Codex @codex  0

Write $q=\mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{\omega }$ for the kinetic helicity density, and retain $\mathcal{B}=w+u^2/2$. Since $\mathbf{\omega }$ is a curl, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\omega }=0$. Differentiating the density and using the equations from the preceding part givesThe divergence of a cross product givesThe first term on the right is zero, while $\mathbf{\omega }\cdot \nabla \mathcal{B}=\nabla \cdot (\mathcal{B}\mathbf{\omega })$. Thus the kinetic helicity conservation law has fluxThe last equality for the flux uses the vector triple product identity. Integrating and applying the divergence theorem gives $d{\int }_{V}qdV/dt=-{\int }_{\partial V}{\mathbf{F}}_{H_k}\cdot \mathbf{n}dS$ for a fixed volume. Hence its total kinetic helicity is conserved when the boundary flux vanishes; for example, tangency of both velocity field and vorticity to the boundary is sufficient. The local conservation law does not by itself imply that its density follows each fluid particle unchanged.

Work in the shock frame, assume a calorically perfect gas with fixed specific-heat ratio $\gamma >1$, and neglect magnetic stresses and body forces across the thin shock. The internal energy per unit mass is $e=p/[(\gamma -1)\rho ]$, and the specific enthalpy is $w=\gamma p/[(\gamma -1)\rho ]$. Integrating the local conservation laws across a thin stationary control volume makes the mass flux $\rho u$, momentum flux $p+\rho u^2$, and energy flux $u(\rho u^2/2+\gamma p/(\gamma -1))$ continuous. Hence the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions for a perfect gas areMultiplication of the last equality by $m$ gives continuity of the stated energy flux. These express that mass, momentum and energy cannot accumulate in an infinitesimally thin steady shock, although entropy production occurs on the physical compression branch. The same constant in the polytropic equation of state $p=K{\rho }^{\gamma }$ must therefore not be imposed on both sides. For flow from $z>0$ to $z<0$, both signed velocities are negative; the flux equations and ratios remain valid.

In the Strong-shock Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, $p_1/({\rho }_1{u}_1^2)=1/(\gamma M_1^2)$ tends to zero. Put $r={\rho }_2/{\rho }_1$. The first two flux balances give $u_2=u_1/r$ and $p_2={\rho }_1{u}_1^2(1-1/r)$ to leading order. The energy balance becomesDiscarding the unchanged-state root $r=1$ gives the compressive shock compression ratio and the required limits:

For an axisymmetric viscous gravity current on a cone, the cylindrical radius at slant distance $x$ is $x\cos \alpha$. A surface annulus therefore has area $2\pi x\cos \alpha dx$. The local downslope volume flux is the same as in part (a), but conservation of mass must account for this growing circumference. ThusThis is a leading thin-film description away from the apex, with $0<\alpha <\pi /2$ and thickness small relative to the local curvature and streamwise length scales.

The original PDF uses the long-time criterion $x_N\gg (V\csc \alpha {)}^{1/3}$; the local TeX incorrectly reads $V\cos \alpha$. To see why the PDF criterion is the relevant one, scale $h\sim V/(x_N^2\cos \alpha )$. In the bulk, the hydrostatic-gradient term relative to direct downslope gravity isHence the leading outer evolution, with $\beta =K\sin \alpha$, isFor a fixed-volume similarity solution, let $x_N\propto t^b$ and $h\propto t^a$. Conservation of mass gives $a+2b=0$, while the evolution equation gives $a-1=3a-b$. Thus $b=1/5$, $a=-2/5$. Writing $h=t^{-2/5}H(\xi )$, $\xi =x/t^{1/5}$, yieldsThe positive branch $H=c\sqrt{\xi }$ satisfies this equation when $c^2=1/(5\beta )$. It givesThe ideal outer current has zero thickness beyond its front. Its mass integral isThereforeThe reduced equation is a conservation law after multiplication by $x$. Its front obeys the Rankine-Hugoniot condition, ${\dot{x}}_N=\beta h_N^2=x_N/(5t)$, consistent with the mass-derived front position. The outer profile has a finite jump at the front; the omitted hydrostatic-gradient term resolves a narrow front region. There is also a small apex region where the outer gradient and conical curvature violate the local approximations. Neither region sets the leading conserved-volume scaling above.

For a radial function, the equation isTherefore, assuming the population density and radial flux decay at infinity and are regular at the origin,Thus $N$ is conserved; it is the total population obtained by integrating density over the plane. This is the global form of the equation's conservation law.

SetThenwhile the radial diffusion term has the same prefactor and equalsEquating them and multiplying by $x$ givesso the proposed ansatz is a similarity solution.

Regularity at $x=0$ makes the constant of integration zero. Wherever $f>0$,for some $x_0>0$. The nonnegative weak solution continues as $f=0$ once this parabola reaches zero:This is the two-dimensional Barenblatt profile for quadratic porous-medium diffusion; its degenerate diffusivity permits compact support.

Indeed, conservation requiresso $x_0=(16/\pi {)}^{1/4}$ if desired. At time $t$ the populated disk has radius $x_0(NDt{)}^{1/4}$ and hence area

At an endemic equilibrium, $I^{\ast }>0$, so $0=\dot{I}=I^{\ast }(\beta S^{\ast }-\gamma )$ forcesThe equation $\dot{R}=0$ gives $R^{\ast }=\gamma I^{\ast }/\alpha$. The conservation law $S^{\ast }+I^{\ast }+R^{\ast }=N$ therefore yieldsA positive endemic state exists exactly when $\beta N>\gamma$, equivalently when the basic reproduction number ${\mathcal{R}}_0=\beta N/\gamma$ exceeds one.

Fick's first law gives the diffusive fluxLocal conservation says $C_t+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$, and therefore

For $D(C)=kC$, conservation of the deposited amount requiresThe dimensions satisfy $[M]=[C]L^2$ and $[k]=L^2/([C]T)$. Thus $Mkt$ has dimension $L^4$, so the similarity length is $(Mkt{)}^{1/4}$. Requiring the concentration scale to have dimension $[C]$ givesHence

In polar coordinates, substitution into
$C_t=k{r}^{-1}(rC{C}_r{)}_r$ givesMultiplying by $\xi$ and integrating once, with regularity and zero radial flux at the origin, yieldsWhere $F>0$, this reduces to $F^{\prime }=-\xi /4$, soNonnegativity and zero flux at the moving front give the compactly supported profileThe normalization givesand hence $A=1/\sqrt{2}$ and ${\xi }_0^4=32$. This is the Two-dimensional Barenblatt solution with diffusivity proportional to concentration, and its support radius isso $N=32$.

Now add the linear reaction term and writeSubstitution cancels the terms $aC$ and leavesChoosingproduces $G_{\tau }=k\nabla \cdot (G\nabla G)$, as in the linear-reaction time change for quadratic nonlinear diffusion. Therefore

For $a=0$, the front grows like $t^{1/4}$ while the central concentration decays like $t^{-1/2}$. For $a>0$, $\tau \sim e^{at}/a$, so the front grows like $e^{at/4}$ and the central concentration like $e^{at/2}$. For $a<0$, $\tau \to 1/|a|$: the front approaches a finite limiting radius while the concentration decays exponentially to zero.

Adding the equations for the free enzyme and its two complexes givesThusThis conservation law says that the enzyme is neither created nor destroyed: each enzyme molecule is either free, bound in $C_1$, or bound in $C_2$.

Under $a_{\alpha }^I\mapsto a_{\alpha }^I+{\partial }_{\alpha }{\Lambda }^I$, the Chern--Simons term changes bybecause the contraction with two commuting derivatives vanishes. The source term changes byCurrent conservation removes the last term, so

The labels X and Y cannot be uniquely assigned from the surviving text: their decay vertices and daughter tracks were contained in the missing figure. The available conservation laws nevertheless specify how the assignment would be obtained.

The initial ${\pi }^{-}p$ state has $(Q,B,S)=(0,1,0)$, with $S$ denoting strangeness. At a primary strong interaction vertex all three numbers must be reproduced. A final Lambda baryon or Sigma baryon has $B=1$, $S=-1$ and therefore needs accompanying $S=+1$, for example a neutral kaon $K^0=d\bar{s}$ or a positive kaon $K^{+}=u\bar{s}$, with the remaining electric charge balanced. At later weak interaction decay vertices, strangeness need not be conserved; it would be wrong to enforce it there.

A displaced $p{\pi }^{-}$ pair with the appropriate invariant mass identifies ${\Lambda }^0\to p{\pi }^{-}$. A displaced ${\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ pair can identify $K_S^0\to {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-}$ after an invariant mass and kinematic check. For a candidate radiative Sigma-to-Lambda transition, the neutral parent satisfiesin natural units. Its photon energy in the parent rest frame is $(m_{\Sigma }^2-m_{\Lambda }^2)/(2m_{\Sigma })$. With known charged four-momenta, each unobserved neutral momentum is the difference between the incoming and visible outgoing momenta at its vertex; its inferred direction must agree with the dashed segment.

This information cannot establish which dashed segment was called X. For a concrete ambiguity, bothobey the primary electric charge, baryon number, and strangeness constraints and can yield a neutral kaon decay plus a displaced Lambda baryon decay. Their distinct neutral segments and the extra photon would be resolved by the missing topology and kinematics. The supplied possible Sigma baryon decay alone is insufficient to label X and Y. A labelled answer is therefore a source gap, rather than a completed identification.

The three on-shell spatial momenta have nine components. Four conservation constraints leave five, and an unobserved overall spatial rotation removes three for the scalar decay, leaving two internal kinematic variables. The pair invariants obeyThus two determine the third. They also determine each rest-frame daughter energy,and hence all momentum magnitudes and pairwise angles. The momentum triangle is fixed up to overall orientation. The Dalitz plot describes this internal kinematics, rather than claiming to record three independently oriented Four-vectors. Polarized parents or additional measured spin information can require orientation variables beyond the two invariant axes.

The deductive-nomological model represents an explanation as a valid deduction of an event description from scientific laws and particular circumstances. In the schemathe premises are the explanans and $E$ the explanandum. At least one law must be essential to the derivation, the premises must have empirical content, and a correct explanation must have true premises. Carl Hempel and Paul Oppenheim distinguish these adequacy requirements from merely giving a valid argument. Their developed 1948 analysis concerns deductive explanation; its name should not be extended without qualification to every statistical explanation.^[ref]

The model captures something valuable. For an ideal simple harmonic oscillator, the equation of motion $m\ddot{x}=-kx$, a positive mass $m$, a positive spring constant $k$ and non-equilibrium initial conditions determine a periodThe derivation explains why the period changes with those parameters within the model. It is not just the report that an oscillation occurred. Since a real spring may have damping or nonlinear response, applying the explanation requires justification of the approximation. The model's truth condition cannot turn an idealized calculation into a literally exact account of every laboratory spring.

The account is not sufficient to settle explanatory direction. For a vertical pole of height $h$ on level ground, a solar elevation angle $0<\theta <\pi /2$ and parallel light rays give a shadow length $\ell =h\cot \theta$. Given $h$ and $\theta$, one can deduce $\ell$; given $\ell$ and $\theta$, one can equally deduce $h$. Both calculations can use the same true optical and geometrical assumptions. Yet normally the pole and illumination explain the shadow, whereas measuring the shadow provides evidence about the pole's height. Deducibility does not distinguish this evidential inference from a causal explanation. This is the problem of explanatory asymmetry.

Nor is strict deduction necessary for every good physical explanation. A radioactive decay model can explain a sample's decay rate and the chance of a nucleus decaying in a specified interval, while not entailing which particular nucleus decays first. The exponential distribution supplies a controlled statistical account. Adding the observed result as a premise would permit a deduction but would not supply the missing explanation. An inductive-statistical model is a different proposal, and even that needs an account of which statistical information is relevant.

These objections do not show that every explanation must instead recount a sequence of causes. Explanations based on conservation laws or symmetry can constrain a phenomenon without specifying a detailed mechanism. The important point is that the role of the premises, the question being asked and the relevant dependence matter, in addition to logical consequence. The deductive-nomological model is a useful pattern for some physical explanations, but it is not an adequate necessary-and-sufficient account of explanation throughout the physical sciences.

Integral conservation. Electric charge cannot be created by ordinary transport. For a fixed volume $V$, outward current reduces the enclosed charge:Here ${\rho }_e$ has units $\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $\mathbf{J}$ has units $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. Applying the divergence theorem to an arbitrary volume gives the local continuity equationIt is local charge conservation: a net outflow must be accompanied by depletion. In a steady state, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$. Integrating over a small circuit junction then gives Kirchhoff's current law. During a transient the junction can accumulate charge and the incoming and outgoing conduction currents need not yet match.

Consistency with Maxwell's equations. In vacuum, take the divergence of the Ampère-Maxwell equation:Gauss's law, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}={\rho }_e/{ϵ}_0$, reproduces the continuity equation. The displacement current term makes these equations consistent for time-dependent charge distributions, such as a charging capacitor. It is not a stream of free charges across the insulating gap. In matter, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D}={\rho }_f$ and $\nabla \times \mathbf{H}={\mathbf{J}}_f+{\partial }_t\mathbf{D}$ give the analogous conservation law for free charge; total charge also includes bound charge.

In Lagrangian mechanics, generalized coordinates $q_i$ describe the independent configurations allowed by the constraints. For particles with ordinary conservative forces in an inertial frame, use $L=T-V$, with kinetic energy $T$ and potential energy $V$. Holonomic constraints can often be built into the coordinates, avoiding explicit constraint forces.

The principle of stationary action makes the action $\mathcal{S}={\int }_{t_1}^{t_2}L(q,\dot{q},t)dt$ stationary for variations vanishing at the endpoints. Integrating the velocity variation by parts givesSince each independent variation is arbitrary, the Euler-Lagrange equations areIf nonconservative generalized forces are present, their components appear on the right. The formalism is invariant under suitable coordinate changes and adding a total time derivative to $L$ leaves the fixed-endpoint equations unchanged.

The generalized momentum is $p_i=\partial L/\partial {\dot{q}}_i$. If $q_i$ is cyclic, $\partial L/\partial q_i=0$ and $p_i$ is conserved. If $L$ has no explicit time dependence, the conserved energy function isFor a kinetic energy quadratic in velocities and a velocity-independent potential energy, this equals $T+V$. This connects symmetry to conservation laws.

For example, a simple pendulum of mass $m$ and length $\ell$ hasIts tension does not appear because the fixed-length constraint is already imposed. Expanding for small $\theta$ gives simple harmonic motion with $\omega =\sqrt{g/\ell }$. More generally, expansion of $T$ and $V$ to quadratic order about a stable equilibrium leads directly to the normal-mode eigenvalue problem.

The Hamiltonian operator is invariant under the constant global phase symmetry $\psi \mapsto e^{i\theta }\psi$, $\bar{\psi }\mapsto \bar{\psi }{e}^{-i\theta }$. The Noether current of this unitary group $U(1)$ is the Dirac current obtained in b. For fields with vanishing flux at infinity, or periodic boundary conditions, the divergence theorem and that continuity equation implyThe canonical anticommutation relations also give $[Q,\psi ]=-\psi$ and $[Q,{\psi }^{†}]={\psi }^{†}$, hence $e^{i\theta Q}\psi e^{-i\theta Q}=e^{-i\theta }\psi$. Reversing the parameter sign recovers the stated phase convention. Thus $Q$ generates the global phase symmetry. With normal ordering, $Q$ counts fermions minus antiparticles, rather than the sum of both populations. Its conservation law is Dirac fermion number conservation. A position-dependent phase produces derivative terms in this free Hamiltonian operator; the symmetry under discussion is global.

Combine the two equal-mass Dirac fields into $\Psi =({\psi }^1,{\psi }^2{)}^T$. A constant unitary matrix $U$ acting on this flavour index commutes with the common Dirac Hamiltonian, so $\Psi \mapsto U\Psi$ gives the unitary flavour symmetry of degenerate Dirac fields $U(2)$. Its real Lie algebra has dimension four. A convenient Hermitian generator basis is $T^0=1_2/2$, $T^a={\tau }^a/2$, $a=1,2,3$, where ${\tau }^a$ are the Pauli matrices.

For each generator the canonical anticommutation relations giveThe calculation is exactly the one in b, since $T^A$ commutes with both the Dirac gamma matrices and the common fermion mass matrix. ThusExplicitly their densities areThe two off-diagonal conserved currents are why counting only the individual fermion numbers misses two generators. The singlet generates $U(1)$; the other three generate special unitary group $SU(2)$. Unequal masses would break the off-diagonal conservation laws.

Scope of the count. Four is the count of currents of the displayed ${\bar{\psi }}^A{\gamma }^{\mu }{T}_{AB}{\psi }^B$ form. The completely free system also has an enhanced internal symmetry of free Dirac fields if mixing with charge-conjugate fields is admitted. For $m\ne 0$, write its two Dirac fields as four equal-mass Majorana spinors ${\chi }^I$. Their orthogonal group $O(4)$ rotations have six continuous generators, with conserved currents proportional to $i{\bar{\chi }}^I{\gamma }^{\mu }{\chi }^J$ for $I<J$; the four $U(2)$ currents form a subgroup. This larger count is relevant if “similar” means all local internal currents of the free system, without preserving a chosen fermion number. If $m=0$, the usual number-preserving chiral flavour symmetry of massless Dirac fields is $U(2{)}_L\times U(2{)}_R$ with eight currents; allowing charge conjugation mixing enlarges it to $U(4)$ with sixteen. These counts concern internal currents, excluding spacetime Noether currents.

Write the shock as $x=s(t)$ and let the plus trace be on $x>s(t)$. Locally its discontinuous part can be represented with the Heaviside factor $H(x-s(t))$. Distributional differentiation gives ${\partial }_{t}H=-s^{\prime }(t)\delta (x-s(t))$ and ${\partial }_{x}H=\delta (x-s(t))$. The singular part of the conservation law is thereforeIt must vanish, so the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions areThe smooth parts of the fields still satisfy the classical conservation law on each side. The jump condition ensures that the moving discontinuity creates no extra source of the conserved quantities.

If the fields are continuously differentiable and obey the pointwise conservation law, integration by parts against a compactly supported test function gives the weak identity, with no boundary terms. Conversely, integrate the weak identity by parts for a continuously differentiable field:for every test function. The fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations, applied to each component, makes the continuous integrand vanish at every point. Hence the classical and weak formulations are equivalent for continuously differentiable fields.

A weak solution is a field $\mathbf{u}$ for which the composed densities $\mathbf{P}(x,t,\mathbf{u})$ and fluxes $\mathbf{Q}(x,t,\mathbf{u})$ are locally integrable andfor every smooth compactly supported vector test function $\mathbf{\phi }$ in the spacetime domain. This is the distributional form of the conservation law, obtained by moving derivatives onto the test function. If tests are allowed to meet an initial boundary $t=0$, the specified initial density contributes the additional term $\int \mathbf{P}(x,0,{\mathbf{u}}_0)\cdot \mathbf{\phi }(x,0)dx$ in the usual initial-value formulation.

Noether's theorem associates a continuous one-parameter differentiable symmetry of the action with an on-shell conserved current. If a first-derivative Lagrangian density varies by $\delta \mathcal{L}={\partial }_{\mu }{B}^{\mu }$, the current is $J^{\mu }={\mathcal{L}}_{{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi }\delta \varphi -B^{\mu }$. The integral of $J^0$ is conserved when the spatial boundary flux vanishes. This connects symmetries to conservation laws; time translation, spatial translation and internal phase symmetry furnish familiar examples.

For the strict fixed-coordinate invariance in the question, $B^{\mu }=0$. In one space dimension, integration by parts at the density level givesThe bracket vanishes by the field equation. Thus $\delta \mathcal{L}=0$ yieldsIn four spacetime dimensions the same identity gives ${\partial }_{\mu }{J}^{\mu }=0$ with $J^{\mu }={\mathcal{L}}_{{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi }\delta \varphi$. In particular, for the usual scalar kinetic term the spatial current has the minus sign inherited from ${\partial }^i=-{\partial }_i$.

For the quartic density in $n$ dimensions,To evaluate the displayed dilation current, abbreviate $S=({\partial }_{\mu }\varphi )({\partial }^{\mu }\varphi )$ and $D=x^{\nu }{\partial }_{\nu }$. Product differentiation givesHere $D(S/2)=(D{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi ){\partial }^{\mu }\varphi$ makes the differentiated kinetic terms cancel, and $D(\lambda {\varphi }^4)=4\lambda {\varphi }^{3}D\varphi$. On shell, the on-shell divergence of a quartic scalar dilation current reduces toHence this current is conserved for generic solutions in four spacetime dimensions. Special field configurations with vanishing density do not alter the generic dimensional statement.

The subtraction $-x^{\mu }\mathcal{L}$ has a symmetry explanation: for $\delta \varphi =\varphi +D\varphi$, direct variation gives $\delta \mathcal{L}=D\mathcal{L}+4\mathcal{L}={\partial }_{\mu }(x^{\mu }\mathcal{L})+(4-n)\mathcal{L}$. At $n=4$ the action is invariant up to a boundary term, so $B^{\mu }=x^{\mu }\mathcal{L}$. Strict invariance of the density is not required. This is a classical result; no claim about quantum scale invariance is needed.

Adding a constant to ${\psi }_y$ changes neither its time nor space derivatives, so the action is invariant. The associated Noether density and flux areThe wave equation gives ${\partial }_t{j}_y^0+{\partial }_x{j}_y^x=0$. ThereforeThis is total physical transverse momentum. It is conserved for a whole isolated infinite string with vanishing boundary flux, periodic boundary conditions, or endpoints exerting no net transverse force. For a finite subsystem momentum can flow through its ends, and fixed supports can exchange momentum with the string. Thus the local conservation law always holds in this model, while constancy of the integrated charge requires the stated boundary condition.