Sunday, December 6, 2015

classical mechanics - Momentum is a cotangent vector?


Imagine we have a particle described by $x \in M$, where $M$ is some manifold, then it is very intuitive I think that a velocity is an element of the tangent space at $x$, so $x' \in T_{x}M.$ Thus, by definition of the tangent bundle, we have $(x,x') \in TM$.


Now, in classical mechanics we learn that the conjugated mometum $p(x,x') = \partial_2L(x,x')$ and now I read that this guy is an element of the cotangent space, but I have no idea why.


I mean, to be in the cotangent space, you need to take elements in the tangent space of $x$ which are velocities as arguments and only depend linearly on them. Although it is clear that p takes velocities as arguments which is alright, it is not clear to me at this moment why this should happen linearly. Is this an additional (physical) input at this point or is there a mathematical argument why the momentum is now a linear map?




everyday life - Why do books have dog ears?


I googled the question and found no explanation. It seems that dog ears are inevitable (for paperbacks, notably) even if you've always been careful. From my experience, they are about equally likely to appear on the top corners as on the bottom corners (for both the beginning pages and the ending ones). Dog ears for the middle pages of the book are less likely but they can also appear in frequently used old books. Can someone explain why?



dog ears on the bottom corners for the beginning and ending pages


dog ears for the beginning pages of a book


I apologize if this is not the right kind of question to post here. I can find no other sites on SE for it.




Saturday, December 5, 2015

quantum mechanics - EPR-type experiments and faster-than-light communication using interference effects as signaling mechanism


I understand that faster-than-light communication is impossible when making single measurements, because the outcome of each measurement is random. However, shouldn't measurement on one side collapse the wave function on the other side, such that interference effects would disappear? Making measurements on "bunches" of entangled particles would thus allow FTL communication, by making observed interference effects appear or disappear. How does such an experiment not:



1) Clearly imply that faster-than-light communication is possible?


or


2) (if #1 is rejected) Imply that measurement of one half of an entangled pair does not cause the collapse of the other half's wave function.


Why doesn't this thought experiment clearly show that if we maintain that FTL communication is ruled out, we must also rule out "universal collapse" in the Copenhagen interpretation?


EDIT: Here is an example of an explicit experiment (though I think experts could come up with something better):


You can entangle a photon with an electron such that the angle of the photon is correlated with the electron's position at each slit of a double slit experiment. If the photon is detected (it's outgoing angle measured), then which-path information is known, and there is no interference. If the photon is not detected, the interference remains.


The experiment is designed such that the photon and electron go in roughly opposite directions, apart from the tiny deflection which gives which-path information. You set up a series of photon detectors 100 ly away on one side, and your double slit experiment 100 ly away in the opposite direction. Now you produce the entangled pairs in bunches, say of 100 entangled pairs, each coming every millisecond, with a muon coming between each bunch to serve as a separator.


Then the idea is that someone at the photon detector side can send information to someone watching the double-slit experiment, by selectively detecting all of the photons in some bunches, but not in others. If all of the photons are detected for one bunch, then the corresponding electron bunch 200 ly away should show no interference effects. If all of the photons are not detected for one bunch, then the corresponding electron bunch 200 ly away would show the usual double-slit interference effects (say on a phosphorus screen). (Note that this does not require combining information from the photon-detector-side with the electron-double-slit side in order to get the interference effects. The interference effects would visibly show up as the electron blips populate the phosphorus screen, as is usual in a double-slit experiment when which-path information is not measured.)


In such a way the person at the photon detectors can send '1's and '0's depending on whether they measure the photons in a given bunch. Suppose they send 'SOS' in Morse code. This requires 9 bunches, and so this will take 900 milliseconds, which is less than 200 years. The point is that such an experiment would only work if you assume that the measurement of the photon really does collapse the wave function nonlocally.



Answer




I'm going to go ahead and answer my own question. I think the issue is that in my proposed experiment there would never be any possibility of observing an interference pattern without first destroying the entanglement that would allow (by measurement of the photon bunches) the switching on or off of the interference on the electron side. The entanglement between the electron and photon implies that there would be no interference pattern, regardless of whether or not the photons are observed. The only way to re-introduce interference would be to, for example, have the electrons go through a small slit prior to the double slit in order to spread their wave function. But doing this entangles the electron with the screen with the first slit in it and effectively erases its entanglement with the photon, unless the momentum of the screen with the first slit can be measured to sufficient accuracy after the electron passes through it. But interference will only be seen if the momentum of the screen cannot be measured to sufficient accuracy without compromising the corresponding uncertainty in the screen's position. Assuming that the level of this uncertainty cannot be controlled at will, the appearance of interference cannot be turned on and off by a distant photon/screen measurer.


cosmology - How did enough material from other dying stars accumulate to start our sun and planets?


How far apart do scientists estimate was/were the dying star(s) that supplied the elements that comprise our sun, planet, and us? With stars so far apart and expansion of space (as I understand it) carrying things further away still, it would seem to be a low probability occurrence for sufficient quantities of elements blown out from across many light years to accumulate to birth a star system.


And another related question, it would seem that when a star went supernova and blew heavier elements in all directions, that would result in mass densities for future star nurseries far away from the dead parent that were much lower than what the parent had, so won't favorable conditions for star births monotonically decrease?





electromagnetic radiation - Can you have a problem with a Dirichlet boundary condition but with waves that reflect off the boundary?


Say we are looking for a solution to the Helmholtz equation $$(\Delta + k^2) u = 0,$$ in in the upper half space ($y > 0$) in 2D with a Dirichlet boundary condition on the $x$-axis, that is, $u(x, 0) = 0$. Also, we have an incident wave $u^{inc} = e^{-iky}$ which is orthogonal to the the boundary.


Then the solution can be obtained by the method of images as $$u(x, y) = u^{inc}(x, y) -u^{inc}(x, -y).$$


Now the second term on the RHS represents the wave that reflects off the boundary. My question is, how is there any reflection when we have a Dirichlet boundary condition? I thought Neumann boundary conditions are required for a wave to reflect at a boundary? Dirichlet conditions transmit the wave, not reflect it?


So what am I misunderstanding here...can you have a problem with a Dirichlet boundary condition yet the waves also reflect off the boundary?



Answer




This is a common misconception about what boundary conditions do and how they do it (for example here). You discussed two types of boundary conditions, Neumann and Dirichlet. In Neumann boundary conditions, we impose that the derivative of the variable normal to the boundary is specified, generally to be zero. With Dirichlet, we impose the value that the variable takes on the boundary.


In both cases, waves are reflected. How the reflection behaves depends on which boundary condition you use. I have taken the following images from this page.


For a "hard" boundary, aka a Dirichlet boundary, we get:


enter image description here


in this case, incident waves are reflected out of phase from the original wave.


For a "soft" boundary, aka a Neumann boundary, we get:


enter image description here


where now we can see that the incident wave is reflected in phase.


So, for these simple boundary condition types, you will always get some sort of reflection. If you want non-reflecting conditions, you need to use a characteristic decomposition of the system of equations and find the characteristics and the speeds at which they travel. Then you need to solve for a boundary value that will match those characteristics exactly (possible in 1D, generally not possible in 2/3D). This will allow waves to transmit with no reflection. The method is discussed in my previous answer and is specific to your system. And far too involved to answer here.


general relativity - Given a set of curved geodesics in 2D space, is there a way to determine the geometrical shape of said space?


I know that the geodesics for Euclidean Space are straight lines and likewise in the absence of forces like gravity, the geodesics are straight lines. But what if you took some curved lines and tried to work backwards to determine the geometry of the space consisting of the curved geodesics. How would one go about determining the shape of this space? Would this even be a possible or useful approach?



Answer



From the set of geodesic, as the previous answers, the shape of the space-time can be partially determined. However knowing a bit more of information, the metric can be fully delimited in a neighborhood of every point. I think is a useful calculation, because represents how we can, as observers inside of the spacetime determine the nature of it through experiments.


The argument is an sketch of the one given in Sec 3.2 in "Large Scale Structure of the Space-Time" by Hawking and Ellis"


Given the null-vectors of the spacetime, the functional form of the metric is determined by local causality and the material content.




  • Part 1: Geodesics and null-vector relation


Consider an observer in the spacetime at a point $p$. The observer can throw test particles that will move under non-spacelike geodesics. The tangent vector of the geodesic is an element of $T_p$. Throwing enough test particles following different geodesics (which is equivalent to know all the time-like geodesics that pass through $p$) we can determine the null cone.


In simple words, throwing particles from $p$ and seeing which points of the manifold can be reached, the null cone can be determined as the boundary of such hypersurface.



  • Part 2: The null cone determine the functional form of the metric up to a conformal factor.


Consider known all the vectors of the null cone, as well as the timelike vectors (i.e. we can distinguish which geodesic are causal in our spacetime). Then every vector of the spacetime that is not null nor timelike, must be spacelike.


Let $\mathbf{T}$ be a timelike vector, and $\mathbf{S}$ a spacelike vector. Then there exist two values of $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}-\{0\}$ for which $\mathbf{T}+\lambda\mathbf{S}$ is null, so



$$ 0=\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T}+\lambda\mathbf{S},\mathbf{T}+\lambda\mathbf{S})=\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T},\mathbf{T})+2\lambda\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T},\mathbf{S})+\lambda^2\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S}) $$


This is a polynomial on $\lambda$ for which the roots $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ are known (since we know all the vectors, and their character, we can determine for a given pair $\mathbf{T},\mathbf{S}$ which $\lambda$ makes $\mathbf{T}+\lambda\mathbf{S}$ null), then is true that:


$$ \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T},\mathbf{T})+2\lambda\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T},\mathbf{S})+\lambda^2\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S})=\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S})(\lambda-\lambda_1)(\lambda-\lambda_2)\Rightarrow \lambda_1\lambda_2=\frac{\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{T},\mathbf{T})}{\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S})} $$


So the ratio between the norm of a timelike and spacelike vector can be found knowing the null cone.


Now let $\mathbf{W},\mathbf{Z}$ be two non-null vectors, then


$$ \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{Z})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{W})+\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{Z},\mathbf{Z})-\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{W+Z},\mathbf{W+Z})\right) $$


Each of the terms on the RHS can be connected to $\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S})$ using different values of $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$. Sor for every pair $\mathbf{W},\mathbf{Z}$, the value of $\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{Z})$ is known up to a factor $\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{S},\mathbf{S})$.



  • Part 3: The material content determine the conformal factor up to a measuring gauge.



For now we have that $\mathbf{\hat{g}}=\Omega^2\mathbf{g}$ where $\mathbf{g}$ is known.


Let the energy momentum tensor for the material fields be $T^{ab}$, satisfying $\nabla_aT^{ab}=0$. Since the spacetime must be locally Minkowsky (equivalent to take normal coordinates), there is a neighbourhood of $p$ in which we can define "almost killing vectors", taking the killing vectors of the minkowsky spacetime $K_a$. Since $K_aT^{ab}$ is a conserved current in Minkowsky, it will be almost conserved in our neighbourhood, in the sense that the first approximation vanishes. In particular that means that energy and momentum conservation hold approximatelly in the neighbourhood of $p$.


Given the timelike geodesic with respect to the metric $\mathbf{g}$ trajectory of a particle $\gamma(t)$ with tangent vector $\mathbf{K}=\partial_t$, the geodesic equation reads:


$$ K^{\left[b\right.}\frac{\mathbf{\hat{D}}}{\partial_t}K^{\left.a\right]}=K^{\left[b\right.}\frac{\mathbf{D}}{\partial_t}K^{\left.a\right]}-(K^cK^d\hat{g}_{cd})K^{\left[b\right.}g^{\left.a\right]e}\partial_e(\log\Omega) $$


Since $\gamma$ is a geodesic with respect $\mathbf{g}$, the first term vanishes. By considering another curve $\gamma^\prime$ whose tangent vector is not paralell to $\mathbf{K}$ $\Omega$ can be found up to a constant factor. This constant factor correspond to an arbitrary normalization (i.e. choosing a measure of time).


thermodynamics - Maximum temperature possible on earth


What is maximum temperature that can we have on earth on a single day? Lets say an air mass is static over an area and there is no way for air mass to move, sun warming it up would increase temperature of this air mass, now if convection assume to be zero, and heat transfer by radiation only, than this air mass can reach to what temperature during a 24 hour cycle?



I assume that after a certain limit, radiation and convection would start working strongly to have equilibrium of surroundings.


According to thermodynamics principles how high temp in theory can go before equalization process restrict any further increase?


Highest I found till now was $58^\circ~\rm C$ in Libya.




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 \...