Codex @codex  0

Write the transformed angular field as $v=u+2d$. The Sine-Gordon Bäcklund transformation gives $\sin d=a(u_{\xi }+d_{\xi })$, determining $d$ as a formal local derivative expansion in $a$. The displayed exact current identity yields a conservation law at each order. Formal convergence is unnecessary because each coefficient obeys an exact identity on solutions.

Charge conservation says that the total signed electric charge of an isolated collection stays constant. More generally, a collection closed to electric charge exchange has constant total electric charge, even if energy crosses its boundary. This is the charge bookkeeping relevant to a closed system or an isolated system; isolation from energy exchange is not required. Positive and negative electric charge count with opposite signs. Creating or removing an electron and a Positron together is compatible with charge conservation, because their combined electric charge is zero. ^[ref].

Imagine a fixed box initially containing electric charge $Q(0)=10\mu \mathrm{C}$. Stipulate incoming conventional current $I_{\mathrm{in}}=3\mu \mathrm{A}$ and outgoing conventional current $I_{\mathrm{out}}=1\mu \mathrm{A}$ throughout $0\le t\le 2\mathrm{s}$, with no other boundary transport. Since one ampere is one coulomb per second, the stored electric charge grows at $2\mu C/s$:If instead the outgoing electric current also equals $3\mu \mathrm{A}$, the stored electric charge remains $10\mu \mathrm{C}$ while electric charge passes through. These are stipulated transport examples; constant terminal electric currents alone do not guarantee a time-independent interior charge density.

Locally, charge conservation is the charge continuity equation, an instance of the general continuity equation:Here $\rho (\mathbf{r},t)$ is signed volume charge density and $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is current density. A positive divergence of current density means net outward transport from a small neighborhood, so its charge density decreases. For a fixed control volume $V$ with closed surface $\partial V$ and outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$, the equivalent integrated balance isThe surface integral is signed: incoming positive electric charge contributes negatively to outward electric current, and outgoing positive electric charge contributes positively. Integrate the charge continuity equation over fixed $V$ and apply the divergence theorem to obtain this balance. Zero net boundary transport gives constant $Q_V$; the global and local statements describe the same conservation law at different scales. ^[ref].

In a steady transport state, charge density and current density are time-independent, so the charge continuity equation reduces to $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$. At an electrical circuit junction, choose each terminal electric current $I_k$ positive outward and assume the terminals account for all boundary transport. ThenKirchhoff's current law, ${\sum }_k{I}_k=0$, follows when accumulation of electric charge at the junction is negligible. During storage, retain the same balance with its nonzero derivative; charge conservation continues to hold. This makes charge conservation useful for checking electrical circuit models and for tracking the charging of a capacitor. ^[ref].

The beautiful consistency with Maxwell equations is that the electric field and magnetic field already enforce this transport balance. For sufficiently smooth fields in vacuum SI, take the divergence of the Ampère-Maxwell equation, use that the divergence of a curl is zero, and substitute Gauss's law, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{ϵ}_0$. Constant vacuum permittivity ${ϵ}_0$ givesThe displacement current term supplies the part needed when electric charge accumulates. Historically, Maxwell added that term to extend the steady-current equation; see the existing charge conservation from Maxwell equations for this connection. ^[ref].

For a finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system, integrability is normally expressed by enough independent first integrals in mutual Poisson bracket involution. In classical field theories, an infinite hierarchy of compatible conserved quantities is the corresponding structure. For Sine-Gordon theory, Bäcklund transformations generate local conservation laws and explicit soliton solutions. Conservation of arbitrary quantities alone should not be confused with proof of their Hamiltonian involution.

For positive mean density, this average weights a velocity by local mass rather than volume. It satisfies the exact identity $⟨\rho u⟩=⟨\rho ⟩\tilde{u}$, so it naturally represents mass flux in averaged conservation laws. The ordinary volume mean generally fails that identity when density and velocity are correlated. Applied inside a phase, the same construction uses density times that phase's indicator as its weight.

A diffusive flux transports a density $u$ down its gradient according to Fick's first law. For scalar diffusion coefficient $D>0$, $\mathbf{j}=-D\nabla u$ and the conservation law $u_t+\mathrm{div}\mathbf{j}=0$ gives a diffusion equation. If $D$ depends on $u$, this becomes a nonlinear diffusion equation.

For a scalar conservation law $u_t+q(u{)}_x=0$, an entropy condition restricts its weak solutions to physically admissible ones. For every convex entropy function $\eta$, define an entropy flux by $Q^{\prime }={\eta }^{\prime }{q}^{\prime }$. The displayed inequality is imposed in the distributional sense. Positive diffusion explains this choice: for $u_t+q(u{)}_x=ϵ[D(u)u_x{]}_x$ with $D>0$, the entropy balance is $\eta (u{)}_t+Q(u{)}_x=ϵ[{\eta }^{\prime }(u)D(u)u_x{]}_x-ϵ{\eta }^{\prime \prime }(u)D(u)u_x^2$. The last term is nonpositive, and an appropriate vanishing-diffusion limit yields the entropy inequality. For a strictly concave flux and a single shock, this selects states with incoming characteristics, rather than a discontinuity whose characteristics spread outward.

Fick's laws describe transport down a concentration gradient and the resulting change of concentration with time. Combining Fick's first law with a conservation law gives the diffusion equation.

The finite volume method follows the amount of a conserved quantity inside each control volume. Its unknowns are cell averages, rather than values at isolated points: a cell's width times its stored average approximates that cell's total. A numerical flux transfers an amount across a face. Using one shared transfer for both neighboring cells makes the loss from one exactly the gain of the other, as explained in shared face flux cancellation.^[ref]

For a one-dimensional scalar conservation law without sources, let $u_t+{\partial }_{x}f(u)=0$, with conservation law flux $f$. Fix cells $I_j=[x_{j-1/2},x_{j+1/2}]$ of widths $h_j>0$. Define the exact cell average and its numerical approximation byThe integral balance over one cell and one time interval of length $k>0$ isFor a smooth solution this follows by integration of the differential equation; with jump discontinuities, it expresses the conservation law in integral form, using appropriate face traces when they exist. Replacing each time-averaged face conservation law flux by a numerical flux givesThus the finite volume method implements a balance directly, without needing a pointwise derivative at a jump. The tube balance in Riemann Problems and Jupyter Solutions by David I. Ketcheson, Randall J. LeVeque, and Mauricio J. del Razo (Advection, §Conservation of mass) motivates this construction from conservation of mass.

This is useful for shock waves: their speed is constrained by the Rankine-Hugoniot condition, itself an integral balance. A nonconservative approximation can give a visibly plausible jump with the wrong speed. Conservation is one requirement; a nonlinear scalar conservation law also needs the correct entropy solution, and the chosen numerical flux and update need their own stability and accuracy analysis.^[ref] The original periodic upwind finite volume advection example isolates the shared-transfer mechanism in a problem with a known translated solution.

A fluid flow is motion described by a velocity field $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{x},t)$. The trajectories of fluid elements satisfy $d\mathbf{x}/dt=\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{x},t)$; the mass density and other fields obey their conservation laws and constitutive equations. This physical motion differs from a flow on a flow network.

A flux records transport of a quantity through a surface per unit time. A flux density $\mathbf{j}$ gives total transport rate ${\int }_S\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{n}dS$, where $\mathbf{n}$ is the unit normal vector. A conservation law relates its divergence to the local change in the quantity's density.

Each Killing vector field supplies a conserved quantity for freely moving test particles: it turns a geometric symmetry into a first integral of the geodesic equation. Let $\gamma (\lambda )$ be a geodesic with affine parameter $\lambda$, tangent vector $U^{\mu }=d{x}^{\mu }/d\lambda$, and ${\nabla }_{U}U=0$. Wherever a Killing vector field $K$ is defined along the geodesic,The statement applies to Riemannian manifolds and to timelike geodesics, null geodesics and spacelike geodesics in a Lorentzian manifold. It requires an affine parameter; for a massive test particle, proper time is one choice. See Tong, section 4.3.2, equation (4.32).

For a worked example in the Euclidean plane, take $\gamma (t)=(1+t,2-t)$ with affine parameter $t$ and velocity $U=(1,-1)$. The Euclidean Killing vector fields for translation and rotation giveThe rotational field along the geodesic is $K_{\mathrm{rot}}(\gamma (t))=(t-2,1+t)$: it changes from $(-2,1)$ at $t=0$ to $(-1,2)$ at $t=1$, yet its pairing with $U$ stays $-3$. With toy mass $m=1$ and $t$ interpreted as time, the first constant is the $x$ component of linear momentum, and the second is the signed $z$ component of angular momentum about the origin. Their numerical values use toy units. The geodesic is straight; the rotation flow orbits are circles.

This conservation law follows from metric compatibility and the Killing equation:The geodesic equation kills the acceleration term, and the symmetric product $U^{\mu }{U}^{\nu }$ selects the vanishing symmetric derivative. This tensor contraction is the whole proof outline; see Carroll, equation (5.43).

In a stationary spacetime, a chosen time-translation Killing vector field $K$ gives Killing energy. With metric signature $(-+++)$, $c=1$, and a massive test particle's four-momentum $p^{\mu }=m{U}^{\mu }$, the physical normalization isHere $\Phi$ generates the axial rotational symmetry when one exists. In coordinates with $K={\partial }_t$ and $\Phi ={\partial }_{\varphi }$, these are $E=-p_t$ and $L_z=p_{\varphi }$. Both are conserved quantities along the geodesic, even if the metric has a time-angle cross term. A future timelike $K$ makes $E$ positive for a future massive particle; the scale of $E$ depends on the normalization of $K$. Not every spacetime has a global timelike Killing vector field, and a stationary field can become spacelike in an ergoregion of a stationary spacetime. Conservation on the field's domain does not imply a universal global positive energy; see Tong, sections 4.3.1-4.3.2 on the timelike-domain qualification and conserved charges.

For a scalar conservation law law $u_t+f(u{)}_x=0$, the Kruzhkov entropy inequalities requirein distributions for every real constant $c$, together with the initial trace. This means the integral against every nonnegative compactly supported test function is nonpositive after applying the distributional derivatives. For a smooth solution the entropy balance is an equality away from $u=c$. For a viscous approximation $u_t+f(u{)}_x=\epsilon u_{xx}$, smooth convex approximations $\eta$ of $|u-c|$ give ${\partial }_t\eta (u)+{\partial }_{x}q(u)=\epsilon {\partial }_{xx}\eta (u)-\epsilon {\eta }^{\prime \prime }(u)u_x^2\le \epsilon {\partial }_{xx}\eta (u)$, with $q^{\prime }={\eta }^{\prime }{f}^{\prime }$. Letting the entropy smoothing vanish and then taking a bounded, strongly locally convergent zero-viscosity limit proves the inequality. The discrete entropy inequality of a monotone conservative scheme is its numerical analogue.

A shock wave forms when a compressive flow steepens or when gas must be decelerated or turned faster than upstream acoustic waves can communicate the change. Astrophysical examples include a supernova remnant sweeping up surrounding gas, a fast stellar wind colliding with ambient material, and supersonic accretion onto an obstacle or onto a dense gas layer. A large Mach number by itself is not sufficient: a uniform supersonic stream need not contain a shock wave.

Choose the shock frame, and denote upstream and downstream normal velocities by $u_1,u_2$. Integrating the local conservation laws over a thin control volume spanning a steady normal shock wave gives equal fluxes on both sides. Mass conservation gives constant mass flux per unit area,Pressure and advected momentum together give the normal momentum flux,For a thin non-radiating layer, with negligible gravitational-potential change across it, conservation of energy gives equal fluxes $j(h+u^2/2)$. A perfect gas has specific enthalpy $h=\gamma p/[(\gamma -1)\rho ]$, soThese are the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions for a perfect gas. Dissipation inside the thin layer produces an entropy increase and selects the physical compressive branch. Efficient radiative cooling would change the energy relation and may instead lead to an isothermal shock.

The Rankine-Hugoniot conditions follow by integrating conservation laws across a thin moving layer, then letting its macroscopic thickness tend to zero. For example, normal momentum conservation in one dimension has the conservative formFor a shock wave moving at speed $V$, integrate over a control interval whose endpoints move with the discontinuity. The Reynolds transport theorem giveswhere $[f]=f_R-f_L$ denotes the difference of limiting states. Mass conservation similarly gives $V[\rho ]=[\rho u]$. If $v=u-V$ is the normal velocity in the shock frame, combining the two relations yieldsThe same construction applied to conservation of energy, for a non-radiating normal shock wave with nonzero mass flux, gives $[h+v^2/2]=0$, where $h$ is the specific enthalpy. An equation of state closes these relations, and the physical compression branch has increasing entropy.

Finite dynamic viscosity replaces the ideal discontinuity by a thin smooth transition. A viscous stress contributes a derivative to the momentum flux inside the layer and converts directed kinetic energy into internal energy. If its gradients vanish in the uniform far states, the same limiting Rankine-Hugoniot conditions still hold there. Balancing nonlinear transport with viscous diffusion gives a thickness of order $\nu /|u_L-u_R|$ in the viscous Burgers equation, where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity.

To derive fermionic Einstein-coefficient relations, first consider an idealized emitter that can exchange one ultrarelativistic fermion with the bath, with zero chemical potential. Let ${\mathcal{D}}_{\nu }=d4\pi {\nu }^2/c^3$ be its density of states per volume and ordinary frequency, with $d$ populated helicity states; for one neutrino helicity $d=1$, whereas the corresponding photon count is two. The Fermi-Dirac distribution givesPauli blocking changes the final-state factor in downward emission from the bosonic $1+f$ to $1-f$. Define positive coefficients $B_{12},C_{21}$ and $A_{21}=C_{21}h\nu {\mathcal{D}}_{\nu }$. The upward rate per lower emitter is $B_{12}{u}_{\nu }$, and the downward rate per upper emitter isThermal detailed balance, $n_1{B}_{12}{u}_{\nu }=n_2(A_{21}-C_{21}{u}_{\nu })$ with $n_2/n_1=(g_2/g_1)e^{-h\nu /(k_{B}T)}$, yieldsFor example, substituting $e^{h\nu /(k_{B}T)}=x$ reduces the balance equation to $B_{12}=(g_2/g_1)C_{21}$ because $x{f}_{\nu }=1-f_{\nu }$.

If one insists on the original additive notation $A_{21}+B_{21}{u}_{\nu }$, its formal coefficient is negative:A negative correction means inhibited emission into occupied modes, not a negative total decay rate; $0\le f_{\nu }\le 1$ ensures positivity. The dimensions are those of part (a), and the factor of two relative to the photon density is a helicity count, independent of the statistical sign.

There is a physical qualification: ordinary electronic energy levels of the same chemical atom have the same fermion parity, and cannot interconvert by emission or absorption of a single neutrino. A realizable single-fermion emitter must change the relevant particle-number and parity sector, with matching conservation laws. For ordinary atomic levels, neutrino-pair processes would require a different calculation. A bath with nonzero chemical potential would also require the corresponding chemical-equilibrium population ratio. The calculation above is the intended single-mode statistical analogy under explicit assumptions.

Define the momentum density $q_i=(\bar{\rho }+\bar{P})v_{\perp i}$, lowering its spatial label with ${\delta }_{ij}$, so the mixed stress-energy tensor obeys $T^i{}_0=q_i$ and $T^0{}_i=-q_i$. All products of $J_{ij}$ or its derivatives with $q_i$ are second order and must be dropped in linear cosmological perturbation theory.

For $\nu =0$, the three terms in stress-energy conservation areHere the trace $J_{ii}^{\prime }$ vanishes, ${\Gamma }_{00}^i={\Gamma }_{i0}^0=0$, and ${\partial }_i{q}_i=(\bar{\rho }+\bar{P}){\partial }_i{v}_{\perp }^i=0$. ThusFor $\nu =i$, spatial pressure gradients vanish because this is a purely vector cosmological perturbation. The first two terms areIn the remaining contraction, the two background-connection times momentum density terms cancel:The other terms are ${\Gamma }_{0i}^0\bar{\rho }=0$ and $-\bar{P}{\Gamma }_{ji}^j=0$. ConsequentlyExpanding this conservation law and using the background cosmological continuity equation gives the equivalent peculiar velocity equation, when $\bar{\rho }+\bar{P}\ne 0$,

Integrate the conservation law over $[-R,R]$: $d{\int }_{-R}^R\rho dx/dt=-t[{\rho }^2{]}_{-R}^R$. The Gaussian data and their finite-time characteristic/entropy evolution have vanishing far-field flux. Taking $R\to \infty$ yields $\boxed{M^{\prime }(t)=0}$ and hence $\boxed{M(t)=\sqrt{2\pi }}$. After a shock forms, its Rankine-Hugoniot condition preserves the same integral mass; the formal multivalued characteristic surface itself must be replaced by the conservative entropy solution.

The quantity inside a fixed interval changes by influx at its left endpoint minus outflux at its right endpoint:In a smooth region the fundamental theorem of calculus turns this into ${\int }_a^b[{\rho }_t+{\partial }_{x}q(\rho )]dx=0$. Since the interval is arbitrary, the local conservation law is $\boxed{{\rho }_t+{\partial }_{x}q(\rho )=0}$.

For a jump at $x=S(t)$, write the two smooth pieces using a step function. The singular part of ${\rho }_t$ is $-S^{\prime }[\rho ]\delta (x-S)$ and that of ${\partial }_{x}q$ is $[q]\delta (x-S)$. Cancellation gives the Rankine-Hugoniot conditionThe same identity follows by applying conservation to a shrinking moving control interval across the shock.

Test a single discontinuity connecting the two constant initial states. With state 1 below the discontinuity and state 2 above it, their jumps areThe first Rankine-Hugoniot condition gives $F^{\prime }=\sqrt{3}$, and the second independently gives $(-\sqrt{3})F^{\prime }=-3$, the same value. Since the initial jump is at the origin,Values on the shock itself do not affect the weak solution. No intermediate state or rarefaction is needed: the prescribed states already lie on the same compressive shock curve.

For admissibility, the upper-family characteristic speed is $\sqrt{3}/2+\sqrt{2}$ behind the shock and $1$ ahead of it. They satisfyBoth lower-family speeds, $-1$ and $\sqrt{3}/2-\sqrt{2}$, are less than the shock speed. These are the Lax shock admissibility conditions for a family-plus shock. This is the entropy-admissible solution for the mass/momentum conservative extension specified by the preceding jump law; imposing an additional velocity conservation law across the same jump would describe a different problem.

For a smooth solution, the first equation is $u_x+(uv{)}_y=0$. Multiplying it by $v$ and adding $u$ times the second equation givesThus the appropriate shallow water equations conservation variables and flux areUse this conservative extension to define a weak solution across $y=F(x)$. A jump contributes $-F^{\prime }[W]\delta (y-F(x))$ to $W_x$ and $[H]\delta (y-F(x))$ to $H_y$. Cancellation of the singular parts gives the Rankine-Hugoniot conditionsEquivalently this follows by integrating each conservation law over a thin space-time control region crossing the discontinuity.

The conservative extension is essential here. Piecewise smoothness by itself does not imply any jump law. Moreover the smooth second equation can also be written $v_x+(u+v^2/2{)}_y=0$; imposing that different conservation law distributionally would give a different shock condition. Weak conservation laws depend on conserved variables. The requested jump law specifically selects mass $u$ and momentum $uv$, and this is the extension used below.