Saturday, August 1, 2015

thermodynamics - Is mean kinetic energy related to temperature of a system of interacting classical particles?


I'm trying to intuitively understand what temperature is for a system of classical particles. The usual definitions via Gibbs measure or entropy appear very unintuitive me. But, as for ideal gas temperature is proportional to mean kinetic energy of its molecules (in the rest frame of gas' center of mass), I thought it's a good place to start.


So, suppose we have a system $\Lambda$ of interacting classical particles, such that there's always 3 degrees of freedom per particle (so that molecules would be modelled as multiple bound particles). Assume that their center of mass is at rest. In general they'll not behave as an ideal gas — they could condensate etc.. But when brought to contact with an ideal gas $\Gamma$ (with heat capacity much smaller than that of $\Lambda$) initially at $T_\Gamma=0\,\mathrm K$, the gas $\Gamma$ would ultimately assume the temperature of the system: $T_\Gamma\to T_\Lambda$ as $t\to\infty$. This actually means that the mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules will be proportional to the temperature of the system $\Lambda$.


So, I'd assume that the increase in mean kinetic energy of $\Gamma$ was due to the kinetic energy present in $\Lambda$. Then, isn't mean kinetic energy of the particles in $\Lambda$ actually proportional to the temperature, even despite $\Lambda$ being not an ideal gas, and not even a gas in general?



Answer



Yes, according to the equipartition theorem, the average kinetic energy of a particle of a classical system is $\frac{3}{2}k_B T$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Kinetic_theory_approach_to_temperature). In general, this is not true for a quantum system.


EDIT (12/31/2016): The relationship between kinetic energy and temperature for classical systems in thermal equilibrium holds no matter what interaction potential. See, e.g., math.nyu.edu/~cai/Courses/MathPhys/Lecture3.pdf : "For example, the Hamiltonian for interacting gas particles is...where $U(\vec{r_i}−\vec{r_j})$ is the potential energy between any two particles. The equipartition theorem tells us that the average kinetic energy is $\frac{3}{2}k_B T$ for every particle (since there are three translational degrees of freedom for each particle)." See also the derivation there (at the beginning):



Equipartition Theorem:



    If the dynamics of the system is described by the Hamiltonian:


$$H=A\zeta^2+H'$$


where $\zeta$ is one of the general coordinates $q_1,p_1,\cdots,q_{3N},p_{3N}$, and $H'$ and $A$ are independent of $\zeta$, then


$$\langle A\zeta^2\rangle=\frac12k_BT$$


where $\langle\rangle$ is the thermal average, i.e., the average over the Gibbs measure $e^{-\beta H}$.


    This result can be easily seen by the following calculation:


$$\begin{align}\langle A\zeta\rangle&=\frac{\int A\zeta^2e^{-\beta H}d^{3N}qd^{3N}p}{\int e^{-\beta H}d^{3N}qd^{3N}p} \\ &=\frac{\int A\zeta^2 e^{-\beta A\zeta^2}d\zeta e^{-\beta H'}[dpdq]}{\int e^{-\beta A\zeta^2}d\zeta e^{-\beta H'}[dpdq]} \\ &=\frac{\int A\zeta^2 e^{-\beta A\zeta^2}d\zeta}{\int e^{-\beta A\zeta^2}d\zeta} \\ &=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\ln\int e^{-\beta A\zeta^2}d\zeta \\ &=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\ln\left[\beta^{-\frac12}\int e^{-Ax^2}dx\right] \\ &=\frac1{2\beta} \\ &=\frac12k_BT \end{align}$$


where $d\zeta[dpdq]=d^{3N}qd^{3N}p$, i.e., $[dpdq]$ stands for the phase-space volume element without $d\zeta$.



quantum mechanics - 'The size of an atom' using Uncertainty Principle



Suppose we have a hydrogen atom, and measure the position of the electron; we must not be able to predict exactly where the electron will be, or the momentum spread will then turn out to be infinite. Every time we look at the electron, it is somewhere, but it has an amplitude to be in different places so there is a probability of it being found in different places. These places cannot all be at the nucleus; we shall suppose there is a spread in position of order $a$. That is, the distance of the electron from the nucleus is usually about a. We shall determine a by minimizing the total energy of the atom.


The spread in momentum is roughly $ℏ/a$ because of the uncertainty relation, so that if we try to measure the momentum of the electron in some manner, such as by scattering x-rays off it and looking for the Doppler effect from a moving scatterer, we would expect not to get zero every time—the electron is not standing still—but the momenta must be of the order $p≈ℏ/a$. Then the kinetic energy is roughly $\frac{1}{2}mv^2= p^2/2m= ℏ^2/2ma^2$. (In a sense, this is a kind of dimensional analysis to find out in what way the kinetic energy depends upon the reduced Planck constant, upon $m$, and upon the size of the atom. We need not trust our answer to within factors like $2, π,$ etc. We have not even defined a very precisely.) Now the potential energy is minus $e^2$ over the distance from the center, say $−e^2/a$, where, as defined in Volume I, $e^2$ is the charge of an electron squared, divided by $4πϵ_0$. Now the point is that the potential energy is reduced if $a$ gets smaller, but the smaller $a$ is, the higher the momentum required, because of the uncertainty principle, and therefore the higher the kinetic energy. The total energy is $E=ℏ^2/2ma^2−e^2/a.\tag{2.10}$ We do not know what $a$ is, but we know that the atom is going to arrange itself to make some kind of compromise so that the energy is as little as possible. In order to minimize $E$, we differentiate with respect to $a$, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for $a$. The derivative of $E$ is $dE/da=−ℏ^2/ma^3+e^2/a^2,\tag{2.11}$ and setting $dE/da=0$ gives for a the value $a_0=ℏ^2/me^2=0.528~\text{angstrom},=0.528×10^{−10} ~\text{ meter}.\tag{2.12}$ This particular distance is called the Bohr radius, and we have thus learned that atomic dimensions are of the order of angstroms, which is right. This is pretty good—in fact, it is amazing, since until now we have had no basis for understanding the size of atoms! Atoms are completely impossible from the classical point of view, since the electrons would spiral into the nucleus. ....



This is the excerpt from Feynman's Lectures on The size of an atom. While reading this I couldn't conceive one thing; how he wrote $p\approx \hbar/a$. $a$ is $\Delta y$ that is the uncertainty of position: we can find the electron within $\pm a$ from the nucleus. So, that means $\Delta p \approx \hbar / a$ & not $p\approx \hbar/a$.



Feynman concluded



...the potential energy is reduced if $a$ gets smaller, but the smaller $a$ is, the higher the momentum required, because of the uncertainty principle...



Momentum is not higher but rather the uncertainty becomes higher 'because of Uncertainty Principle'.


Also, as it approaches the nucleus, kinetic energy increases. So, why does the atom need to compromise to decrease $E$ when it approaches the nucleus? After all, it is inevitable that when the electron is very close to the nucleus, it has high KE, isn't it?


So, my questions are:




  • How/Why did Feynman write $p \approx \hbar/ a $ instead of $\Delta p \approx \hbar/a$?





  • Why would the energy $E$ decrease when the electron approaches the nucleus? After all, the KE would become high at the proximity of the nucleus, isn't it?





Answer



The average vector momentum of an electron bound to an atom is exactly zero. (Otherwise, the electron would leave the atom!)


The average magnitude of the momentum can't be zero, because of the uncertainty principle. So Feynman is using the approximation $\vec p = \vec 0 + \Delta p \hat p$, where the magnitude $\Delta p$ comes from the uncertainty principle and the unit vector $\hat p$ points in a completely random direction.


As for your second question, you're almost there. The kinetic energy does become larger for an electron nearer the nucleus — and, thanks to the uncertainty principle, so does the momentum! It has to be this way because the kinetic energy is approximately $T=p^2/2m.$


energy - Dissipation and first law of thermodynamics


Consider the following situation: a certain gas is contained in a well-insulated cylinder with a well-insulated piston head. Now, in this case the piston is not frictionless. In order for the piston head to move it needs to overcome a certain kinetic friction $F_k$.


Now let us consider that a certain mass $m$ is placed on top of the piston head and in the same time the piston head moves outwards a distance $h$. We also ignore the atmospheric pressure here.


The essence of the situation which I'm asking here through this particular example, is that there is friction involved, so there is dissipation of energy.


What we want to know here is the work performed by the gas during the expansion and the change on the internal energy of the whole system (the gas together with the cylinder and the piston).


To analyse that what I thought was to consider first that the mass $m$ provides a force downwards equal, in magnitude, to $F_g = mg$. It provides, thus, with a pressure of $P_g = mg/A$ where $A$ is the area of the piston head.


If the piston were frictionless we could use that $\mathrm dW = -P\,\mathrm dV$ so that here $W = -P \Delta V$ or using that $\Delta V = Ah$ we would have $W = -mgh$.


On the other hand, friction didn't enter here directly. My only guess was to consider the net force $F = F_k + mg$ and compute everything in the same way, just including the friction there. But this seems wrong. Another guess was to add to $W$ the work done by friction. In that case since it would oppose the piston, it would be $W = F_k h$, so that the total work would be $W = -mgh + F_k$, which is the same as in the first approach.


This seems terribly wrong. Also, since the energy related to friction is dissipated, it seems to me that $\Delta U$ for the whole system is the energy lost because of friction, but this doesn't seem to get out naturally of anything.



Probably the first law of thermodynamics is the way to go here, but I'm unsure.


Anyway, what is the correct way to deal with this kind of situation? How do we account for friction and dissipation in general, in practice?




nuclear physics - Can neutrons be synthesized purely from protons and electrons?


Can neutrons be synthesized purely from protons and electrons?



Note: I'm looking for reactions that do not require neutrinos or any particles besides just protons and/or electrons as reactants.



Answer



Yes, they can be. The production of neutrons by deep inelastic scattering of electrons on protons was studied in HERA experiments in the 90's. No neutrino needed, at least not as one of the colliding particles. Here are some links:



quantum mechanics - What is the definition of a qubit and a copy/clone of a qubit?


A qubit with state $|\psi \rangle =\alpha|0\rangle + \beta|1\rangle$ is defined as : if we have infinite copies of $|\psi \rangle$ and measure them all in the basis $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ then $|\alpha|^2$ percent of them would measure $|0\rangle$ after measurement and $|\beta|^2$ percent of them would measure $|1\rangle$. So definition of a qubit with a particular known state depends on the definition of copies of a qubit ( clone/copy ).

We define two qubits A and B being copy/clone of each other if, same percent cent of qubits give same measurement results if we take infinite copies of qubit A and qubit B separately and measure them in $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ basis. So definition of being a clone/copy is dependent on its own definition. Thus even the definition of a qubit with a specific known state appears recursive to me. What am I missing ?



Answer



A qubit is simply not defined the way you define it, neither are clones. This is mostly, because you describe a state by referring to a state. It's not the problem that you are actually referring to copies of the state, you are referring to copies of the state, which is yet to be defined.


Let's go to what I have learned as the Ludwig school of thought about states and experiments, which is an operational definition (and therefore probably closest to the kind of definition you are searching).


We have to start out with a physical experiment. How can I describe this? Well, in an experiment, you have a stage where you prepare your system. After the system is prepared (e.g. creating a beam of polarized light with a laser beam and a polarization filter for instance), you measure it. If you repeat your measurement, you'll get a probability distribution over your measurement outcomes.



Now the key thing to realize is that the preparation procedure describes the state of a system. In other words, a state is an abstract description of how to actually create e.g. a particle with certain prefixed properties. A state is something like a class in object oriented programming and it must not(!) be confused with an instance of that class. In your example, a qubit might be described by the procedure of how to prepare a photon in a superposition state of up and down-polarized light ($|0\rangle,1\rangle$) according to some parameters ($\alpha,\beta$). The single photon is not(!) a state, it is only an instance of the state.


In everyday language, we often confuse the concept of a state and its instances, because it rarely matters, if we know how to interpret the probability distribution produced by a state (which, if we see the state as a preparation procedure, becomes the asymptotic empirical distribution of the instances of this state), but to me it seems crucial to highlight the problem with your definition of states.


Note that until now I have not even mentioned measurements - that is, because they are not important for the definition of states, they form something like its dual part. Now, if you want to compare two states, because, say, you have two preparation procedures and want to determine whether the abstract state behaves the same way, then you need to consider measurements and you would say that two states are equivalent if their empirical distributions according to an informationally complete measurement are the same in the asymptotics of large numbers of instances of the state. [As an aside, note that your measurement procedure above is NOT informationally complete: You do not retrieve the phase information, you can only compare $|\alpha|^2$ and $|\beta|^2$. To be able to say that two states are equivalent, you will have to know the relative phase between $\alpha$ and $\beta$]. It seems to me that what I call "equivalent states" are what you think of as "copied states".


But then, what are cloned states? In fact, we would not define a "cloned state", but a "cloning machine". A cloning machine takes an instance of the state as an input and outputs the same instance and an instance of another state that is defined by this procedure. If the corresponding states are the same, then we consider the machine a "cloning machine". In other words: We have two states, state A which we start out with and another one, state B, with the preparation procedure: "prepare an instance of A, send it to the cloning machine and take the outcome". Now, if these two states are equivalent, then we would say that state B is a clone of state A and the machine was a cloning machine. If we could find a cloning machine that produces a clone for whatever input state I define, then this would be a universal cloning machine and as you very well know, this is forbidden by quantum mechanics.




Now, I said above that this is what I came to know as the "Ludwig school" of thought (an operational approach to quantum mechanics, which was mostly developed by the German physicist Günther Ludwig and his students).


A different definition would be, if you consider the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then you'd never have a single instance of a state, your "state" would rather be a statistical ensemble of many such instances - at least that's what I think you do.


Another approach would be to just see the "state" as an abstract description of what I called an "instance of a state". It is just not defined operationally. You'd interpret Born's rule as saying: Take a state, measure it. If you perform this experiment more often, then the empirical distribution of the outcomes would asymptotically be given by Born's rule. It does not(!) say: Take copies of the state. It says: Do the experiment all over. If you think about it, then you'll see that this is pretty close to what I described above, because this actually means "prepare the state and measure it".


orbital motion - On Planets orbiting binary stars


Several years ago a discovery was made of planet orbiting a star of a binary system (two stars orbiting each other). Since binary star systems are plentiful in our galaxy, I presume we will be discovering even more such planets.


However, as far as I know, no planet has been discovered that orbits both stars of a binary star system. Question, is this feasible and likely that a planet would orbit both stars of a binary system?




Answer



A planet in such an orbit is called a circumbinary planet. Since planetary systems originate from a rotating disk of matter, and since binary stars may also originate that way, the possibility of ending up with two stars and one or more planets all orbiting in a common plane seems intuitively plausible, and some candidates have been reported. The paper [1] says:



Following the first detection of a circumbinary planet with the Kepler space telescope, namely Kepler-16b, eight more binary star systems with a planet on a P-type orbit have been discovered. All these systems show striking similarities. They are all very flat, meaning that the binary and the planet orbit are in the same plane, suggesting that these planets formed in a circumbinary disc aligned with the orbital plane of the central binary. Furthermore, in all systems, the innermost planet (so far only Kepler-47 is known to have more than one planet) is close to the calculated stability limit...



Another theoretical analysis of instabilities in the orbits of circumbinary planets is presented in [2], whcih says:



Consider a planar three-body system of gravitating bodies: a central massive binary and a much less massive particle orbiting around the binary. Thus, the particle’s orbit is circumbinary. ... the circumbinary orbits cannot be permanently circular. This phenomenon provides a natural universal mechanism of internal tidal friction and heating in circumbinary planets (CBP)... In this article, we describe and consider the planetary escape process that takes place as a result of this shrinkage. Indeed, a particle in the slowly shrinking circumbinary orbit enters eventually the chaotic zone around the central binary, and therefore escapes. Once in the zone, the particle escapes inevitably... We show that the effect of tidal decay may explain, at least partially, the observed lack of CBP of close-enough (with periods <$ 5$ days) stellar binaries.



A recent search for circumbinary planets is reported in [3], which says:




We present the full survey results of the Search for Planets Orbiting Two Stars (SPOTS) survey, which is the first direct imaging survey targeting CBPs. The SPOTS observational program comprises 62 tight binaries that are young and nearby, and thus suitable for direct imaging studies... Results from SPOTS include the resolved circumbinary disk around AK Sco, the discovery of a low-mass stellar companion in a triple packed system, the relative astrometry of up to 9 resolved binaries, and possible indications of non-background planetary-mass candidates around HIP 77911. We did not find any CBP within 300 AU...



An older report [4] says:



Ranked near the top of the long list of exciting discoveries made with NASA's Kepler photometer is the detection of transiting circumbinary planets. In just over a year the number of such planets went from zero to seven, including a multi-planet system with one of the planets in the habitable zone (Kepler-47).



Some other recent references are cited in the the introduction of [5], which says this:



One of the exotic type of planetary systems detected by the Kepler mission are transiting circumbinary planets (CBPs), i.e., planets in nearly-coplanar orbits around a stellar binary (and nearly coplanar with the plane of the sky), temporarily blocking the binary’s light and giving a generally complex light curve [references]. Currently, 10 confirmed Kepler CBPs are known in 9 binary systems (see Table 1 for an overview [with references]).






References:


[1] "Migration of planets in circumbinary discs," https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00314


[2] "Tidal decay of circumbinary planetary systems," https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.02090


[3] "SPOTS: The Search for Planets Orbiting Two Stars. III. Complete Sample and Statistical Analysis," https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08687


[4] "Recent Kepler Results On Circumbinary Planets," https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6328


[5] "Stability of exomoons around the Kepler transiting circumbinary planets," https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06075


quantum mechanics - Do we have any idea why Planck's constant has the value it has?




Since $h$ seems to relate to a fundamental unit of quantization, it only seems right that we should have an idea of why it has the value it has. What do we know?


I understand that to some extent the precise values of universal constants are arbitrary, but when I look at the Bohr model, I see that the angular momentum of electrons comes in discrete levels that appear to be directly proportional to Planck's constant. Which suggests to me that there is something special about this number.



Answer



It has the value that it has because of our choices of the base units for length, time and mass. We can easily make Planck's constant equal to one by choosing different base units. What this tells us is simply that one of the important scales of the universe is not the size of a human but the size of a hydrogen atom. Why humans are so large compared to hydrogen, that is a question that belongs into biochemistry and biology.


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 \...