Friday, March 1, 2019

What is so special about speed of light in vacuum?


I will try to be as explanatory as possible with my question. Please also note that I have done my share of googling and I am looking for simple language preferable with some example so that I can get some insight in this subject.


My question is what is so special about $c$? Why only $c$. Its like chicken and egg puzzle for me. Does Einstein reached to $c$ observing light or does he got to light using some number which turned out equal to $c$.


Why is $c$ not relative. If something has zero rest mass like a photon why they only travel at $c$ in vacuum and not with $c+1$ or $c-1$?




Answer



Special Relativity is based on the invariance of a quantity called the proper time, $\tau$, which is the time measured by a freely moving (i.e. not accelerated) observer. The proper time is defined by:


$$ c^2d\tau^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 $$


This is similar to Pythagoras' theorem as learned by generations of schoolchildren, except that it includes time (converted to a distance by multiplying by $c$) and it has a mixture of plus and minus signs. The mixture of signs is responsible for all the weird effects like time dilation and length contraction, and because there is a mixture of signs the value of $d\tau^2$ can be positive, negative or zero.


If $d\tau^2$ is less than zero then $d\tau$ must be imaginary, and therefore unphysical. A quick bit of maths will show you that $d\tau^2$ can only be negative if you travel faster than light, and therefore that $c$ is the fastest speed anything in the universe can travel.


So $c$ is special because it determines a fundamental symmetry of the universe.


Footnote:


I've said $c$ is special while Kostya has said the opposite, but actually we are both right.


Kostya is right that there is nothing special about the speed 299,792,458 m/s (though if you change it by much you'll change physics enough that we may not be here :-). However the speed at which light travels is very special because anything travelling at this speed follows a null geodesic, i.e. $d\tau^2 = 0$. This is the sense in I mean that $c$ is special.


mathematical physics - Relation between cohomology and the BRST operator


Given a manifold $M$, we may define the $p$th de Rham cohomology group $H^p(M)$ as the quotient,


$$C^p(M) \, / \, Z^p(M)$$


where $C^p$ and $Z^p$ are the groups of closed and exact $p$-forms respectively. Now consider symmetry operators $K_i$ which form a closed Lie algebra, $G$, i.e.


$$[K_i,K_j] = f_{ij}^k K_k$$


with $f_{ij}^k$ the structure constants. We introduce anti-ghosts $b_i$ which transform in the adjoint representation of $G$, and ghosts $c_i$ transforming under the dual adjoint representation obeying canonical commutation relations. In Witten's Superstring Theory, they define an operator,


$$Q=c^i K_i -\frac{1}{2}f_{ij}^k c^{i}c^{j}b_{k}$$


known as the BRST operator, and they explicitly state,




To mathematicians it is the operator that computes the cohomology of the Lie algebra $G$, with values in the representation defined by the $K_i$.



I am familiar with the interpretation of compact semi-simple Lie groups as manifolds, and can understand how they may have a cohomology. However, it is not obvious from the expression for $Q$ the relation to cohomology, or differential geometry at all. Can someone elucidate and/or prove the relation, as well as how one obtains $H^p(M)$ knowing $Q$? Recommended resources on BRST quantization, and in particular from the lense of differential geometry are appreciated also.




It is clear that assuming $Q$ is the aforementioned, that the equivalence classes of states which differ by $Q\lambda$, for some state $\lambda$, are cohomology classes. But how do we establish what $Q$ is in the first place, and obtain $H^p$ in the BRST formalism?


In addition, if we are given the cohomology classes, $H^p$ for a field theory, what physical implications do they have regarding the system?



Answer



Ghostly Lie algebra cohomology


Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be our Lie algebra and $V_\rho$ a representation space with representation map $\rho : \mathfrak{g} \to \mathrm{End}(V_\rho)$. $V_\rho$ is, by the action through the representation, naturally a $\mathfrak{g}$-module (people missing the ring structure in $\mathfrak{g}$ - just embed it into the universal enveloping algebra). We define the associated Chevally-Eilenberg complex as the complex of $V_\rho$-valued differential forms on $\mathfrak{g}$:



$$ \dots \overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to} \Lambda^{p-1}\mathfrak{g}^* \otimes V_\rho \overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to} \Lambda^{p}\mathfrak{g}^* \otimes V_\rho\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to} \Lambda^{p+1}\mathfrak{g}^* \otimes V_\rho\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to}$$


whose cohomology we call the Lie algebra cohomology of $\mathfrak{g}$ with coefficients in $V_\rho$. Now, the algebraist is disturbed: There's an ugly differential in our complex, spoiling the fun! Let's build an operator expression for it:


Recall that, on $\Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^*$, we have two natural operations:


Contraction, which is


$$\iota : \Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^* \times \mathfrak{g} \to \Lambda^{p-1} \mathfrak{g}^*, (\omega,G) \mapsto \omega(G)$$


and the wedge product, which is


$$\wedge : \Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^* \times \mathfrak{g}^* \to \Lambda^{p+1} \mathfrak{g}^*, (\omega,k)\mapsto \omega \wedge k$$


and these define two operators $\iota_G$ and $\wedge_k$ acting upon $p$-forms. Now, observe that (or check that, if you're bored) their concatenation


$$ \iota_G \wedge_k \omega = (\omega \wedge k)(G) + (-1)^{\mathrm{deg}(\omega)}\omega \wedge \beta(G)$$


is an odd derivation on $\Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^*$.



Now, choose any canonically dual basis of $\mathfrak{g}$ resp. $\mathfrak{g}^*$, let's call them $T_a$ resp. $S^a$, and write


$$ \mathrm{d} = \wedge_{S^a}\rho(T_a) - \frac{1}{2}\wedge_{S^a}\wedge_{S^b}\iota_{[T_a,T_b]}$$


Using it on the basis elements of $\Lambda^{p}\mathfrak{g}^* \otimes V_\rho$, we can show by direct computation that this is indeed the differential from the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex, and thus an operator expression for the differential. Defining $c^a := \wedge_{S^a}$ as the ghost and $b_a := \iota_{T_a}$ as the anti-ghost yields that the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential is indeed the BRST operator


$$ Q = \mathrm{d} = c^a\rho(T_a) - \frac{1}{2}f^c_{ab} c^a c^b b_c $$


What does $Q$ compute in physics?


Classically, we apply this approach to symplectic manifolds/phase spaces $\mathcal{M}$ that possess a (symplectomorphic) group action by a Lie group $G$, and we construct the equivariant moment map


$$ \mu : \mathcal{M} \to \mathfrak{g}^*$$


defined by being equivariant under the coadjoint action of $G$ on $\mathfrak{g}^*$ and fulfilling $\mathrm{d}(\mu(\dot{})(g)) = \omega(\rho(g),\dot{})$ with $\omega$ as the symplectic form. If the action of $G$ represents a gauge symmetry, we would like to obtain the coisotropic reduction $\tilde{\mathcal{M}} := \mathcal{M}/ G$ containing no redundancies. Define the submanifold $M_0 := \mu^{-1}(0)$ and observe that the poisson algebra of functions on $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ fulfills


$$ C^\infty(\tilde{\mathcal{M}}) = H^0(\mathfrak{g};C^\infty(M_0))$$


since the zeroth cohomology of a Lie algebra with coefficients in a module consists of precisely the elements of the module that are invariant under the group action and because the natural projection $\pi : \mathcal{M}_0 \to \tilde{\mathcal{M}}$ provides a pullback from functions on the reduction to $\mathcal{M}_0$. We don't want to rehash the derivation of the Koszul complex here, suffice it to say that $H^0(\mathfrak{g};C^\infty(M_0))$ can be computed by looking at the complex



$$ \dots \to \Lambda^2 \mathfrak{g} \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to \Lambda \mathfrak{g} \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to 0$$


and computing $H^0 = C^\infty(\mathcal{M}_0)$ and $H^p = 0$ otherwise, leading to the projective resolution


$$ \dots \to \Lambda^2 \mathfrak{g} \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to \Lambda \mathfrak{g} \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to C^\infty(\mathcal{M}) \to C^\infty(\mathcal{M}_0) \to 0 $$


yielding, since the tensor product is left exact, a projective resolution for $\Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^* \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M}_0)$


This yields a bicomplex $C^{p,q} := \Lambda^p \mathfrak{g}^* \otimes \Lambda^q \mathfrak{g} \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M})$, from which a usual graded complex $\mathcal{C}^p$ may be constructed by $\mathcal{C}^p := \bigoplus_{r + s = p}C^{r,s}$, which is the infamous BRST complex, and which can be written as $\mathcal{C}^p = \Lambda^p(\mathfrak{g} \oplus \mathfrak{g}^*) \otimes C^\infty(\mathcal{M})$


With some algebraic magic involving the Poisson superalgebra structure of this complex, one can retrace the steps for deriving an explicit from for the differential from the ghostly cohomology for Lie algebras, and obtain that, here,


$$ \mathrm{d} = \{Q,\dot{}\}$$


with $Q \in \mathcal{C}^1$ being the classical BRST operator, and this time the ghosts and antighosts are the images of the generators of $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{g}^*$ under the natural embedding of these into $\Lambda(\mathfrak{g} \oplus \mathfrak{g}^*$).




A lengthier, but still quick and very readable discussion of this can be found in Josê Figueroa-O'Farrill's lecture notes on "BRST Cohomology".



mathematics - Guess Me riddle #3


View the last part here


Guess the word


Sir, I bear a rhyme excelling
In mystic force and magic spelling

Celestial sprites elucidate
All my own striving can't relate


What am I?



Answer



This is



a well known mnemonic for the digits of $\pi$. (Count the letters in each word.)



optics - How come an anti-reflective coating makes glass *more* transparent?


The book I'm reading about optics says that an anti-reflective film applied on glass* makes the glass more transparent, because the air→film and film→glass reflected waves (originated from a paraxial incoming wave) interfere destructively with each other, resulting on virtually no reflected light; therefore the "extra" light that would normally get reflected, gets transmitted instead (to honor the principle of conservation of energy, I suppose?).


However, this answer states that "Superposition is the principle that the amplitudes due to two waves incident on the same point in space at the same time can be naively added together, but the waves do not affect each other."


So, how does this fit into this picture? If the reflected waves actually continue happily travelling back, where does the extra transmitted light come from?


* the film is described as (1) having an intermediate index of refraction between those of air and glass, so that both the air-film and film-glass reflections are "hard", i.e., produce a 180º inversion in the phase of the incoming wave, and (2) having a depth of 1/4 of the wavelength of the wave in the film, so that the film-glass reflection travels half its wavelength back and meets the air-film reflection in the opposite phase, thus cancelling it.



Answer



The thickness of the AR coating is chosen such that the reflections from the two interfaces cancel out (at the wavelength for which the AR coating was designed):


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Optical-coating-2.png


See Anti-reflective coating in Wikipedia.


As endolith points out in the comments, to explain how the transmission is enhanced, you have to draw a few more rays in the diagram. Here's another illustration, from the Wikipedia article for Fabry–Pérot interferometer, which shows a few higher-order reflections:



Fabry-Perot Etalon


For the anti-reflective coating, you choose the thickness such that R1 and R2 cancel while T1 and T2 constructively interfere. Note that this is dependent on the wavelength, the angle of incidence, and the index of refraction of whatever is being coated. With other thicknesses, you can make a high-reflectivity coating, or a coating of whatever reflectivity you want.


angular momentum - Force responsible for increasing a spiraling object's tangential velocity



Suppose we have a small mass attached to a string that has been fed through a hole in the friction-less table on which the mass is rotating. Pulling the string downwards thus decreases the radius of the mass's circular motion.


In this scenario, several things seem to be true:



  1. The system's angular momentum is conserved.


  2. The kinetic energy of the mass increases as the radius of its circular motion decreases.

  3. Pulling on the string does work, which is presumably translated into the kinetic energy gained by the mass.


It would appear that the object is in circular motion at any given instant, which implies that the tension force provided by the string is always perpendicular to the velocity of the mass. But what force or force component is then responsible for increasing the tangential velocity of the mass as the radius decreases?



Answer




It would appear that the object is in circular motion at any given instant, which implies that the tension force provided by the string is always perpendicular to the velocity of the mass.



Mostly true, but not quite. If the string is held steady, then the object is in circular motion. But by pulling the string harder than that, it moves off of circular by a tiny amount.


Since it starts at one distance and reaches a closer point, it cannot be moving in circles but in a spiral. So the path has a (small) radial component. That means the radial string and the not-exactly-tangential velocity vector are no longer exactly perpendicular.



quantum field theory - Is anti-matter matter going backwards in time?



Some sources describe antimatter as just like normal matter, but "going backwards in time". What does that really mean? Is that a good analogy in general, and can it be made mathematically precise? Physically, how could something move backwards in time?



Answer



To the best of my knowledge, most physicists don't believe that antimatter is actually matter moving backwards in time. It's not even entirely clear what would it really mean to move backwards in time, from the popular viewpoint.


If I'm remembering correctly, this idea all comes from a story that probably originated with Richard Feynman. At the time, one of the big puzzles of physics was why all instances of a particular elementary particle (all electrons, for example) are apparently identical. Feynman had a very hand-wavy idea that all electrons could in fact be the same electron, just bouncing back and forth between the beginning of time and the end. As far as I know, that idea never developed into anything mathematically grounded, but it did inspire Feynman and others to calculate what the properties of an electron moving backwards in time would be, in a certain precise sense that emerges from quantum field theory. What they came up with was a particle that matched the known properties of the positron.


Just to give you a rough idea of what it means for a particle to "move backwards in time" in the technical sense: in quantum field theory, particles carry with them amounts of various conserved quantities as they move. These quantities may include energy, momentum, electric charge, "flavor," and others. As the particles move, these conserved quantities produce "currents," which have a direction based on the motion and sign of the conserved quantity. If you apply the time reversal operator (which is a purely mathematical concept, not something that actually reverses time), you reverse the direction of the current flow, which is equivalent to reversing the sign of the conserved quantity, thus (roughly speaking) turning the particle into its antiparticle.


For example, consider electric current: it arises from the movement of electric charge, and the direction of the current is a product of the direction of motion of the charge and the sign of the charge.


$$\vec{I} = q\vec{v}$$


Positive charge moving left ($+q\times -v$) is equivalent to negative charge moving right ($-q\times +v$). If you have a current of electrons moving to the right, and you apply the time reversal operator, it converts the rightward velocity to leftward velocity ($-q\times -v$). But you would get the exact same result by instead converting the electrons into positrons and letting them continue to move to the right ($+q\times +v$); either way, you wind up with the net positive charge flow moving to the right.


By the way, optional reading if you're interested: there is a very basic (though hard to prove) theorem in quantum field theory, the TCP theorem, that says that if you apply the three operations of time reversal, charge conjugation (switch particles and antiparticles), and parity inversion (mirroring space), the result should be exactly equivalent to what you started with. We know from experimental data that, under certain exotic circumstances, the combination of charge conjugation and parity inversion does not leave all physical processes unchanged, which means that the same must be true of time reversal: physics is not time-reversal invariant. Of course, since we can't actually reverse time, we can't test in exactly what manner this is true.


Why must a sudoku have a unique solution



Why must a sudoku have a unique solution. In my books I don't guarantee it. But I am sure there are not many which don't. I doubt if one in a thousand dont have. And even if they don't its only a matter of interchanging about four numbers. Why is there this obsession that it has to be only one unique solution. This of course applies to other puzzles too.





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 \...