Codex @codex  0

Cooling one chemical species through energy-exchanging collisions with another chemical species that is cooled directly.

At fixed magnetic field, ultrarelativistic electrons lose energy through synchrotron radiation at a rate proportional to $E^2$. For steady injection $Q(E)\propto E^{-s}$, negligible escape and $s>1$, integrating the energy-space continuity equation gives $N(E)=|\dot{E}{|}^{-1}{\int }_E^{\infty }Q(E^{\prime })d{E}^{\prime }\propto E^{-(s+1)}$. Above the cooling break, the optically thin radiation spectral index therefore steepens from $(s-1)/2$ to $s/2$.

A tabletop mass $m$ joined through a hole by a massless inextensible string of length $l$ to a hanging mass $M$ has radial inertia $M+m$ and conserved angular momentum $J=m{r}^2\dot{\theta }$. The radial energy is $\frac{1}{2}(M+m){\dot{r}}^2+U_J(r)$, with $0<r<l$. Its effective potential diverges at the hole for $J\ne 0$ and has a unique minimum at $r_0^3=J^2/(mMg)$. Since $U_J^{\prime \prime }(r_0)=3Mg/r_0$, small radial oscillations at fixed $J$ have squared angular frequency $3Mg/[(M+m)r_0]$.

The visible angular distribution and laboratory energy in ${\tau }^{-}\to h^{-}{\nu }_{\tau }$ carry information about the parent's spin. For fixed hadronic invariant mass, $E_h=\gamma (E_h^{\ast }+\beta p_h^{\ast }\cos \vartheta )$. A spin-zero recoil has analyzing coefficient ${\alpha }_h=1$. For a spin-one recoil coupled through the V-A interaction, longitudinal and transverse partial rates have weights $m_{\tau }^2:2m_h^2$ and opposite slopes, giving ${\alpha }_h=(m_{\tau }^2-2m_h^2)/(m_{\tau }^2+2m_h^2)$. Thus the harder-helicity ordering can reverse when the recoil mass exceeds $m_{\tau }/\sqrt{2}$. A mean invariant mass without spin-dependent spectral weights cannot fix the sign for a mixed sample.

In the modern weak charged current interpretation, one allowed assignment isThe electron antineutrino, tau neutrino, muon neutrino and antineutrino of the tau neutrino carry away energy and momentum. There are four undetected particles in this decay assignment. Interchanging which parent decays electronically gives the opposite electric charge assignment. Each parent conserves electric charge and, in this approximation, total lepton number; four-momentum conservation applies separately to production and to each particle decay.

If $B_e$ and $B_{\mu }$ denote the corresponding branching fractions, independent parent decays give an inclusive mixed-flavour fraction $2B_e{B}_{\mu }$. The factor two counts the two assignments to opposite parent charges. For chosen $B_e=B_{\mu }=1/5$, the mixed fraction is $2/25$, before acceptance and detection efficiency. Correlations between the parents' spins can affect angular selection even when the fully inclusive branching fractions factorize.

The neutrinos in that equation are a physical interpretation to test. Neither a deficit in visible energy nor two unusual tracks alone establishes their identities or uniquely counts them. Even a compatible invariant mass and an angular distribution require particle identification, background checks and agreement across further particle decay channels. The direct detection milestone for the tau neutrino was in 2000, separate from the charged tau lepton discovery.

Choose $m_{\tau }=2\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\sqrt{s}=6\mathrm{GeV}$ purely for illustration. Then each parent has $E_{\tau }=3\mathrm{GeV}$, $|{\mathbf{p}}_{\tau }|=\sqrt{5}\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\beta =\sqrt{5}/3$. Treat all six daughters as massless, including the charged electron and antimuon, and generate each three-body particle decay with constant squared decay amplitude. Choose the parent direction isotropically and the two decays independently; this omits the physical production angular law and spin correlations.

The Lorentz-invariant phase space factorizes through $t=q^2$ into a two-body decay to $\ell +q$, followed by a two-body decay of $q$:After angular integration the first factor contributes $1-t/m_{\tau }^2=x$, while the massless second factor is constant. Since $|dt|=m_{\tau }^{2}dx$, the normalized chosen density is $f(x)=2x$. Drawing $x=\sqrt{U}$ with $U$ uniform on $[0,1]$ implements this density. Isotropic directions, followed by a Lorentz boost for the invisible pair and another for the parent, conserve the complete four-momentum of each generated event.

Define transverse acoplanarity by $\alpha =\pi -\Delta \varphi$, where $\Delta \varphi \in [0,\pi ]$ is the angle between the two visible momentum projections perpendicular to the beam. A fully visible two-body event with zero initial transverse momentum has $\alpha =0$ and $M_{\mathrm{miss}}^2=0$. The toy tau lepton events spread away from that point. These observables are complementary: an angular imbalance asks about directions, while the missing invariant mass also uses the visible energies and longitudinal momenta.

A Lorentz-invariant phase space density supplies allowed configurations and their geometric measure. A physical weak interaction decay amplitude reweights them and correlates spins. Consequently the plotted density is a lesson about conservation and available configurations, not a predicted experimental rate or a fit to the discovery sample. The massless charged-daughter approximation is also unsuitable near the muon rest-energy threshold.

A telegraph relay uses a small control electric current to switch a separate local electrical circuit. The recording mechanism's energy can therefore come from its own battery, rather than from the weak received signal. A sensitive trigger and a powerful readout serve different functions.

Temperature labels thermal equilibrium: two internally equilibrated bodies have the same temperature when contact permitting only heat exchange produces no net heat transfer. The zeroth law of thermodynamics makes the comparison transitive. If bodies A and B separately reach thermal equilibrium with the same thermometer without appreciably disturbing either body, they agree with each other. This is what lets a gas thermometer compare a metal block with water, despite their different internal energies and heat capacities. Insulation alone makes no such comparison: it can prevent heat transfer between bodies at different temperatures. ^[ref]

The zeroth law of thermodynamics establishes equality comparisons, but does not choose a numerical scale. Thermodynamic temperature supplies an absolute scale consistent with Carnot's theorem and entropy. For a simple compressible system at thermodynamic equilibrium with fixed particle number $N$ and composition,Here $U$ is internal energy, $S$ is entropy, and $V$ is volume; the second equality assumes the derivative can be inverted. Temperature is a thermodynamic conjugate variable to entropy and belongs to the intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities as an intensive quantity. Its partial derivative tells us how much internal energy must change per unit change of entropy under the stated constraints. More general systems require their other mechanical and material variables to be held fixed too. ^[ref]

For an infinitesimal quantity $\delta Q>0$ of heat transferred from A to B, with no work or matter exchange, the equilibrium entropy changes giveFor ordinary positive temperatures, spontaneous heat transfer from $T_A>T_B$ increases total entropy; thermal equilibrium has $T_A=T_B$. This comparison uses changes in entropy, rather than the total internal energy contained in either body. A small hot object can have less internal energy than a large cool one. See entropy maximization under thermal contact for the equilibrium criterion and negative temperature for the special case of bounded energy spectra.

Express absolute thermodynamic temperature $T$ in kelvin, and a Celsius reading $t_C$ in degree Celsius:The offset is exact: $300\mathrm{K}$ corresponds to $26.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, and $400\mathrm{K}$ to $126.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Their absolute temperature ratio is $4/3$; dividing their Celsius readings gives a different number. Thus gas thermometer pressure ratios and Carnot's theorem require thermodynamic temperature. The modern SI definition of the kelvin fixes the Boltzmann constant $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a reference bath realizes or transfers the scale rather than defining that constant.^[ref]

Temperature is not universally the mean kinetic energy of a particle. In a classical, nonrelativistic ideal gas at thermal equilibrium, the equipartition theorem gives the mean translational kinetic energy relative to the gas's bulk motion:Here $m$ is particle mass, $\mathbf{v}$ its velocity, and $\mathbf{u}$ the mean flow velocity. In this regime, different particle masses at the same temperature have equal mean translational kinetic energies but different characteristic speeds. A moving gas can also carry bulk kinetic energy without being hotter in its rest frame. Internal molecular modes and quantum statistics require further care; the equipartition theorem has classical assumptions, whereas the equilibrium entropy definition applies more widely. ^[ref]

The gas-only condition $\Delta U=0$ requires negligible heat exchange with the apparatus. If the insulated isolated system instead includes the walls, sensors and water, the first law of thermodynamics fixes their combined energy. Once everything returns to a common final temperature, a constant apparatus heat capacity $C_a$ givesDefine $A=U_g(T_1,V_2)-U_g(T_1,V_1)$, the gas's internal energy increase for the same expansion evaluated at the initial temperature. For a small temperature change, linearizing at the final volume givesHere $C_{V,g}$ is the whole gas sample's heat capacity at constant volume at the reference state. Compared with an isolated gas sample's $-A/C_{V,g}$, the common final signal is reduced by $C_{V,g}/(C_{V,g}+C_a)$. This energy accounting explains why a massive bath can conceal a real-gas effect. Fitzpatrick gives the corresponding apparatus correction for the Van der Waals equation. ^[ref]

For a toy calculation, stipulate $A=5\mathrm{J}$, $C_{V,g}=10\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $C_a=990\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, all constant in this example. The predicted cooling magnitude changes from $0.5\mathrm{K}$ for the gas alone to $0.005\mathrm{K}$ for the combined apparatus. An illustrative effective detection threshold of $0.01\mathrm{K}$ would miss the latter. These are chosen numbers, not Joule's measurements. In this approximation a null observation only bounds $|A|\lesssim (C_{V,g}+C_a){ϵ}_T$, where ${ϵ}_T$ is the detectable temperature change after allowing for drift and other experimental uncertainties; a display's smallest digit is not automatically this threshold.

The historical limitation was recognized explicitly: Joule and Thomson later estimated that the common apparatus in Joule's experiment would cool by only about $0.003\mathrm{K}$, explaining why the earlier external thermal effect was undetectable. This was a later calculation about the apparatus, not a measured cooling trace. ^[ref]

For positive membrane tension, the bound-cap energy is convex in indentation. Its constrained minimum is the unconstrained value $(\bar{w}-2)/\bar{\sigma }$ clipped to $[0,2]$. No wrapping occurs at $\bar{w}\le 2$, partial wrapping at $2<\bar{w}<2+2\bar{\sigma }$, and full wrapping at $\bar{w}\ge 2+2\bar{\sigma }$. At zero tension the expression is linear, with all indentations degenerate at $\bar{w}=2$. These phase boundaries belong to the specified cap model and can move when free-membrane and neck energies are included.

Thermal boundary resistance describes a temperature drop between the two sides of a material interface carrying heat flux. Efficient thermal conduction within each material does not guarantee efficient heat transfer between them. The solid–helium case is Kapitza resistance; the broader concept also includes solid–solid interfaces. ^[ref]

Let $T_s$ and $T_l$ be the temperatures extrapolated to the interface from its solid and liquid sides, each treated as internally in thermal equilibrium. For uniform normal heat flux $q>0$ through area $A$, define the finite-drop, area-specific thermal resistance and the resistance of the whole interface byThe macroscopic jump represents an unresolved interfacial region; it is not a claim that one point has two equilibrium temperatures. At nonzero heat flux, the two sides are outside mutual thermal equilibrium. A measured difference between distant thermometers also contains bulk temperature gradients, which must be measured or bounded before assigning all of it to the interface.

An energy balance explains why a temperature jump can coexist with continuous heat flux. For a stationary interfacial region with no local work or heat source,The first law of thermodynamics therefore requires $q_{\mathrm{in}}=q_{\mathrm{out}}=q$ in a steady state. It does not require $T_s=T_l$. For a heated sample with electrical power $P=VI$, an independently determined outward parasitic loss $P_{\mathrm{leak}}$ and no other inputs,Here $V$ is the heater's electric potential difference and $I$ its electric current. Subtracting a lead loss means subtracting power before dividing by area; $q$ is not the total heating power. Unknown losses and stored internal energy prevent that simple steady inference.

For a one-dimensional comparison, put an interface between two slabs with the same area $A$, positive constant thermal conductivities $k_s,k_l$ and lengths $L_s,L_l$. Neglect side losses. Integrating Fourier's law across each slab givesThus, for a linear interface with constant $r_B$, the series result isThese slab formulas are a chosen thermal conduction model, not a bulk transport law for moving liquid helium. If the interface law is nonlinear, substitute its own relation between $q$ and $T_s-T_l$ into the preceding balance; a single constant resistance cannot describe every load. Increasing bulk thermal conductivity has diminishing benefit when the interfacial drop dominates. Increasing usable contact area reduces the whole-interface thermal resistance if the local interface law and the other conditions remain fixed.

Thermal conduction transfers heat through microscopic interactions without bulk transport of matter. To predict the heating load through a bar, combine Fourier's law with conservation of energy and the imposed end temperatures. In the isotropic model with positive thermal conductivity $k$, the conductive heat flux points from high to low temperature, opposite to the temperature gradient. A spoon warming along its handle and heat escaping through a wall are familiar examples.

Consider a bar of length $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$, constant cross-sectional area $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and constant thermal conductivity $k=2\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Maintain its ends at $T_h=40{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and $T_c=20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with $x$ increasing toward the colder end. Assume a steady state, one-dimensional thermal conduction, no internal sources and no heat transfer through the sides. The temperature falls by $20\mathrm{K}$ over $0.10\mathrm{m}$, givingThe difference between the two readings in degree Celsius units is the same $20$-kelvin difference. The positive heat flux carries heat toward increasing $x$.

The general solution under these assumptions isA proof outline is enough to explain the straight line: conservation of energy in any small slice, with no accumulation, sources or side losses, gives $d\dot{Q}/dx=0$. Constant cross-sectional area gives $dq/dx=0$; constant thermal conductivity and Fourier's law then give $d^{2}T/d{x}^2=0$. Two integrations and the end boundary conditions determine the displayed affine function. This is why a visually simple temperature profile can encode a continuous flow of energy. ^[ref]

Doubling the length halves the rate, while doubling the cross-sectional area doubles it, at fixed end temperatures and thermal conductivity. This explains why a long narrow support can limit unwanted heat transfer, while a short broad path can help remove heat. Joining materials leads to thermal resistance in series. During initial warming, internal energy can accumulate and the temperature profile need not be a straight line; the time dependence is described by the heat equation and thermal diffusivity.

Now join two layers, each of length $L_1=L_2=0.10\mathrm{m}$, with constant cross-sectional area $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and stipulated constant thermal conductivities $k_1=1$ and $k_2=4\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Keep the outer ends at $40$ and $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Assume a steady state, one-dimensional thermal conduction, no internal sources or side losses, and perfect contact: the temperature is continuous at the interface, with no extra contact drop. For each layer, use the area-specific thermal resistance $r_i=L_i/k_i$ and $R_i=r_i/A$. The series calculation gives

The heat flux is continuous: otherwise energy would accumulate at the interface. Yet Fourier's law gives different temperature gradients, $dT/dx=-q/k_1=-160\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $dT/dx=-q/k_2=-40\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Lower thermal conductivity requires a steeper temperature gradient to carry the same heat flux; equal lengths therefore give drops in the ratio $4:1$. A kink in the temperature profile records the change of material while perfect contact keeps the temperature itself continuous.

Thermal electrical noise is the fluctuating electric potential difference or electric current produced by thermal fluctuations in a dissipative electrical circuit, even without an applied voltage. A resistor at thermal equilibrium is both a source of noise and a sink for electrical energy. Its electrical resistance describes the dissipation, and its absolute temperature sets the scale of the fluctuations. This connects a practical limit on signal-to-noise ratio to statistical mechanics: a warm, unbiased resistor is not electrically silent.

John Bertrand Johnson measured the effect using a vacuum-tube amplifier and thermocouple; his 1928 paper reported agreement with the Boltzmann constant. Harry Nyquist's companion paper calculated the effect from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.^[ref][ref]

Consider two rigid bodies forming an isolated system, with fixed composition and constant whole-body heat capacity at constant volume values $C_1=1\mathrm{kJ}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $C_2=3\mathrm{kJ}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Their initial temperatures are $T_{1,0}=300\mathrm{K}$ and $T_{2,0}=400\mathrm{K}$. Assume each body remains internally uniform, their contact stores negligible energy, no phase transition occurs and no work is done or extracted. These are stipulated model values, not material measurements.

Because $d{U}_i=C_{i}d{T}_i$, write $U_i=a_i+C_i{T}_i$ with arbitrary fixed reference constants $a_i$. The conserved relative internal energy isThis is an energy reference convention, not a claim about actual heat capacities down to zero temperature. At thermal equilibrium the two temperatures equal $T_f$, so the first law of thermodynamics givesThe larger heat capacity pulls the common temperature closer to its initial value: body 1 warms by $75\mathrm{K}$, while body 2 cools by $25\mathrm{K}$.

To predict a timescale, stipulate a constant contact conductance $G=1/R_{\mathrm{th}}=0.1\mathrm{kJ}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, the reciprocal of the contact's thermal resistance. The rate of heat transfer into body 1 is $G(T_2-T_1)$, givingAdding proves conservation of $E$. Subtracting gives exponential decay of the temperature difference, with time constantand thereforeExact equality is approached as $t\to \infty$ in this ideal model. Changing $G$ changes the rate but not $T_f$: equilibrium and the speed of reaching it are separate predictions. Real bodies can have internal temperature gradients, changing heat capacities and contact losses, so the plotted $7.5\mathrm{s}$ is an assumed model timescale.

Thermal energy comparable with an exciton binding energy promotes dissociation and often washes out narrow bound-exciton resonances. Comparing $k_{B}T$ with binding energy is a scale estimate, not an exact disappearance criterion: densities, screening, oscillator strength and linewidths also matter.

A thermal neutron belongs to a population approximately in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Such a population has a distribution of kinetic energies, not one fixed energy. The scale $k_{B}T$ uses the Boltzmann constant and thermodynamic temperature; it is about $0.0259\mathrm{eV}$ at $300\mathrm{K}$. The mean translational kinetic energy for a classical three-dimensional equilibrium population is $3k_{B}T/2$. Not every slow neutron has reached this equilibrium.

For one nondegenerate thermalized particle, excited-state occupation relative to the ground state is set by the excitation gap, not by the absolute energy origin. In an infinite square well of width $L$, the first gap is $3{\pi }^2{\hslash }^2/(2m{L}^2)$. Predominant ground-state occupation requires this gap to be much larger than $k_{B}T$; an explicit tolerated occupation gives a quantitative temperature criterion. State quantum degeneracy adds its statistical weight.

For a stable nonrelativistic thermal relic, compare energy densities rather than number densities. If $m_Y=m_{\mathrm{nr}}/x^3$ and $Y_Y=C{x}^{3/2}{e}^{-x}$, its density relative to baryons is $(C{m}_{\mathrm{nr}}/m_B{Y}_B)x^{-3/2}{e}^{-x}$. Requiring this ratio below an allowed dark-matter-to-baryon ratio $R$ means $x+\frac{3}{2}\log x\ge \log [C{m}_{\mathrm{nr}}/(R{m}_B{Y}_B)]$. With fixed rate parameters this excludes the weakly interacting large-mass branch, while the sufficiently Boltzmann-suppressed smaller-mass branch can satisfy the density bound. Decay or a nonthermal initial abundance requires a different constraint.

A characteristic random particle speed. Here temperature $T_s$ is measured in energy units, and the factor-two convention makes a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution proportional to $e^{-v^2/v_{\mathrm{th},s}^2}$. Other conventions, such as the one-dimensional standard deviation $\sqrt{T_s/m_s}$, differ by fixed factors.

Thermal transpiration is gas transport driven by an imposed temperature difference in a rarefied connection. Gas can move from cold to hot even when the two end pressures start equal. If the reservoirs are closed, redistribution builds a counteracting pressure difference until the net transfer stops. This final stationary state is not global thermal equilibrium: the two temperatures remain different. It explains why a heated pressure sensor can read a different pressure from the vessel to which it is connected. The correction depends on gas, connection geometry and molecular interaction with its surfaces. ^[ref]

The simple molecular limit is beautiful: equal opposing particle rates need not mean equal pressures. Consider effusion through a thin hole connecting two locally equilibrated reservoirs of the same gas, at $T_h>T_c$. Equating their one-way rates givesAt equal pressure, the hotter reservoir has lower number density; its faster molecules do not fully compensate for that reduction in outgoing particle rate. With $T_c=300\mathrm{K}$ and $T_h=351\mathrm{K}$, the ideal zero-transfer ratio is $\sqrt{351/300}\simeq 1.0817$. The hydrodynamic, zero-flow limit instead has equal pressures when other forces are absent. These are limiting models, not an interpolation formula for a glass capillary. ^[ref] In a real tube, incomplete exchange of molecular energy with the wall can alter the limiting ratio; a Knudsen number does not specify that exchange. ^[ref]