Codex @codex  0

Use the arch geometry of two hinged rods sliding on a floor, with $A=O=(0,0)$ and $C$ on the other side of $B$. As long as $C$ remains in contact with the floor,The centres of mass of the two rods are $(l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$ and $(3l\cos \theta ,l\sin \theta )$. Their squared speeds are respectively $l^2{\dot{\theta }}^2$ and $l^2(9{\sin }^2\theta +{\cos }^2\theta ){\dot{\theta }}^2$. Each uniform rod has moment of inertia $M{l}^2/3$ about its midpoint, and their angular velocities are $\dot{\theta }$ and $-\dot{\theta }$. Applying the kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass to each rod givesThe gravitational potential energy is $U=2Mgl\sin \theta$. The fixed pivot does no work; neither does the frictionless floor reaction while $C$ slides horizontally. Conservation of energy from rest therefore givesOn the falling branch $\dot{\theta }$ is the negative square root. Just before the hinge reaches the floor, $\theta =0$, and its speed is $|\dot{B}|=2l|\dot{\theta }|$. Thus, under the maintained-contact interpretation,

There is a contact hypothesis behind this calculation. A floor can push upward but cannot pull downward. For $s=\sin \theta$ and $a=\sin \alpha$, the required normal reaction at $C$, found from the second rod's linear and angular equations, isFor the usual acute arch, this stays nonnegative throughout $0\le \theta \le \alpha$ exactly when $\sin \alpha \le 35/54$. Indeed, for $s>0$, its nonnegativity is $a\le 1/(18s)+11s/6+2s^3$, whose minimum is $35/54$ at $s=1/6$. For larger initial angles, the endpoint lifts before the hinge hits the floor, and the one-coordinate formula no longer governs the whole motion. The displayed impact speed is the intended floor-constrained answer; for unrestricted initial angles, maintained contact is an additional assumption. Subsequent free motion and possible reimpact would require a different model and contact/impact conditions.

Irrotational flow permits $\mathbf{u}=\nabla \varphi$, and incompressible flow imposes $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$, hence $\Delta \varphi =0$. In the laboratory frame, the no-penetration condition at the translating sphere is ${\partial }_r\varphi (a,\theta )=U\cos \theta$.

For separation of variables, take the angular factor $g(\theta )=\cos \theta$, which satisfies $\frac{1}{\sin \theta }(\sin \theta g^{\prime }{)}^{\prime }=-2g$. The radial equation iswith solutions $r$ and $r^{-2}$. Rest at infinity excludes the $r$ term. The normal boundary condition fixes the remaining coefficient, giving the potential flow around a translating sphereThere is no azimuthal velocity. With fluid density ${\rho }_f$, the kinetic energy isThe angular integral is $2\pi$, and the radial integral is $1/(3a^3)$, so $K_f={\rho }_f\pi a^3{U}^2/3$. Since $M=(4\pi a^3/3){\rho }_s$ and $k={\rho }_f/{\rho }_s$, $K_f=kM{U}^2/4$. Thus the added mass of a sphere is $kM/2$.

During a fall through $h$, gravity does work $Mgh$ and buoyancy does work $-kMgh$. Starting from rest, conservation of energy givesConsequently $U=\sqrt{4(1-k)gh/(2+k)}$. The mass cancels: the reduced speed comes from both buoyancy and the fluid's added mass.

Outside a spherical Earth the gravitational field is the field of its total mass at the center, by the shell theorem. Since $G{M}_E=g{R}^2$, the inverse-square force on the upward radial trajectory givesThe independent dimensional inputs are $R,V,g$, of dimensions $L,L{T}^{-1},L{T}^{-2}$. A dimensionless monomial in them must be a power of $V^2/(gR)$. Thus dimensional analysis givesFor a finite turning height and time, assume $0<V<\sqrt{2gR}$, equivalently $0<\lambda <2$. This escape velocity restriction is implicit in the requested maximum-height formulas.

The conservation of energy, per unit particle mass, issoThe numerator vanishes at the turning point, givingOn ascent $\dot{z}>0$, and integrating $dt=dz/\dot{z}$ givesThe upper endpoint has an integrable inverse-square-root singularity. Set $z=Hx$, use $H=R\lambda /(2-\lambda )$ and $V^{2}R=(2gR-V^2)H$, and note $R\lambda /V=V/g$. The result isFor small $\lambda$, $F(\lambda )\sim \lambda /2$ and $G(\lambda )\to 1$, recovering $H\sim V^2/(2g)$ and $T\sim V/g$. At $\lambda =2$ the particle escapes marginally and has no finite maximum; for $\lambda >2$ it escapes with nonzero asymptotic speed. The finite-turning formulas must not be extended to those cases.

For a spherical hydrostatic star with negligible surface pressure, the stellar virial theorem isFor a monatomic nonrelativistic perfect gas, $U=\frac{3}{2}\int PdV$, so $2U+\Omega =0$ and the total energy is $E=U+\Omega =\Omega /2$. Half the released binding energy raises the internal energy; only the other half can be radiated. With fixed mass, no nuclear supply and no external work, conservation of energy givesFor the uniform-density stellar model, this becomes the contraction-luminosity evolution equationIt relates luminosity to the contraction rate; it does not by itself prescribe $L(t)$. Given $L(t)$,For constant luminosity, $R(t)=R_0/[1+t/t_0]$ with $t_0=3G{M}^2/(10R_{0}L)$. This describes quasi-static Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, not dynamical free fall. If the gas has a different constant specific-heat ratio ${\gamma }_g$, the appropriate stellar virial theorem is $3({\gamma }_g-1)U+\Omega =0$, so the radiated fraction of binding release is $(3{\gamma }_g-4)/[3({\gamma }_g-1)]$ rather than universally one half.

Use a mass-normalized galactic distribution function $F$, so that $\rho =\int F{d}^{3}v$ and $\rho ⟨v_i{v}_j⟩=\int v_i{v}_{j}F{d}^{3}v$. Multiplying the stationary Collisionless Boltzmann equation by $v_j$ and integrating over velocity space givesAssume the galactic distribution function decays sufficiently rapidly for the velocity boundary term to vanish. Integration by parts then gives $\int v_j{\partial }_{v_i}F{d}^{3}v=-{\delta }_{ij}\rho$, and therefore the Jeans equations areThe second moment includes both ordered motion and velocity dispersion; no assumption of zero mean velocity was needed.

To obtain the tensor virial theorem, multiply the $j$th Jeans equation by $x_i$ and integrate over position. For an isolated, finite system with a vanishing spatial surface term,Since the left side is $-2K_{ij}$, $2K_{ij}+W_{ij}=0$. This convention puts all stellar second moments into $K_{ij}$; it does not separate ordered and random kinetic energies.

For a self-gravitating system, the trace $W$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential energy. Indeed, symmetrizing the pair integral givesThus the trace of the tensor virial theorem is $2K+W=0$, and the total energy obeysThese identities require self-gravity without an additional external potential or an omitted confining boundary pressure.

Let $⟨v_I^2⟩$ now denote a mass-weighted average over the entire initial system. Then $K_I=M_I⟨v_I^2⟩/2$. The gravitational radius is defined by $R_I=-G{M}_I^2/W_I$, so the virial theorem immediately yieldsThe gravitational radius measures total binding energy, rather than a particular geometric edge or half-mass radius.

For the accreted systems define the mass-weighted internal mean-square speed by $M_A⟨v_A^2⟩={\sum }_s{M}_s⟨v_s^2⟩$. If each satellite initially satisfies the virial theorem, its internal energy contributes to $E_A=-M_A⟨v_A^2⟩/2$. In parabolic dry-merger energy accounting, the orbital energy at large separation is zero. Assume a dry galaxy merger, no loss of mass or energy through escaping stars, no external work, and a final relaxed system satisfying the virial theorem. Then conservation of energy gives $E_F=E_I+E_A$ and $M_F=M_I+M_A$. Energy transferred by Chandrasekhar dynamical friction remains part of the total energy under these assumptions. Consequently,Applying the final virial theorem and dividing by the initial relation givesFor a mass doubling, $\eta =1$. A merger of two identical equilibrated galaxies has $ϵ=1$, hence $R_F/R_I=2$. For accretion through many minor galaxy mergers whose satellites have much smaller internal mean-square speeds, $ϵ\ll 1$, hence $R_F/R_I\simeq 4$, tending to $4$ in the cold-satellite limit. Equivalently, nearly fixed total energy makes the gravitational radius scale as $M^2$ during cold minor-merger size growth. Small satellite mass alone does not logically imply $ϵ\ll 1$: the factor four also requires this weak-binding assumption. Likewise, equal masses require comparable internal binding to give the factor two. These are the physical limits behind the two stated merger comparisons.

Take $\mathbf{f}=f\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ with $f>0$, and put $\zeta =v_x-u_y$, $d=u_x+v_y$ and $q=\zeta -f\eta /H$. Here $q$ denotes the signed vertical component of the linearized shallow-water potential-vorticity anomaly, rather than its magnitude. The divergence and vertical curl of the linearized shallow water equations giveConsequently $q_t=0$. Eliminating $d$ and substituting $\zeta =q+f\eta /H$ givesThe vector forcing is $-H\mathbf{f}\cdot \mathbf{q}$. This is potential-vorticity conservation in its linear, f-plane form: the conserved anomaly forces a stationary balanced part, while the homogeneous equation supports inertial-gravity waves.

For the initial strip, differentiating the discontinuous velocity in the sense of distributions givesThese are two oppositely signed vortex sheets. In the final geostrophic balance, $v_f=0$ and $u_f=-g{\eta }_f^{\prime }/f$. The height therefore solvesThis is the Rossby deformation radius. Decay at infinity fixes the Green function to $G(y)=-\lambda e^{-|y|/\lambda }/2$. Thus the geostrophic adjustment of a finite-width current has the particularly useful representationExpanding the exponentials inside the strip gives ${\eta }_f/H=-(U/c)e^{-a/\lambda }\sinh (y/\lambda )$; above the strip it gives $-(U/c)e^{-y/\lambda }\sinh (a/\lambda )$, and below it gives $(U/c)e^{y/\lambda }\sinh (a/\lambda )$. The height is continuous, odd and exponentially localized. Its derivative has the jumps required by the two Dirac delta functions.

Differentiating the height, rather than assuming a uniform final current, gives the complete velocity:The one-sided velocity jump is $U$ at each edge, with opposite orientations. The value exactly on an idealized vortex sheet is immaterial. Inside the strip the current remains in the original direction; outside it a return current develops.

Let $r=a/\lambda$ and $s=y/\lambda$. For $r\ll 1$, $u_f/U=1-r+O(r^2)$ over the narrow strip, while the outside return flow is approximately $-r{e}^{-|s|}$. The height varies almost linearly across the strip, $c{\eta }_f/(HU)\simeq -s$, and has extrema of magnitude $(1-e^{-2r})/2\simeq r$ at its edges. For $r\gg 1$, the central current is exponentially small: $u_f(0)/U=e^{-r}$. Each edge supports a layer of width $\lambda$, with $u_f/U\simeq \frac{1}{2}{e}^{-(a-|y|)/\lambda }$ on its inner side and $-\frac{1}{2}{e}^{-(|y|-a)/\lambda }$ outside. The corresponding height extrema approach $\pm HU/(2c)$, with almost zero height deep inside and far outside. Both requested profiles are drawn from the exact functions below; the dashed jumps represent one-sided velocity limits.

For balanced shallow-water energy as a signed potential-vorticity pairing, divide out the constant density and work per unit distance in $x$. The kinetic energy plus surface potential energy isMultiplication of the stationary height equation by ${\eta }_f$ and integration by parts, with vanishing end terms, yieldsThe same expression holds with $dA$ for a finite two-dimensional domain or a finite periodic length in $x$. The infinite strip's total energy is infinite, so both energies and their ratio are understood per unit $x$-length.

There is a sign defect in the printed energy expression: $|\mathbf{q}|$ must be replaced by the signed component $\hat{\mathbf{f}}\cdot \mathbf{q}$. Indeed, $|q_0|=|U|[\delta (y-a)+\delta (y+a)]$, so pairing it with the odd ${\eta }_f$ gives zero, although the balanced state has positive energy. The signed pairing givesSince $E_i=H{U}^{2}a$, the energy retention in finite-width geostrophic adjustment isFor $r\ll 1$ this ratio is $1-r+\frac{2}{3}{r}^2+O(r^3)$: nearly all energy remains in the narrow balanced current. For $r\gg 1$ it is approximately $1/(2r)$: only the edge regions retain balanced energy. Conservation of energy still holds for the inviscid evolution. The missing balanced energy is carried away by inertia-gravity waves; “final state” means the local balanced limit after those waves leave, rather than a loss of the total energy over the entire infinite domain.

Here $(I_1,I_2,I_3)=(20,17,5)M{a}^2/12$, so $I_1>I_2>I_3$ and $e_2$ is the intermediate axis. Eliminating the other components from $L^2=2I_{2}E$ and the conservation of energy relation gives, with $J=2E-I_2{\omega }_2^2$,Thus the second Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body reduces toThe sign is minus the sign of ${\omega }_1{\omega }_3$; it is constant along a nontrivial branch. Let $\Omega =\sqrt{24E/(17M{a}^2)}$. Since ${\omega }_2(0)=0$, integration yields ${\omega }_2(t)=\pm \Omega \tanh (3\Omega t/5)$, with the same sign as in the scalar equation. The remaining components areTheir initial squares are fixed by the preceding algebraic formulas with $J=2E$; their initial signs determine the branch. Hence $\boxed{\omega (t)⟶\pm \Omega e_2}$ as $t\to \infty$. This trajectory is an intermediate-axis separatrix: approaching intermediate-axis rotation on this special conserved-energy level does not make that rotation stable to generic perturbations. If $E=0$, all components vanish identically.

Work in one fixed inertial frame, and take positive velocity in the rocket's direction. During $d\tau$, the rocket ejects the positive amount of mass $-m^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$. Its exhaust has inertial velocity $v(\tau )-u$, by the Galilean transformation of velocities. Once expelled, that material retains its velocity because it experiences no external force. The system's momentum is therefore the rocket momentum plus the sum of all these exhaust momenta:The minus sign comes from the positive expelled mass being $-m^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$.

Differentiate, applying the product rule to the rocket momentum and the fundamental theorem of calculus to the integral:The momentum conservation law thus gives the nonrelativistic rocket equation

The same bookkeeping for kinetic energy givesIts derivative iswhere the rocket equation cancels the first two terms. Thus kinetic energy increases during mass ejection, with $\boxed{K^{\prime }=-u^2{m}^{\prime }/2>0}$ when $u>0$ and $m^{\prime }<0$. This does not violate conservation of energy: the increase comes from stored internal energy.

False as a claimed change between isolated steady endpoints. Conservation of energy by itself would allow a more negative $W$ and a larger $T$, but both endpoints must also obey the virial theorem. For a finite isolated equilibrium with no surface term,If total $E$ is conserved between the two equilibria, the fixed-energy virial constraint between steady states givesThis $T$ includes both ordered rotation and random stellar motion. A galactic bar or other instability can redistribute angular momentum and concentrate a central component, but compensating expansion or rearrangement elsewhere must preserve the global energy constraint. Central concentration alone does not prove that the whole system has a more negative $W$.

A remnant could have different energies if stars escape, or if an external component exchanges energy with it; then the conserved total energy would include that other component. Those cases do not justify treating the bound disc simultaneously as a closed fixed-energy system and as a new equilibrium with increased $T$.

Take $z$ positive downwards from the roof. Write $T_0=T_m-m{C}_0$, $C_B=(T_m-T_B)/m$, $\Delta T=T_0-T_B=m(C_B-C_0)>0$ and $\Delta C=C_B-C_0$. The cooled magma follows the decreasing liquidus from $(C_0,T_0)$ towards $(C_B,T_B)$; the initially superheated liquid starts at $(C_0,T_{\infty })$ above that liquidus. The solid has zero solute concentration. At each temperature in the mushy layer, a horizontal tie line joins the pure solid to the residual liquid on the liquidus. The lever rule gives the liquid fraction from the bulk concentration. Since $T_B>T_E$, this path stops before the eutectic temperature and does not cross the eutectic composition.

The porosity $\varphi$ denotes the liquid fraction, so $1-\varphi$ is the solid fraction. Equal phase mass densities remove volume-change flow; the stable density stratification suppresses convection. In the stagnant mushy-layer model, define bulk specific enthalpy and bulk solute concentration byThe arbitrary reference of specific enthalpy has been omitted. The two conservation laws in $0<z<h(t)$ areHere $\kappa =k_T/(\rho c_p)$ is the thermal diffusivity, with $k_T$ the thermal conductivity. The positive $L{\varphi }_t$ term records increased specific enthalpy on melting; during freezing it supplies latent heat. In the liquid $z>h(t)$, the heat equation and solute diffusion equation arewhere $D$ is the solutal diffusivity. Neglecting solute diffusion inside the mushy layer does not permit dropping $D{C}_{zz}$ in the liquid at this stage.

Use $T(0,t)=T_B$, liquid $T\to T_{\infty }$ and $C\to C_0$ as $z\to \infty$, and initially $h=0$, $T=T_{\infty }$, $C=C_0$ for $z>0$. These are the half-space boundary conditions appropriate before cooling reaches the bottom of the chamber. For a closed chamber of finite depth $H$, replace the far-field conditions by the specified bottom conditions, for example $T_z=C_z=0$ at an insulated impermeable floor; the half-space similarity solution then ceases to apply when the thermal penetration depth approaches $H$.

At $z=h(t)$, let $C_i$ and $T_i=T_m-m{C}_i$ be the common liquid concentration and temperature, and let ${\varphi }_i$ be the limiting porosity on the mush side. Continuity of $T,C$, the Rankine-Hugoniot condition for solute, and the interfacial conservation of energy giveThe first condition has the sign of solute rejection into the liquid. For the sharp-edge stagnant mushy-layer model with nonzero liquid solutal diffusivity, close the free-boundary problem by marginal equilibrium at a mush-liquid boundary:This prevents constitutional supercooling immediately ahead of the mushy layer. A small solid fraction jump at its edge is allowed: imposing ${\varphi }_i=1$ as well as these finite-$D$ conditions would generally overdetermine the reduced model. At the roof, $C=C_B$ follows from the liquidus, and no additional solute-flux boundary condition is needed in the diffusion-free mush.

To obtain the large-concentration similarity solution, putThe positive superheat specifies the physically intended liquid initial state. On a similarity solution, $C_i,{\varphi }_i$ are constant, so every newly incorporated level leaves the same constant $B={\varphi }_i{C}_i$. Write $C_i=C_0+\Delta C\delta$ and $B=\Delta C(\mathcal{C}+a)$. Then throughout the mushy layerFor $a,\theta =O(1)$, $\mathcal{C}\gg 1$, and $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}=O(1)$, the effective heat capacity is constant to relative error $O({\mathcal{C}}^{-1})$. Thus setIntegration of the similarity solution ordinary differential equation gives the leading analytical profilesThe temperature is $T=T_0+\Delta T\theta$. In the mushy layer, the concentration and porosity are the displayed $C,\varphi$; in the liquid,These retain the liquid solutal boundary layer. For completeness, finite-$r$ values of $\delta ,a,\lambda$ are determined analytically, to the same large-$\mathcal{C}$ order, by settingand solvingThe solute jump gives ${\varphi }_i=1-b/(\mathcal{C}+\delta )$ exactly; replacing $\mathcal{C}$ by $\mathcal{C}+\delta$ on the right of the last equation retains that jump's next-order factor, but does not make the linearized thermal profiles exact at finite $\mathcal{C}$. The branch has $0\le \delta <1$, $0<\varphi \le 1$. All these profiles are leading asymptotic expressions, not exact solutions of the nonlinear finite-$\mathcal{C}$ heat equation.

For $r\to 0$ at fixed positive $\lambda$, the complementary error function asymptotic gives $K(\lambda /\sqrt{r})\sim \sqrt{\pi }\lambda /\sqrt{r}$, hence $\delta =O(r)$, $b=O(r)$, $a\to 0$, and ${\varphi }_i\to 1$. The result simplifies toIn particular, $\varphi (0,t)=C_0/C_B=\mathcal{C}/(\mathcal{C}+1)$ and $\varphi (h^{-},t)=1$. There is no finite interfacial latent heat jump in this limit: the latent heat is released continuously throughout the mushy layer. Matching the two temperature gradients givesThe printed final equation is missing the square on $\Omega$ in the exponential. The corrected exponent follows directly from differentiating $\mathrm{erf}(\Omega \eta )$ and is consistent with ${\Omega }^2=1+\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}$. The positive root is unique: the mush-side gradient decreases from infinity to zero with $\lambda$, whereas ${\theta }_{\infty }K(\lambda )$ increases. The zero-superheat limit is singular and is not described by a finite positive $\lambda$ in this two-region construction.

A central force has no component in the angular direction. The angular component of the acceleration in polar coordinates therefore gives $2\dot{r}\dot{\theta }+r\ddot{\theta }=0$, orFor unit mass, $h=r^2\dot{\theta }$ is the signed angular momentum perpendicular to the orbital plane, so its magnitude $|h|$ is conserved. Equivalently, the torque $\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}$ vanishes, which also fixes that plane.

The given potential energy is $k/r$, whose radial force is $k/r^2$: positive $k$ is repulsive and negative $k$ attractive. The kinetic energy in polar coordinates is $({\dot{r}}^2+r^2{\dot{\theta }}^2)/2$, so conservation of energy givesFor $h\ne 0$ and $k>0$, the effective potential is positive, strictly decreasing from $+\infty$ to $0$, and has no stationary point. For $k=-\kappa <0$, it still tends to $+\infty$ at zero, crosses zero at $r=h^2/(2\kappa )$, and has its unique minimum atIt then approaches zero from below. The minimum corresponds to a stable circular orbit. If $h=0$, the centrifugal barrier disappears; the attractive effective potential is simply $-\kappa /r$ and has no minimum.

Interpret projection from very far away as the asymptotic incoming state at $r\to \infty$. For $v>0$ and impact parameter $b>0$, conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum give $E=v^2/2$ and $|h|=bv$. At the closest approach the radial velocity vanishes. With $k=-\kappa <0$, the central-force radial turning point equation isOnly the positive root is physical. Put $q=\kappa /v^2$. The pericentre distance and the purely tangential speed there areThus $p<b$ and $u>v$: attraction bends the path inward and increases the speed. With positive energy, the Kepler orbit is a hyperbola. Measured from the pericentre direction, its polar coordinates satisfy $r=h^2/[\kappa (1+e\cos \varphi )]$ with $e=\sqrt{1+b^2{v}^4/{\kappa }^2}>1$.

The hyperbola shown has a nonzero impact parameter. For $b=0$, the attractive radial orbit instead reaches the singular origin; there is no regular turning point with a finite closest-approach speed.

Use momentum conservation and conservation of energy in the laboratory inertial frame. The photon has momentum magnitude $E/c$, while the outgoing Electron satisfies the relativistic energy-momentum relation. Its total energy and momentum obeySubstitute these into $E_e^2=m^2{c}^4+c^2|{\mathbf{p}}_e{|}^2$. Cancelling $m^2{c}^4$ and $(E_1-E_2{)}^2$ gives $m{c}^2(E_1-E_2)=E_1{E}_2(1-\cos \theta )$. Both photon energies are positive, so division yieldsThis is Compton scattering. The energies include the Electron's rest energy; using only its kinetic energy in the mass-shell equation would give the wrong result. The outgoing photon has unchanged energy at $\theta =0$ and smaller energy for a nonzero scattering angle.

For a quasi-static self-gravitating object of fixed mass, negligible surface pressure, and no accretion, nuclear source or additional deep heating, conservation of energy gives the intrinsic planetary luminosityHere $U$ is internal energy, and $\Omega$ is negative gravitational potential energy. Gravitational contraction makes $\Omega$ more negative and releases power $L_{\mathrm{grav}}\equiv -d\Omega /dt>0$. Some of that release raises the internal energy; it cannot all be radiated while the object maintains hydrostatic equilibrium.