period of time $\delta t$ the distance between the earth and moon increases from $r$ to $r+\delta r$. So the force of gravity between the bodies changes to:


$F+\delta F=\frac{GMm}{(r+\delta r)^2}\approx\frac{GMm}{r^2}\left(1+\frac{\delta r}{r}\right)^{-2}\approx\frac{GMm}{r^2}\left(1-\frac{2\delta r}{r}\right)=F\left(1-2\frac{\delta r}{r}\right)$


The same change in gravitational force could also come about via change in $G$:


$F+\delta F=\frac{(G+\delta G)Mm}{r^2}=F\left(1+\frac{\delta G}{G}\right)$


Equating the $\delta F$ terms shows you that the change in the force due to increasing distance is the same as the change in the force due to decreasing $G$ if


$\frac{\delta G}{G}=-2\frac{\delta r}{r}$


Now if our $\delta r$ is due to cosmological expansion being applicable to this distance scale, then for an expansion velocity of $v$, $\delta r=v\delta t$ and by using Hubbles law $v=H_0 r$ where $H_0$ is Hubble's constant, which is around $70kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, which we want to converft to SI units ($ms^{-1}{m^-1}=s^{-1}$) which gives us $H_{0}=2.26\times10^{-18}s^{-1}=7.1\times10^{-11}yr^{-1}$


So plugging that in to our equation gives $\frac{\delta G}{G}=-2\frac{H_{0}r\delta t}{r}$. Simplifying, and turning $\frac{\delta G}{\delta t}$ into $\dot{G}$ we end up with



$\frac{\dot{G}}{G}=-2H_{0}$


This is a simplistic way to do it, but the basic idea is on the right track I believe. A cosmologically-caused increase in the earth moon distance would give a reduction in the mutual force between them the same as a decrease in $G$ would if they stayed at the same distance. Rearranging the maths as above gives you a a direct proportionality between $\frac{\dot{G}}{G}$ and $H_0$, although the constant of proportionality for general relativity is probably not exactly what I've come up with here (and other theories of gravity may give different values).


The paper you mention puts an experimental limit on that constant of proportionality of (roughly) $0.006 \pm 0.012$ (using the value $H_0$ above), as opposed to the 'predicted' value of $-2$


The reason for expressing the result in terms of $\frac{\dot{G}}{G}$ idea that that is directly derived from what they measure independent of any theory. I.e. it is as far as you can go towards putting numerical limits on the expansion without committing to a particular theory or value of $H_0$


(I believe that John Rennie's comment is correct that the are using '$AU$ scale' to indicate that they are talking about effects on the order of the solar system, rather than galactic or cosmological distances.)


Excellent animation of the moon changing through the month BTW.


general relativity - Could there be any alternative to a supermassive black hole that might explain Sgr A*?


I am aware of How do we know the stars orbiting Sgr A* are orbiting a supermassive black hole and not just the center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy?, which asks why the motions of stars near the Galactic centre suggest a 4 million solar mass black hole.


But are there any theoretical ideas to explain these observations, that avoid the conclusion of a black hole, that remain unfalsified?


And will subsequent observations (e.g. with the Event Horizon telescope) be able to falsify these alternatives or indeed the hypothesis of a supermassive black hole?




Thursday, January 30, 2020

newtonian mechanics - What is an intuitive explanation using forces for the equatorial bulge?


The earth is not a sphere, because it bulges at the equator.


I tried fiddling with centripetal force equations and gravity, but I couldn't derive why this bulge occurs.



Is there


(a) a mathematical explanation using forces (not energies) and


(b) a simple intuitive explanation to explain to others why the bulge occurs?



Answer



Equatorial bulging of a planet is caused by the combination of gravity and centrifugal force. To show this I will first make a few assumptions:



  • The planets is assumed to be made up of a liquid of constant density.

  • All liquid is at rest relative to itself, which means that there are no shear stresses within the liquid, since this would induce a flow.

  • The equatorial bulging is small, such that the acceleration due to gravity, $\vec{a}_g$, at the surface can be approximated with: $\vec{a}_g=-G\frac{M}{\|\vec{x}\|^3}\vec{x}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ the mass of the planet and $\vec{x}$ the position on the surface relative to the center of mass of the planet.

  • The planet is axis symmetric and rotates around this axis with a constant angular velocity $\omega$.



A small volume, $dV$, experiences two volumetric accelerations, namely gravitational and centrifugal, and normal forces by the neighboring liquid in therms pressure. The sum of all accelerations on $dV$ should add up to zero to comply with the second assumption (the centrifugal acceleration already accounts for the fact that the reference frame is rotating). At any point on the surface there is a constant pressure, because above it there would be the vacuum of space. This means that the neighboring liquid, also at the surface, has the same pressure and therefore can not exert any force on each other in the plane op the surface. The only direction that liquid can exert force on each other is in the normal direction to the surface. However the sum of all accelerations still should add up to zero and therefore the sum of the gravitational and centrifugal acceleration should also point in the normal direction of the surface.


The magnitude of the gravitational acceleration, $a_g$, is defined by assumption three and its direction is always radially inwards. The magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration, $a_c$, is equal to:


$$ a_c = \omega^2 \sin\phi\ \|\vec{x}\|, $$


where $\phi$ is equal to $\pi/2$ minus the latitude; its direction is always parallel to the plane of the equator and its line of action always goes through the axis of rotation. These accelerations are illustrated in the figure below. Schematic presentation of the two volumetric accelerations


For the next part I will define local unit vectors $\vec{e}_r$ and $\vec{e}_t$, where $\vec{e}_r$ points into the local radial outwards direction and $\vec{e}_t$ is perpendicular to it, lies in the plane spanned by the axis of rotation and $\vec{x}$ and faces the direction closest to the equator. The direction of vectors also correspond with the grey vectors in the figure above. Using these unit vectors, the vector sum of the gravitational and centrifugal acceleration can be written as


$$ \vec{a}_g + \vec{a}_c = \vec{e}_r \left(\omega^2 \sin^2\!\phi\ \|\vec{x}\| - G\frac{M}{\|\vec{x}\|^2}\right) + \vec{e}_t\ \omega^2 \sin\phi\ \cos\phi\ \|\vec{x}\|. $$


If there would be no bulging then the normal vector should always point radial outwards. However the normal vector has to point in the opposite direction as the equation above, which means that for $\omega>0$ it will not point in the same direction as $-\vec{e}_r$ for all values of $\phi$. This means that the surface will have a small slope, $\alpha$, relative to $\vec{e}_t$


$$ \alpha = \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\omega^2 \sin\phi\ \cos\phi\ \|\vec{x}\|}{G\frac{M}{\|\vec{x}\|^2} - \omega^2 \sin^2\!\phi\ \|\vec{x}\|}\right). $$


A slope means a change of height, and thus radius, when displacing horizontally. To simplify the expression, $r$ will substitute $\|\vec{x}\|$. For a slope $\alpha$ the change of the radius, $dr$, for a small change in $\phi$, $d\phi$, will be equal to:



$$ dr = \tan\alpha\ r\ d\phi. $$


By substituting in the equation for $\alpha$ the following differential equation can be obtained


$$ \frac{dr}{d\phi} = \frac{\omega^2 \sin\phi\ \cos\phi\ r^2}{G\frac{M}{r^2} - \omega^2 \sin^2\!\phi\ r} . $$


When $\phi$ is equal to $0$ or $\frac{\pi}{2}$, the poles and the equator respectively, this equation will be zero, however for any value in between, it will be positive, since when denominator would become negative it would mean that the centrifugal force will be bigger than gravity and the liquid would be flung into space. So this planet would have the smallest radius near the poles after which the radius will increase with $\phi$ until you reach the equator.


electromagnetism - Possiblity of predicting behavior of system when properties described as functions over space?


Suppose I am given a system that consists of a distribution of charged particles(which are all over space and are point-charges). They are described by a set of functions instead of variables. These functions are:



  • $C(x)$ - a function describing the amount of charge at each point in space. For example, take the one dimensional example of $C(x) = \sin(x)$.

  • $M(x)$ - a function describing the amount of mass at each point in space.

  • $V(x)$ - the function describing what the sum of all the velocities of the particles at a point is.


Given these are the functions to describe the system at time $t = 0$, is it possible to predict the state of this system (the charge distribution, velocities and mass distributions) at a later time, say, $t = 2$, using Newtonian dynamics?


My system can be thought of as a fluid, where distribution of mass and charge vary. I ignore charges if that simplifies things. I want to take into account gravity, though, at least. How do I exactly proceed to find the distribution functions at $t = 2$?





pattern - What is a Re-Tileable 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 has a certain property, I call it a Re-Tileable Word™.


You can use the examples below to find the property:


$$\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \bbox[yellow]{\textbf{Re-Tileable Words™}}&\bbox[yellow]{\textbf{Un-Re-Tileable Words™}}\\ \hline \text{KALE}&\text{CHARD}\\ \hline \text{ROOSTER}&\text{COCKEREL}\\ \hline \text{KARMA}&\text{FORTUNE}\\ \hline \text{SALMON}&\text{MACKEREL}\\ \hline \text{TEST}&\text{QUIZ}\\ \hline \text{DREAM}&\text{NIGHTMARE}\\ \hline \text{FAST}&\text{QUICK}\\ \hline \text{CRAFT}&\text{ORIGAMI}\\ \hline \text{VIEW}&\text{SCENERY}\\ \hline \text{ORGAN}&\text{GLAND}\\ \hline \text{SCORE}&\text{MARKS}\\ \hline \text{EROTIC}&\text{SEXUAL}\\ \hline \end{array} $$



For those without MathJax, or if you want to pop this into a spreadsheet, here is a CSV version:


Re-tileable Word™, Non-re-tileable Word™  

KALE, CHARD
ROOSTER, COCKEREL
KARMA, FORTUNE
SALMON, MACKEREL
TEST, QUIZ
DREAM, NIGHTMARE
FAST, QUICK

CRAFT, ORIGAMI
VIEW, SCENERY
ORGAN, GLAND
SCORE, MARKS
EROTIC, SEXUAL

Answer



A Re-Tileable Word™ seems to be ...



... an allowable Scrable word that can be anagrammed to one or more other allowable Scrabble words. Some anagrams are obscure e.g. makar, monals, tercio, but they are all in the Scrabble dictionary. The Un-Re-Tileable words have no useful anagrams.




These words are Re-Tileable™, because ...



... to make an anagram of a word on a Scrabble board just means to rearrange the tiles.



Wednesday, January 29, 2020

special relativity - Euclidean geometry in non-inertial frame


Refer, "The classical theory of Fields" by Landau&Lifshitz (Chap 3). Consider a disk of radius R, then circumference is $2 \pi R$. Now, make this disk rotate at velocity of the order of c(speed of light). Since velocity is perpendicular to radius vector, Radius does not change according to the observer at rest. But the length vector at boundary of disk, parallel to velocity vector will experience length contraction . Thus, $\dfrac{\text{radius}}{\text{circumference}}>\dfrac{1}{2\pi}$ , when disc is rotating. But this violates rules of Euclidean geometry.


What is wrong here?



Answer



What is wrong is the idea that one can actually make the disk rotate; and it will remain perfectly rigid.



In reality, what this correct argument shows is that relativity doesn't admit the existence of any perfectly rigid bodies. This is a perfectly basic, settled, and indisputable textbook material that every mature physicist knows. The first sentence of this paragraph contains a link to the Gravity Probe B website. The thought experiment is known as the Ehrenfest paradox and Ehrenfest himself already offered the right basic answer – no rigid objects exist in relativity – when he outlined the thought experiment in 1909.


When one takes a solid disk and makes it rotate, it will do all kinds of things resulting from the "imperfection of the material". It will tear apart by the centrifugal force, and if it won't, it will either tear basically along radial lines, or it will bend (the disk won't be planar anymore) because the circumference really shrinks by the Lorentz factor. If there existed a material that is perfectly rigid and cannot stretch or bend or tear, then it would be impossible to make it spin. In any world governed by relativity, the proper distances between the individual points/atoms of the objects simply have to change when the object is brought to motion. (The definition of rigidity using the constant proper distances between points/atoms of the object was given by Max Born in 1909 and is known as the Born rigidity.)


However, the non-existence of such a material may be shown even microscopically. It is not possible to "order" any solid object to keep the proper distances at every moment because the distance between two atoms (or points on the solid object) may only be measured with a delay $\Delta t = \Delta x / c$ simply because no information may move faster than light. That's why it's always possible to squeeze any rod on one end and the opposite end of the rod won't move at least for this $\Delta t = \Delta x / c$. This relationship between the "limited speed of signals by $c$" and "non-existence of rigid objects in relativity" was already pointed out by Max von Laue in 1911.


In fact, the delay will be much larger than that, dictated basically by the speed of sound, not by the speed of light. Whatever material you have, relativity guarantees that it can be squeezed as well as stretched as well as bent.


special relativity - Can relativistic mass be treated as rest mass?


In what real sense does the mass of an object increase with its speed? When we learn that the mass of an object increases according to the equation,


$$m = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$


We can think of the mass of an object as its resistance to being moved (inertia). But suppose we devised a contraption that increased its mass by the motion of its internal parts. Would the inertia of the contraption be greater? In the following, I devise the simplest possible contraption that takes advantage of this fact and ask what happens when an object collides with it.


Consider a box with a negligibly light frame in which two balls each of mass $\frac{m_0}{2}$ start in the middle and move in opposite directions at velocity $v$. Call this box the "balls box".


The balls box has mass $m = \frac{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$.



Consider a box with rest mass $m$ when another box of rest mass $m$ hits it moving at velocity $v$. In an elastic collision, the first mass with move with velocity $v$ and the second will come to rest.


Now replace the box with rest mass $m$ with the balls box. Because the balls inside it are moving, it has rest mass $m_0$ but relativistic mass $m$. The balls box is at rest when a box with mass $m$ hits it at velocity $v$ in the direction along which the balls move. What happens?


According to a naive analysis, after the collision there will be some jiggling as information is transmitted down the length of the balls box. Eventually, the moving box will come to rest and the balls box will move with velocity $v$ to the right. Is this right?


What happens when we turn the balls box perpendicular to the motion of the moving ball?


Edit:


The rationale behind the naive analysis is that when the balls box is treated as a self-contained system—and when it's at rest—it has mass $m$. By that reasoning, it should behave the same as a box with rest mass $m$. The problem arises when we look inside the box after the collision. After information has propagated, one ball moves at $\frac{v - v}{\sqrt{1 + \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = 0$. The other moves at $\frac{2v}{\sqrt{1 + \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$. The box previously in motion is at rest. This leads to a momentum and energy different from the energy and momentum before the collision.




general relativity - G4v Gravity Theory: Why does this get rid of Dark Energy?


Earlier this year, Carver Mead of CalTech published a paper which seems to be garnering a lot of attention:


http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866



http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw180.html


http://www.geekwire.com/2015/after-100-years-einsteins-general-relativity-faces-a-big-party-and-a-big-test/


I also watched the video of his talk at CalTech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdiG6ZPib3c


The Q&A at the end of this talk seemed to indicate that he may be misapplying GR equations for tasks for which they may not have been designed or for which they need proper manipulation.


The G4v theory claims, among other things, that it does away with the need for a Cosmological constant (which, based on the gravitational wave uses, I can understand) and also DOES AWAY with Dark Energy. It seems future LIGO experiments could provide supporting or refuting evidence for G4v.


My Question: How/why does this theory do away with the need for Dark Energy?


Does it invalidate prior calculations that the univerise is expanding at an accelerating rate? Or does it just describe the accelerating expansion without the need for the cosmological constant? If the latter, that still requires something accelerating the expansion, so I'm confused.



Answer



John G. Cramer discussed G4V in a recent Analog Alternate View Column (Mar. 2016), and how Advanced LIGO data could possibly falsify G4V, General Relativity or even both of them (Their predicted gravity wave signatures signatures differ.)


Cramer also stated that there would be no dark energy since G4v explains distant receding Type IIa supernova dimming as partially due to relativistic beaming leaving no need for a cosmological constant.



In other words, the accelerated expansion is an illusion because more distant Type IIa supernovas appear dimmer than previously predicted if G4V is correct.


quantum field theory - Renormalizing with external momenta set to zero


I've often seen in textbooks that authors renormalize diagrams by setting external momentum to zero. Under what conditions is this justified?


An example of this is done in Manohar and Wise's book on Heavy Quark Physics after they renormalize QED and then calculate the operator renormalization, $ Z _S $, of \begin{equation} S = \frac{1}{ Z _S }\bar{\psi} _b \psi _b = \frac{ Z _\psi }{Z _S } \bar{\psi} \psi \end{equation} where $ \psi_b $ is the bare field. They calulate this through the diagram,


$\hspace{5cm}$ enter image description here


where the cross indicates an operator insertion. The authors then say ``The operator, $ S $, contains no derivatives (and $Z _S$ is mass independent in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme), so $Z _S$ can be determined by evaluating (the diagram) at zero external momentum (and neglecting the (fermion) mass).'' Are these the two conditions necessary,



  1. The operator doesn't have derivatives

  2. The quantity of interest has no mass dependence



and if so how do we know that the quantity you want to calculate (in this case, $ Z _S $) is mass independent, ahead of time?



Answer



In general, derivative couplings lead to momentum-dependencies in scattering amplitudes. This can be seen from the fact that the Fourier transform of a derivative operator corresponds to a multiplication by the relevant momentum. A mass dependence is implicit through by having a momentum, since the momentum of a fermion depends on its mass. In this case, setting momenta to zero would remove information about the coupling.


However, when the coupling does not contain derivatives, there are no momenta resulting from a Fourier transform. Hence, one can simplify the problem by setting them to zero.


quantum mechanics - Stimulated emission and No cloning theorem


I have a little trouble with the simulated emission. I know of the no-cloning theorem which states that it is not possible to duplicate any state.


One the other hand, I know about the stimulated emission which out of a photon produce exactly the same (wavelength, polarisation, etc...). Maybe the fact is that the excited atom do a measure. (Let's say it can stimulate emission with only one direction of polarisation.)


But now if I have a statiscal number of atoms with random "polarisation" direction, I should be able to copy any incident photon. I've made a cloning machine.


This cannot be true because of the no-cloning theorem. But I can't figure why.



Answer



Sure you can clone a state. If you know how to produce it, you can just produce one more copy.



The answer to your question therefore lies in the specifics of the no-cloning theorem. It states that it is not possible to build a machine that clones an arbitrary (previously unknown!) state faithfully.


Stimulated emission does not fulfill this. Given an atom, only a certain range of frequencies, etc. can actually be used to produce stimulated emission, so you can't faithfully clone an arbitrary state. It's just an approximation to cloning, which is not prohibited.


See also: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205149 and references therein.


electromagnetism - EMF in a loop confusion


When one has a loop of wire in a changing magnetic field (or a rotating wire loop in a constant magnetic field), Faraday's law says that an EMF -- i.e. a potential difference -- is created. But what does it mean for a loop of wire to have a potential difference? A loop of ideal wire should be an equipotential so unless we have to throw out the notion of ideal wire in this case, I don't see how a potential difference could but created in a single length of wire.


Note that I do understand that a current is created. And I can do the calculations in Faraday's law. I'm just looking for an explanation for what a potential difference in a single loop of wire is supposed to mean.



Answer



This scenario is why EMF and potential difference are not the same.


Electrostatic potential is only defined in situations where there is no magnetic induction. In such cases, then a potential field can be uniquely defined, and we can talk about potential difference, etc.


But when there is a varying magnetic field, and thus an induced current (or more strictly curl of the electric field is non-zero, the electrostatic potential is not a defined quantity, and we can only talk about an EMF generated in the loop.


So it's totally expected that with a loop in a varying magnetic field, you can't define a unique potential at each point on the wire.



Tuesday, January 28, 2020

group theory - Quadratic Casimir operator of higher dimensional $mathfrak{su}(3)$ representations



In higher dimensional representations of $\mathfrak{su(3)}$, what will be the quadratic Casimir operator? Is it same as in lower dimensions or different?




general relativity - AdS Space Boundary and Geodesics



I'm new to working with AdS space and am primarily concerned with black holes. I'm just playing round with the metric for AdS$_4$


$$ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f^{-1}(r)dr^2+r^2d\zeta^2$$


for $f(r)=r^2+m $, $\space\space\space\zeta=d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2$.


My problem is trying to understand the boundary; specifically when considering particle trajectories:




  1. For null geodesics, I've read that they reach the boundary of AdS space, which seems to commonly expressed as saying they are represented as straight lines. I don't understand how these two phrases are the same and how to show that this is the case starting from the metric I've stated. Using constants of motion etc, and assuming a radial path, I find the equation


    $\frac{dr}{d\lambda}=k$, for $k$ constant.





  2. For timelike geodesics, I know they do not reach the boundary and equivalently I read that they are represented by the boundary of slices of the hyperboloid i.e. ellipses. Again, how do I show that this really represents timeline geodesics? As above (but $ds^2=1$ in this case) I find the equation


    $\Delta\tau=\log(r+\sqrt{k^2+m+r^2})\space \vert^b_{r_0}$ where $b$ is the boundary and $r_0$ the initial $r$.




I've been reading (as much as I can using the fairly limited coherent literature on the topic) and I can only find discussions on this matter, with some diagrams. None seem to go about this question the way I have above and consequently I'm thinking there must be something wrong with what I've done.



Answer



As far as I could understand, it seems that you want to know whether timelike geodesics can reach the conformal boundary of AdS. If that's the case (please do confirm), the answer is no - no timelike geodesic can reach conformal infinity, it rather gets constantly refocused back into the bulk in a periodic fashion. You need timelike curves which have some acceleration in order to avoid this. Maximally extended null geodesics (i.e. light rays), on the other hand, always reach conformal infinity, both in the past and in the future. An illustration of these facts using Penrose diagrams can be found, for instance, in Section 5.2, pp. 131-134 of the book by S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" (Cambridge, 1973).


The detailed reasoning behind the above paragraph can be seen in a global, geometric way. In what follows, I'll largely follow the argument presented in the book by B. O'Neill, "Semi-Riemannian Geometry - With Applications to Relativity" (Academic Press, 1983), specially Proposition 4.28 and subsequent remarks, pp. 112-113. For the benefit of those with no access to O'Neill's book, I'll present the self-contained argument in full detail. I'll make use of the fact that $AdS_4$ is the universal covering of the embedded hyperboloid $H_m$ ($m>0$) in $\mathbb{R}^{2,3}=(\mathbb{R}^5,\eta)$


$$ H_m=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^5\ |\ \eta(x,x)\doteq -x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2-x_4^2=-m\}\ . $$


The covering map $\Phi:AdS_4\ni(t,r,\theta,\phi)\mapsto (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\in H_m\subset\mathbb{R}^{2,3}$ through the global coordinates $(t\in\mathbb{R},r\geq 0,0\leq\theta\leq\pi,0\leq\phi<2\pi)$ is given by



$$ x_0=\sqrt{m(1+r^2)}\sin t\ ;$$ $$ x_1=\sqrt{m}r\sin\theta\cos\phi\ ;$$ $$ x_2=\sqrt{m}r\sin\theta\sin\phi\ ;$$ $$ x_3=\sqrt{m}r\cos\theta\ ;$$ $$ x_4=\sqrt{m(1+r^2)}\cos t\ .$$


The pullback of the ambient, flat pseudo-Riemannian metric $\eta$ defined above (with signature $(-+++-)$) by $\Phi$ after restriction to $H_m$ yields the $AdS_4$ metric in the form appearing in the question and in Pedro Figueroa's nice answer up to a constant, positive factor:


$$ds^2= m\left[-(m+r^2)dt^2+(m+r^2)^{-1}dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\right]\ .$$


The conformal completion of $AdS_4$, on its turn, is obtained by means of the change of radial variable $u=\sqrt{m+r^2}-r$, so that $r=\frac{m-u^2}{2u}$, $dr=-\frac{1}{u}(\frac{m+u^2}{2u})du$ and $m+r^2=(\frac{m+u^2}{2u})^2$, yielding


$$ds^2=\frac{m}{u^2}\left[-\left(\frac{m+u^2}{2}\right)^2dt^2+du^2+\left(\frac{m-u^2}{2}\right)^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\right]\ .$$


Conformal infinity is reached by taking $r\rightarrow+\infty$, which is the same as $u\searrow 0$. The rescaled metric $\Omega^2 ds^2$, $\Omega=m^{-\frac{1}{2}}u$ yields the three-dimensional Einstein static universe as the conformal boundary (i.e. $u=0$).


It's clear that $H_m$ is a level set of the function $f:\mathbb{R}^5\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ given by $f(x)=\eta(x,x)$. Therefore, the vector field $X_x=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{grad}_\eta f(x)=x$ (where $\mathrm{grad}_\eta$ is the gradient operator defined with respect to $\eta$) is everywhere normal to $H_m$ - that is, any tangent vector $X_x\in T_x H_m$ satisfies $\eta(X_x,T_x)=0$. Given two vector fields $T,S$ tangent to $H_m$, the intrinsic covariant derivative $\nabla_T S$ on $H_m$ is simply given by the tangential component of the ambient (flat) covariant derivative $(\partial_T S)^a=T^b\partial_b S^a$:


$$ \nabla_T S=\partial_T S-\frac{\eta(X,\partial_T S)}{\eta(X,X)}X=\partial_T S+\frac{\eta(X,\partial_T S)}{m}X\ .$$


The normal component of $\partial_T S$, on its turn, has a special form due to the nature of $H_m$ (notice that $\partial_a X^b=\partial_a x^b=\delta^b_a$):


$$ \eta(X,\partial_T S)=\underbrace{\partial_T(\eta(X,S))}_{=0\ ;}-\eta(S,\partial_T X)=-\eta(S,T)\ \Rightarrow\ \frac{\eta(X,\partial_T S)}{\eta(X,X)}X=\frac{\eta(S,T)}{m}X\ .$$



As such, we conclude that a curve $\gamma:I\ni\lambda\mapsto\gamma(\lambda)\in H_m$ ($I\subset\mathbb{R}$ is an interval with nonvoid interior) is a geodesic of $H_m$ if and only if $\frac{d^2\gamma(\lambda)}{d\lambda^2}(\lambda)\doteq\ddot{\gamma}(\lambda)$ is everywhere normal to $H_m$, that is,


$$\ddot{\gamma}(\lambda)=-\frac{1}{m}\eta(\ddot{\gamma}(\lambda),X_{\gamma(\lambda)})X_{\gamma(\lambda)}=\frac{1}{m}\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))X_{\gamma(\lambda)}=\frac{1}{m}\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))\gamma(\lambda)\ .$$


In particular, if $\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))=0$, then $\gamma$ is also a (null) geodesic in the ambient space $\mathbb{R}^{2,3}$.


Given $x\in H_m$, the linear span of $X_x=x$ and any tangent vector $T_x\neq 0$ to $H_m$ at $x$ defines a 2-plane $P(T_x)$ through the origin of $\mathbb{R}^5$ and containing $x$. In other words,


$$ P(T_x)=\{\alpha X_x +\beta T_x\ |\ \alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}\}\ , $$


and therefore


$$ P(T_x)\cap H_m=\{y=\alpha X_x+\beta T_x\ |\ \eta(y,y)=-\alpha^2 m+\beta^2\eta(T_x,T_x)=-m\}\ .$$


This allows us already to classify $P(T_x)\cap H_m$ according to the causal character of $T_x$:



  • $T_x$ timelike (i.e. $-k=\eta(T_x,T_x)<0$): we have that $m\alpha^2+k\beta^2=m$ with $k,m>0$, hence $P(T_m)\cap H_m$ is an ellipse;


  • $T_x$ spacelike (i.e. $k=\eta(T_x,T_x)>0$): we have that $m\alpha^2-k\beta^2=m$ with $k,m>0$, hence $P(T_m)\cap H_m$ is a pair of hyperbolae, one with $\alpha>0$ and the other with $\alpha<0$. The point $x=X_x$ belongs to the first hyperbola;

  • $T_x$ lightlike (i.e. $\eta(T_x,T_x)=0$): we have that $\alpha^2=1$ with $\beta$ arbitrary, hence $P(T_m)\cap H_m$ is a pair of straight lines, one given by $\alpha=1$ and the other by $\alpha=-1$. The point $x=X_x$ belongs to the first line. Notice that each of these lines is a null geodesic both in $H_m$ and in $\mathbb{R}^{2,3}$!


Moreover, $x=\gamma(0)$ and $T_x=\dot{\gamma}(0)$ define a general initial condition for a geodesic $\gamma$ starting at $x$. It remains to show that any curve that stays in $P(T_x)\cap H_m$ is a geodesic in $H_m$. This is clearly true for $T_x$ lightlike, since in this case we have already concluded that $\gamma(\lambda)=x+\lambda T_x$ for all $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. For the remaining cases (i.e. $\eta(T_x,T_x)\neq 0$), consider a $\mathscr{C}^2$ curve $\gamma$ in $P(T_x)\cap H_m$ beginning at $\gamma(0)=x$ with $\dot{\gamma}(0)=\dot{\beta}(0)T_x$ (we assume that $\dot{\gamma}(\lambda)\neq 0$ for all $\lambda$). Writing $\gamma(\lambda)=\alpha(\lambda)X_x+\beta(\lambda)T_x$, we conclude from the above classification of $P(T_x)\cap H_m$ that we can choose the parameter $\lambda$ so that



  • $T_x$ timelike: $\alpha(\lambda)=\cos\lambda$, $\beta(\lambda)=\sqrt{-\frac{m}{\eta(T_x,T_x)}}\sin\lambda$, so that $\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))=-m$ with $\dot{\beta}(0)=\sqrt{-\frac{m}{\eta(T_x,T_x)}}$;

  • $T_x$ spacelike: $\alpha(\lambda)=\cosh\lambda$, $\beta(\lambda)=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\eta(T_x,T_x)}}\sinh\lambda$, so that $\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))=+m$ with $\dot{\beta}(0)=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\eta(T_x,T_x)}}$.


In both cases, we conclude that


$$ \ddot{\gamma}(\lambda)=\frac{\eta(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda))}{m}\gamma(\lambda)\ ,$$



i.e. $\gamma$ must satisfy the geodesic equation in $H_m$ with the chosen parametrization, as wished. Since any pair of initial conditions for a geodesic determines a 2-plane through the origin in the above fashion, we conclude that the resulting geodesic in $H_m$ will remain forever in that 2-plane. For later use, I remark that all geodesics of $H_m$ cross at least once the 2-plane $P_0=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^5\ |\ x_1=x_2=x_3=0\}$ - this can be easily seen from the classification of the sets $P(T_x)\cap H_m$. This allows us to prescribe initial conditions in $P_0$ for all geodesics in $H_m$.


Now we have complete knowledge of the geodesics in the fundamental domain $H_m$ of $AdS_4$. What happens when we go back to the universal covering? What happens is that the lifts of spacelike and lightlike geodesics stay confined to a single copy of the fundamental domain, whereas the lifts of timelike geodesics do not. To see this, we exploit the fact that translations in the time coordinate $t$ are isometries and the remark at the end of the previous paragraph to set $$\gamma(0)=X_x=x=(0,0,0,0,\sqrt{m})$$ in $H_m$ (i.e. $\gamma$ is made to start at $P_0$ with $t=0$), so that $$\dot{\gamma}(0)=T_x=(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_3,0)\ .$$ We also normalize $\eta(T_x,T_x)$ to $-m$, $+m$ or zero depending on whether $T_x$ is respectively timelike, spacelike or lightlike. Writing once more $\gamma(\lambda)=\alpha(\lambda)X_x+\beta(\lambda)T_x$, we use the classification of geodesics in $H_m$ by their causal character to write explicit formulae for $\gamma$:



  • $T_x$ timelike $\Rightarrow$ $\gamma(\lambda)=(\cos\lambda)X_x+(\sin\lambda)T_x$;

  • $T_x$ spacelike $\Rightarrow$ $\gamma(\lambda)=(\cosh\lambda)X_x+(\sinh\lambda)T_x$;

  • $T_x$ lightlike $\Rightarrow$ $\gamma(\lambda)=X_x+\lambda T_x$.


The above expressions show that, in the spacelike and lightlike cases, the last component $\gamma(\lambda)_4$ of $\gamma(\lambda)$ never goes to zero, which implies by continuity that the time coordinate $t$ stays within the interval $(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2})$, hence the lift of $\gamma$ to $AdS_4$ stays within a single copy of its fundamental domain. One also sees that the spatial components (1,2,3) of $\gamma(\lambda)$ go to infinity as $\lambda\rightarrow\pm\infty$, hence $u\rightarrow 0$ along these geodesics as $\lambda\rightarrow\pm\infty$. In the timelike case, the whole time interval $[0,2\pi]$ is spanned by $\gamma(\lambda)$ as $\lambda$ spans the interval $[0,2\pi]$. Since the curve is closed, its lift to $AdS_4$ spans the whole time line $\mathbb{R}$ as $\lambda$ does so. On the other hand, it's clear that in this case the spatial components of $\gamma(\lambda)$ just keep oscillating within a bounded interval of the coordinate $r$ - hence, the coordinate $u$ stays bounded away from zero. Therefore, a timelike geodesic $\gamma$ never escapes to conformal infinity.


homework and exercises - Rømer's determination of the speed of light


I am trying to understand Rømer's determination of the speed of light ($c$). The geometry of the situation is shown in the image below. The determination involves measuring apparent fluctuations in the orbital period of Io. (Jupiter's moon)



Geometry of the problem


The Earth starts from point A. $r(t)$ is the distance between the Earth and Jupiter. $r_e$ is the radius of the (assumed) circular orbit of the Earth around the Sun, while $r_0$ is the same for Jupiter. $T$ is the period of the Earth's orbit.


Under the assumption that the Jupiter-Io system is stationary, $r(t)$ can be expressed as


$$r(t) = \sqrt{r_E^2 + r_0^2 -2r_0 r_E \cos \left(\frac{2\pi t}{T}\right)}$$


If we further assume that the period of Io's orbit around Jupiter, $\Delta t$ is much smaller that $T$, then it can be shown that the distance the Earth moves, $\Delta r$ when Io completes one orbit is:


$$\Delta r = \frac{2\pi r_E \Delta t}{T} \sin\left( \frac{2\pi t}{T} \right)$$


The point I am stuck is about why is there an apparent fluctuation in Io's orbit as observed on the Earth? And how can we derive the observed delay using these expressions?



Answer



Rather than looking at one orbit of Io, consider observing Io and Jupiter for around 200 days, starting when the Earth is exactly between the Sun and Jupiter, and ending when the Earth is opposite Jupiter, with the Sun in between. In the 200 days, Io will make around 110 orbits of Jupiter. But, importantly, the light from that last orbit of Io will need to travel an extra distance equal to the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun, making it arrive about 1000 seconds later than expected. This would add about 9 second to the average observed orbital period for Io over that 200 days. And in the next 200 days, as the earth caught up to Jupiter again, the average observed period of Io would be about 9 second less than expected.


The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec. During one orbit of Io around Jupiter, anout 1.8 days, the Earth-Io distance could at most increase by $\frac{30000\times86400\times 1.8}{c}$ light-seconds; adding 15 seconds to Io's apparent period; still an observable amount...



enigmatic puzzle - What is the title to this question?



What is the first clue to this question?


What is the second clue to this question?


Hint



What is the hint to this question?





fluid dynamics - How does this spray gun work?



This is the critter spray gun. enter image description here


The liquid in the jar is at atmospheric pressure (there's a vent hole connecting it to the atmosphere). A fast jet of air flowing right over the end of the pickup tube sucks the liquid up the tube and into the air stream. How exactly does this fast stream of air creates suction? It's released in the atmosphere, so shouldn't it also be at atmospheric pressure?


enter image description here




Monday, January 27, 2020

riddle - Where in the world am I supposed to go?


Not long ago I received an unsigned note that read:


"meet me at the train station at noon on Friday"


Followed by this riddle:



The key to your curiosity.
Lies in this riddle quite plainly.
Forty five before it was.
Now a tribe but once did buzz.

Though quite religious I’m historic too.
and followed by industry, book, and news.



And a couple paragraphs of numbers and jibberish:



the first puzzle the second puzzle Ulghqstblgdlmtcdsouuzzjhiblnljyrhgnlh
Ryanjjnwdlmtchshsthosnlhrynlh
Siqbkrjhkychbgsblgynuwdjjshh
WchqhynuscnujgmnblgWchqhynuscnujgrh
Daynubqhinlaushgblgtcdlfdkvbmuh

Jnnfbttchhlgnatchadqsttcqhhqdggjhsdkbgh



There is no train station near my home. So where in the world do they want me to meet them?


P.S. Line four of the riddle might be misleading to those that spend too much time on it.


Hint



The first of the four puzzles will help you solve the second one. and the second one will help you solve the third and so on. So the best way to solve this puzzle is starting with the riddle. And working your way down.



Hint 2




here is another line to the riddle.


I'm mostly desert with a little e.
was proposed but never would be.




Answer



A partial answer and some musings.


The first poem ...



... was posted as separate riddle and Will has cracked it. It refers to the proposed state of Deseret.




The gibberish ...



... turns out to be written in the Deseret alphabet, an alphabet that uses English phonems. That explains why there are more than 26 glyphs. (As much as I'd like an English alphabet that actually reflects pronunciation, I found it hard to decode.)

The test reads:

At this point you've found out two of the four,
But trust me, there is still much more.
Above is the lock, below is the key
And by that I mean the numbers you'll see.
I'll give you a clue so as not to be cruel:
Line, word, letter will be your tool.



The numbers ...




... are references to line, word and numbers of the first two poems, numbered consecutively. The seventh line is the first line of the Deseret poem. When there are only two numbers, the whole word is taken, otherwise the third number is a reference to a letter in the word.

The poem reads:

Hooray! you have made it this far.
You might not realize how great you are.
Forty fives first governor is the key
The part of his title that's shared with me,
I'll give it away I'll make it public,
It s a key word, cipher one quite basic.



The last poem decodes to:




Understanding this puzzle can only be done
By following these steps one by one.
Scramble my heads and you will see
Where you should go and Where you should be.
If you are confused and think I'm vague
Look at the end of the first three riddles I made.

It is just a substitution cipher that uses the alphabet

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
BRIGHAMCDEFJKLNOPQSTUVWXYZ

which is a keyed alphabet generated with the OP's username, "Brigham" as key, the "part of his title" that Brigham Young shares with the OP's name. The text was already decrypted earlier with the help of our friend Quipqiup.



The answer to the question in the title – Where in the world am I supposed to go? – is:




UTAH. The first letters of the four stanzas are T, A, H and U. Rearranging them gives Utah, the 45th state of the United States. Utah is heavily linked with the Latter-Day Saints, the recurring theme throughout this question.

Finally, the last letters in each of the first three stanzas are SLC, which is a common abbreviation for Salt Lake City, Utah's capital. So we should be at Salt Lake City railway station on Friday noon.



Sunday, January 26, 2020

cipher - The Great Binary Puzzle - Part 1


You are in a dark room with 1 source of light (a lamp). You see a large door with a combination with nothing but letters. You find a sheet of paper stuck in the door with the numbers,


"010101000110100001100101 0110011101110010011001010110000101110100 011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001 01101100011011110110001101101011 0110100101110011 011011110110111001100101 01110011011101000110010101110000 01100001011101110110000101111001 0111010001101111 01110110011010010110001101110100011011110111001001111001 00101110"



What does this mean?




SPOILER!!!!!!......



This is ASCII binary text. Will be making another one in a little.




Answer



Depending on what encoding you use and what endianness you use, it can mean lots of things. Assuming Big Endian UTF8/ASCII it gives "The great binary lock is one step away to victory." (thank you Brainfuck). Nothing else to go on with.


electromagnetism - In terms of the Ampere-Maxwell law, why is $vec {E}=0$ in a wire of a capacitor circuit?


I'm currently studying from "Introduction to Electromagnetics" by D.J. Griffiths. In the book the significance of the displacement current term is explained by looking a non-steady capacitor circuit (shown below).


Using the integral equation and balloon-shaped surface, it is said that $I_{enc}=0$ but $\int \partial\vec{E}/\partial t \cdot d\vec{a}=I/\epsilon_0$. This statement makes sense to me - there is no physical current flowing between the plates but there is a changing electric flux through the balloon surface.


My misunderstanding is with the flat Amperian loop surface where it is mentioned that $\vec{E}=0$ and $I_{enc}=I$ in this case. Obviously there is a current flow $I_{enc}$ in the Amperian loop, but why is $\vec{E}=0$? Just looking at the equations directly, I would have thought there would be a combination of both current terms (including displacement current due to changing electric field in the wire) in a capacitor charging/discharging situation.


I've attempted to seek other explanations on this from other texts, this forum and elsewhere in this stackexchange site, but this has made me more confused. Clarification on this would be appreciated.




Differential form of Ampere's-Maxwell's equation: $$\nabla \times \vec{B}=\mu_0\vec{J}+\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t}$$


Integral form of Ampere's-Maxwell's equation: $$ \oint\vec{B}\cdot d\vec{l} = \mu_0I_{enc}+\mu_0\epsilon_0 \int \frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t} \cdot d\vec{a} $$


Capacitor Circuit




Answer



The derivation assumes the wire is a perfect conductor, and also that it is negligibly thin. If it had some resistivity, then you're right, there would be an electric field in the wire, but even in that case the electric flux $\int \vec{E}\cdot\text{d}\vec{a}$ would be negligible, and so would its time derivative.


electromagnetism - Gravity force strength in 1D, 2D, 3D and higher spatial dimensions


Let's say that we want to measure the gravity force in 1D, 2D, 3D and higher spatial dimensions.


Will we get the same force strength in the first 3 dimensions and then it will go up? How about if we do this with Electromagnetic force?


I've include the Electromagnetic force just to see if I can find an analogy to the gravity force behavior.



Answer



Let us begin with an example from electromagnetism, which you may be familiar with. Gauss' law is given in 3 dimensions by:


$\int\int E.ds= \frac{Q}{\epsilon}$, where $E$ is the electric field produced, $Q$ is the charge and the integral is performed over a surface that encloses the charge. In 3 dimensions, the simplest shape to enclose the charge is the sphere, so we will choose this to make the mathematics simpler.



Making the reasonable assumption that $E$ is constant along all points in the sphere, the above equation becomes:


$4\pi r^2E =\frac{Q}{\epsilon}$ and therefore, $E = \frac{Q}{4\pi r^2\epsilon}$.


It is not hard to see how to generalize this approach to 2 dimensions. Instead of considering a surface integral around a sphere, we simply need to consider a line integral around a circle. The modified 2-D Gauss' law will then become:


$\int E.dl= \frac{Q}{\epsilon}$, where the integral is performed around a circle enclosing the charge $Q$.


Again, evaluating this integral gives:


$2\pi rE = \frac{Q}{\epsilon}$, and therefore, $E = \frac{Q}{2\pi r\epsilon}$


Finally we can generalize to 1-D, where a circle in 1-D becomes a line, and line integral changes to simply adding together points. If we pick a line of length 2r, enclosing the charge, gauss' law will become:


$2E = \frac{Q}{\epsilon}$, that is, $E = \frac{Q}{2\epsilon}$




Now we must see how to generalize this approach to gravity.



In 3-Dimensions, the gravitational field produced by a mass $M$ is given by:


$g = \frac{GM}{r^2}$


If we introduce a new variable, $k$, defined as $k = \frac{1}{4\pi G}$, then we can re-write the field as:


$g = \frac{M}{4\pi r^2k}$. Compare this to the electric field in 3-D, which is $E = \frac{Q}{4\pi r^2\epsilon}$


One could thus construct a "Gauss'" law for the gravitational field and construct the 2D and 1D fields, in the same way I did for the electric fields above.


The results will be the same as that for the electric field, but with $\epsilon$ replaced with $k = \frac{1}{4G\pi}$, and $Q$ replaced with $M$.


Deriving the group velocity of a wave produced by some basic cosine waves with unequal amplitudes


Consider some basic cosine waves of the form ${E_i} = {E_0}\cos ({\omega _i}t - {k_i}z)$ with different amplitudes, frequencies and phases. We know a combination of such waves could result in a wave which has an envelope that is traveling at a group velocity and also has a phase velocity.


When there are some basic waves with equal amplitudes propagating in the same direction of propagation, deriving the expression for the resultant wave is easily possible using some simple trigonometric identities. say when there are two waves of the form: ${E_1} = {E_0}\cos ({\omega _1}t - {k_1}z)$ and ${E_2} = {E_0}\cos ({\omega _2}t - {k_2}z)$ we'll have:


$$\begin{align} {E_1} + {E_2} &= {E_0}\bigl(\cos ({\omega _1}t - {k_1}z) + \cos ({\omega _2}t - {k_2}z)\bigr) \\ &= 2{E_0}\cos\biggl(\frac{\omega_1 - \omega_2}{2}t - \frac{k_1 - k_2}{2}z\biggr)\cos\biggl(\frac{\omega_1 + \omega_2}{2}t - \frac{k_1 + k_2}{2}z\biggr) \\ &= \biggl\{ 2{E_0}\cos\biggl(\frac{\omega_1 - \omega_2}{2}t - \frac{k_1 - k_2}{2}z\biggr)\biggr\} \cos(\frac{\omega_1 + \omega_2}{2}t - \frac{k_1 + k_2}{2}z\biggr) \end{align}$$


First part refers to envelope of the resultant wave and group velocity will be derived from this part and the other part deals with the phase velocity.


Deriving such a expression gives a better physical viewpoint of what we are dealing with than when we represent it in the form of a summation of some basic cosine waves. Plus such a relation for the wave function could make it so easy to find out many charactristics of the wave in a brief look at the expression.


Therefore it's so important and helpful to derive an expression for the wave which is caused by superposition of some basic propagating waves. But it was a simple situation.My question is that what if basic waves amplitudes were not the same?


When we are aware of propagation of some basic waves with unequal amplitudes and frequencies, how can we derive the relation for the resultant wave (which actually represent the only changing field in the medium)? And of course I have the same question about the expression for the group velocity.


Like what we did in relation to equal amplitude waves example, is it possible to derive the expressions only by use of simple trigonometric identities?



Answer




I'm pretty sure that we can't do any better with trig identities; it looks like any such expression would have a term vaguely like $\sqrt{1 + r \cos \theta}$, and then the square root ruins the nice intuition.


In lieu of that I'll offer a derivation of the group velocity that uses no fancy math at all! Hopefully that's what you wanted, even if you didn't directly ask it.


First off, let's figure out what group velocity is. Apparently, group velocity is the velocity of the envelope of a wave. But what is the envelope of a wave? I can create a wave with any initial position and velocity, so it can be an arbitrarily weird shape. There might be no discernible envelope at all.


So let's back up and find some examples. When we talk about the envelope of a wave, we mean some curve you draw around an oscillation, like this.


enter image description here


In order to do this, there must be a well defined oscillation to draw the envelope around. That means that our wave must be made up of individual frequencies that are close to one central frequency. To make things convenient, let's write that schematically as $$\text{wave} = \sum_{k'} \sin(k'x - \omega(k') t) \text{ for a bunch of } k' \approx k$$ However, if we just have one frequency, the wave is just an infinite sinusoid $\sin(kx)$. This doesn't have an envelope, strictly speaking, because it just goes on forever at the same amplitude. We must have waves of other frequencies, which will constructively and destructively interfere with each other, to actually get an envelope.


So we've concluded that the envelope is defined by where a bunch of sinusoids making up our wave constructively or destructively interfere. Their phases are, as a function of space and time, $$\phi(k') = k'x - \omega(k') t$$ Now let's assume for simplicity that the top of the envelope is at $x = 0$ at time $t = 0$. That means that the waves must constructively interfere there, so all the $\phi(k')$ are about the same.


As time goes on, the envelope will move, but the peak will still be where the phases of the component waves are the same. That means $$\text{peak of envelope satisfies } \frac{d\phi(k')}{dk'} = 0$$ Performing the differentiation, we have $$x - \frac{d\omega(k')}{dk'} t = 0$$ Since we said $k' \approx k$, let's drop the primes and rearrange for $$\frac{x}{t} = \frac{d \omega(k)}{dk}$$ But $x/t$ is exactly the speed of the peak of the envelope, so this is the group velocity.


Does quantum mechanics imply that particles have no trajectories?


In Classical Mechanics we describe the evolution of a particle giving its trajectory. This is quite natural because it seems a particle must be somewhere and must have some state of motion. In Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, we describe the evolution of a particle with its wave function $\Psi(x,t)$ which is a function such that $|\Psi(x,t)|^2$ is a probability density function for the position random variable.


In that case, solving the equations of the theory instead of giving the trajectory of the particle gives just statistical information about it. Up to there it is fine, these are just mathematical models. The model from Classical Mechanics has been confirmed with experiments in some situations and the Quantum Mechanics model has been confirmed with experiments in situations Classical Mechanics failed.


What is really troubling me is: does the fact that the Quantum Mechanics model has been so amply confirmed implies a particle has no trajectory? I know some people argue that a particle is really nowhere and that observation is what makes it take a stand. But, to be sincere, I don't swallow that idea. It always seemed to me that it just reflects the fact that we don't really know what is going on.


So, Quantum Mechanics implies that a particle has no trajectory whatsoever or particles do have well defined trajectories but the theory is unable to give any more information about then than just probabilities?



Answer



Quantum systems do not have a position. This is intuitively hard to grasp, but it is fundamental to a proper understanding of quantum mechanics. QM has a position operator that you can apply to the wavefunction to return a number, but the number you get back is randomly distributed with a probability density given by $|\Psi |^2$.


I can't emphasise this enough. What we instinctively think of as a position is an emergent property of quantum systems in the classical limit. Quantum systems do not have a position, so asking for (for example) the position of an electron in an atom is a nonsensical question. Given that there is no position, obviously asking for the evolution of that position with time, i.e. the trajectory, is also nonsensical.


You say:




I don't swallow that idea. It always seemed to me that it just reflects the fact that we don't really know what is going on.



and you are far from alone in this as indeed his Albertness himself would have agreed with you. The idea that we don't know what is going on is generically referred to as a hidden variable theory, however we now have experimental evidence that local hidden variable theories cannot exist.


cosmology - Baryon asymmetry


Baryon asymmetry refers to the observation that apparently there is matter in the Universe but not much antimatter. We don't see galaxies made of antimatter or observe gamma rays that would be produced if large chunks of antimatter would annihilate with matter. Hence at early times, when both were present, there must have been a little bit more matter than antimatter. This is quantified using the asymmetry parameter


$\eta = \frac{n_{baryon} - n_{antibaryon}}{n_{photon}}$


From cosmological measurements such as WMAP,



$\eta \approx (6 \pm 0.25) \times 10^{-10}$


However, the source of baryon asymmetry is said to be one of the Big Problems of Physics.


What is currently the state of the art regarding this puzzle? What's the best fit we can get from the Standard Model? What do we get from lattice simulations?




quantum field theory - Proof that the effective/proper action is the generating functional of one-particle-irreducible (1PI) correlation functions


In all text book and lecture notes that I have found, they write down the general statement \begin{equation} \frac{\delta^n\Gamma[\phi_{\rm cl}]}{\delta\phi_{\rm cl}(x_1)\ldots\delta\phi_{\rm cl}(x_n)}~=~-i\langle \phi(x_1)\ldots\phi(x_n)\rangle_{\rm 1PI} \end{equation} and they show that it is true for a couple of orders.



I heard that Coleman had a simple self contained proof for this statement (not in a recursive way), but I cannot find it. It might have been along the line of comparing to the $\hbar$ expansion but I'm not sure.


Do you know this proof? Is there a good reference for it?


Comment: Weinberg does have a full proof but it is hard and not intuitive.




non linear systems - Why do spiral waves annihilate each other when 2 wavefronts collide?


I was reading about Fitzhugh-Nagumo model. And in a 2D space the simulations a Reaction-Diffusion process associated with FitzHugh system look like this. But intuitively I could not satisfy myself about the annihilation of wave when 2 wavefronts meet each other. Why do they annihilate each other?


One example I heard in practical world is controlling forest fire using opposing wavefront of a controlled fire.



Answer



Let’s consider this incarnation of the FitzHugh–Nagumo model:



$$\begin{matrix} \dot{V} & = & V-V^3/3 - W + I \\ \dot{W} & = & 0.08(V+0.7 - 0.8W) \end{matrix}$$


This describes an excitable system. In the following I will explain what this means, how this relates to the above equation and use a small patch of forest as an example.




  • A small stimulus (via $I$) can trigger a huge response (excitation). In the equation, the extent of excitation is represented by the variable $V$. The mechanism of excitation is somewhat difficult to see from the equations and comes from the non linear structure $V-V^3/3$ which causes the nullclines to be aligned such that a small excitation from the fixed point requires the system to perform a large excursion in phase space to return to the fixed point. In the forest example, the stimulus corresponds to throwing a match into our patch of forest.




  • Excitation triggers an inhibitory process that counteracts the excitation. The unit becomes refractory. In the equations this inhibitory process is represented by the variable $W$. Furthermore, you can see that a high $V$ (excitation) begets a high $W$ (inhibition), as $\dot{W}$ increases with $V$. Furthermore a high $W$ (inhibition) begets a lower $V$ (excitation), as $\dot{V}$ decreases with $W$. In the forest example the inhibitory process corresponds to ashes, which do not burn.





  • The inhibitory process self-terminates after a while. In the equations, this is implemented via $\dot{W}$ decreasing with $W$, i.e., without further influence, the variable $W$ drifts towards $0$. In the forest example, this corresponds to the forest regrowing from the ashes.




In an excitable medium such as a 2D reaction–diffusion system, each point in space is represented by an excitable system and these systems are coupled via a next-neighbour coupling. This coupling is usually diffusive, i.e., $I \propto ΔV$, but other couplings have a similar effect. In our forest example, an excitable medium corresponds to a whole forest, consisting of many patches and the coupling represents sparks of fire going from one burning patch to its neighbours.


In an excitable medium, excitations spread in a wave-like manner, the same way forest fires do: Whenever a single patch is excited, it is likely to also excite its neighbours, which then excite their neighbours and so on – the forest fire spreads in a wave-like manner. However, each excited unit becomes refractory shortly afterwards and thus a front of excitation is followed by a front of inhibition.


Now, if two wavefronts collide, consider the single front of excitation formed by this collision. As both wavefronts are followed by fronts of inhibition, it is now enclosed by inhibitory regions. Thus the excitation cannot spread anywhere and thus once this single front becomes inhibitory, the excitation dies and the wavefronts have annihilated.


Fighting fire with fire works the same way: Each forest-fire front leaves behind nothing but ashes. If this front runs into another front, it is enclosed by ashes and can thus not spread any further.


special relativity - Mass of light and $m(v) = m_0/sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$



My friend told me about an equation $m(v) = \dfrac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2}}.$


I checked the internet and saw the same equation as well.


Then I was just playing around with it.


I just googled for the mass of light and they gave the answer $0$.


I thought that in the case of light the equation would be:


$$0 = m_0/\sqrt{\left(1-c^2/c^2\right)}$$


If we just assume that the mass of a photon at rest is also $0$.


Then the equation would be:


$$ 0 = 0/0$$


Or if the mass at rest is something else it would be:



$$0 = m_0/0$$


What I am trying to say is that instead of giving an answer of infinity, the division by $0$ is giving me zero.


I am unable to understand where I am wrong.


I am still at high school so it would be nice if you could give me an explanatory answer.



Answer



For any general body, the energy (in a relativistic framework) is given by,


$E=\sqrt{m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2}=m(v)c^2$


For a photon, the rest mass $m_0=0$, and it's energy $E=pc$. The relativistic mass $m(v)$ is not zero for the photon. Also, the momentum $p=m(v)v$, not $m_0v$, so the formulas are consistent too.


From the above expression for energy, we may arrive at the formula your friend gave you, which is


$m(v)=\dfrac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\dfrac{v^2}{c^2}}}$



But in the case of a photon, as $m_0=0$, then you don't arrive at the above formula. Putting rest mass as zero, and $v=c$ in the expression of energy, we get


$m(v)=E/c^2=p/c=m(v)v/c=m(v)$, as $v=c$ for a photon.


Therefore, no division by zero. In the case of light, there is no rest mass, and we speak about energy and momentum of light, in place of mass. Because in this case, they are directly related to each other (proportional).


Edit: To those who downvoted it, please inform me of my mistakes so that I can edit my knowledge for the better. Thank You!


Saturday, January 25, 2020

quantum mechanics - What is the reason that relativistic corrections for hydrogen atom work?



Here I cite part from Sidney Coleman's lectures on Quantum Field Theory:



It is a phenomenal fluke that relativistic kinematic corrections for the Hydrogen atom work. If the Dirac equation is used, without considering multi-particle intermediate states, corrections of $O \big(\frac{v}{c}\big)$ can be obtained. This is a fluke caused by some unusually low electrodynamic matrix elements.



What is the fluke about? Also, how can one justify the usage of Pauli-Schrodinger type equations that comes from first quantization of Dirac's equation? Schrodinger's equation is universal postulate valid for any quantum theory, and is equation for wave functionals in field theory. Could one go from non-relativistic QED field theory and then justify the usage of Pauli equation in which $\psi$ is interpreted as "wave function" in certain kinematical conditions (approximation)?




double slit experiment - Are photons blinking?



Is a photon passing through a point in space blinking relative to that point?


If the photon for some reason destructively interfere with it self at that point, what happen to it? is it off or is it somewhere else?


By blinking I mean toggling between visible and invisible / detectable and not detectable or maybe fade in / fade out when considering its wave nature.



Edit When the wave goes to zero every half wavelength is it possible that the photon disappears every half wavelength? is it disappearing in way similar to what it does after a destructive interference with another photon only that it will come back completing the wavelength?


Edit
In other words, does the fact that a photon as a particle disappears when the photon as a wave destructively interfere with another, means that the photon as a paricle also disappears at the point in space-time where its wave functon is zero between a crest and a trough? From Anna's answer and comments the photon is not regarded as a wave in its own but i dont understand this.



Answer



The photon is an elementary particle in the standard model of particle physics.


The theory at present has elementary particles as point particles in a quantum mechanical theoretical model using quantum field theory. This leads to the Feynman diagram representation of elementary particle interactions which leads to calculating measurable quantities, as crossections and decays.


The point nature of the particles appears when they are detected, and detection means interaction with other particles or fields. See this singe photon at a time experiment, the photons detected by the point seen on the screen on the left.


singlephot



single-photon camera recording of photons from a double slit illuminated by very weak laser light. Left to right: single frame, superposition of 200, 1’000, and 500’000 frames




As you see on the left, there are dots, not spread out energy. The wave nature of the photon is in its probability amplitude as expressed by the modulus of its wavefunction, in simple quantum terms. The wave nature can be seen only by an accumulation of photons, which build up the same frequency classical light as seen on the far right.


You ask:



is a photon passing through a point in space blinking relative to that point?



as the first frames on the left show, the answer is no, it acts as a point particle when it interacts.



If the photon for some reason destructively interfere with it self at that point, what happen to it? is it off or is it somewhere else?




Point particles cannot destructively interfere with themselves in the theoretical model of mainstream physics. They leave a footprint consistent with the probability amplitude that describes them mathematically


specific reference - Depression of Water Surface by a Needle


Given a needle of mass $m$ modeled by a cylinder of length $l$ and radius $r$ placed on an infinitely large water surface, what is




  1. The maximum depression in the water surface; and

  2. The equation of the shape of the water surface when depressed?


I'm quite sure this is a simple question that already has been modeled theoretically somewhere, but I haven't been able to find a theoretical treatment of the problem with experimentally verifiable quantities.


In addition, can the treatment of the problem be extended to thin films, for example a thin soap film?




riddle - The PSE School of Enigmatics (Part 1)


Update: I fixed up the second image, making it (perhaps) a little bit easier to crack.



You leap out of your bed. Today's the day!


You check your mailbox, and wow, there it is! The frayed look of the letter could not possibly be in greater contrast to the grandeur of its contents.


You can't believe you actually got the letter. It took you hours; no, days of procrastination on Puzzling Stack Exchange to finally, finally enter the PSE school of enigmatics (or PSE for short).


You look at the letter:


Certificate of Invitation


But wait, what the bejiggles is this? You find a second scroll, lightly glued to the first:


But wait, a secret letter!


Oh boy. The hair-tearing will begin a lot sooner than you had anticipated.


Notes: Hello Puzzling Stack Exchange! This is part 1 of a "puzzle story" that I plan to tell over multiple puzzles. I hope you enjoy!




differential geometry - What exactly is a dimension?


How do you exactly define what is and isn't a dimension? I heard somewhere that it is "anything you can move through" but if that is right, why wasn't time and space considered a dimension before Einstein?




electromagnetic radiation - Faraday rotation effect in circularly polarized waves?



We all know farady effect is observed in linearly polarized wave when it passes through a dielectric medium and magnetic field is along the direction of propagation. Is this phenomenon observable in circularly polarized waves? enter image description here


Circularly polarized wave travel through the medium with different phases. But as soon as they are out of the medium they retain their polarization. So basically a circularly polarized wave 's polarization is not affected but only it's phase. Whether we split circularly polarized wave into two linearly polarized wave and take the equation of form: $$E(z)=Ee^{i\left(\frac{2\pi z}{\lambda}+\phi\right)}\tag{1}$$


Frequency and wavelength remain same for the em wave when it is entering and when it is leaving the dielectric medium. Say the em wave is split into two linearly polarized waves- one is sine wave along $yz$ plane and the other is cosine wave along $xz$ plane. Both waves rotated by same angle due to faraday rotation because rotation is not dependent on plane polarization or phase of the wave. When we combine them again only the phase($\phi$) of circularly polarized wave changes. First question is this theory correct?


Second question is how do we calculate the change in phase. For example, a linearly polarized wave's change in polarization is given by experimental formula of becquerel equation(change in angle of $β=V \times B \times d$ Where $\beta$ is polarization, $V$ is verdet constant, $B$ is magnetic field and $d$ is length of dielectric, see the figure to get an idea ). Is there any experimental formula for circularly polarized waves?


Edit: I guess the change in phase of circularly polarized wave follows different equation as seen in the becquerel equation. I am unable to find any experimental data on this.



Answer



With circularly polarised waves, the effect can only be observed interferometrically, because the Faraday rotation simply becomes the imposition of different phase delays on the two circularly polarised components. To understand this, witness that the Faraday rotation on a general polarisation state expressed with linear polarisation state basis is:


$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\y\end{array}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc}\cos\theta&-\sin\theta\\\sin\theta&\cos\theta\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}x\\y\end{array}\right)$$


and then we transform to circular polarisation basis states $f_+,\,f_-$ by:


$$\left(\begin{array}{c}f_+\\f_-\end{array}\right)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&i\\1&-i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}x\\y\end{array}\right)$$



so that our Faraday rotation through angle $\theta$ above becomes:


$$\left(\begin{array}{c}f_+\\f_-\end{array}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc}1&i\\1&-i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\cos\theta&-\sin\theta\\\sin\theta&\cos\theta\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&i\\1&-i\end{array}\right)^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_+\\f_-\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\,\theta}&0\\0&e^{-i\,\theta}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_+\\f_-\end{array}\right)$$


Indeed, this is the essence of the spin-1 particle: its eigenstates pick up a phase of $e^{i\,\theta}$ on rotation through angle $\theta$ (unlike an electron, which would pick up a phase of $e^{i\,\frac{\theta}{2}}$).


Edit: Your understanding expressed in your question seems to be right. In the above I give the Jones matrix, i.e. the linear transformation wrought on the vector of superposition weights, for the two cases where (1) linear polarisation states and (2) circular polarisation states are used as the state space basis: in the former case, the effect is a rotation of the plane of polarisation through $\theta$ radians, in the latter the right handed circular polarised component's phase is increased by $\theta$ radians, the left hand component's phase is decreased by $\theta$ radians. In all cases, this $\theta$ is given by $\theta = V\, B_\parallel \,L$ where $L$ is the crystal's length, $B_\parallel$ the magnetic induction component along the optical axis and $L$ the crystal's length.


Edit 2: Well, the results for circularly polarised loght follow from: (1) experimental measurements for linearly polarised light and (2) experimental confirmation of the system's linearity; once we have (2) then circular / linear description is simply a change of basis. Moreover, you can do the experiments for circularly polarised light, you're simply looking for changes in phase. So you can do the experiment interferometrically. Or, you can do an experiment as below with waveplates and the rotator.


Waveplate and Rotator Experiment


The rotator works exactly the same with linearly polarised input light whether or not the waveplates are in place, confirming the linearity of the system. So it is acting on the circularly polarised light states exactly as my basis trasnformation equations above foretell. At a deeper level, the waveplate's action as a transformer to and from circularly polarised light can be checked by the following experiment in 1936 by Richard Beth:


Richard A. Beth, "Mechanical Detection and Measurement of the Angular Momentum of Light" Phys. Rev. 50 July 15 1936


newtonian mechanics - Paradoxic cylinder rolling in opposite direction


I just solved the following exercise from my textbook and I don't really see the intuition behind the result:



In which direction will the cylinder roll (without slipping) if a constant force is applied on the rope? Inner radius, lower 'r'; outter radius, upper 'R'; moment of inertia, 'I'; and mass, 'm'.




The force is applied below the rotation axis and thus, if there weren't any friction one would expect it to rotate counter-clockwise. It turns out that with friction it does not.


enter image description here


enter image description here


I tried to solve it using Newton's Laws and Momentum:



F: $ma\vec{i} = F_{\text{applied on the rope}} \vec{i} + F_{\text{friction}} (-\vec{i})$


M: $I\alpha(-\vec{k}) = r(-\vec{j}) \times F_{\text{applied on the rope}} \vec{i} + R(-\vec{j})F_{\text{friction}} (-\vec{i})$


Rolling without slipping: $\vec{\alpha} = \frac{\vec{a}}{R}$



However, solving these equations I get that $$a = \frac{F_{rope}R(R-r)}{mR^2+I}$$ (and $a\gt 0$ since $R\gt r$). Thus it will roll to the right.



However I would expect it not to roll at all, but to stay still. This is what you get if $r = R$ but just in that case. (Or maybe rotate to the left because of the torque generated by the rope?) Is it there any intuitive way of understanting what is going on here? It seems that the friction force is taking over control and rotating the cylinder the way it wants.


Thanks in advance



Answer



We can show this without resorting to numbers at all!


First off, you have been told that the coefficient of friction is large enough that the wheel does not slip.


Now assume it rolls to the left, and you can show by contradiction that it does not. Think about what would have to happen for it to move to the left. Since $F=ma$, the net force would have to be to the left, which means the frictional force must be larger than $F_{\rm rope}$. But then the torque due to friction is clearly larger than torque due to the rope, since it has both a greater force and a greater lever arm, and so it rolls clockwise. If it is rolling clockwise but moving left, it must be slipping, so we have broken our assumptions.


We can show the same way that it can't remain still. If the two forces are equal, the torques are not equal (since they have a different lever arm), and so it will begin to roll.


Thus, the only way it can roll without slipping is to the right.


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 \...