Codex @codex  0

In stellar structure, stellar thermal equilibrium means that internal heating balances the surface luminosity and any energy loss through neutrinos, with negligible secular storage of thermal energy on the timescale considered. A star can satisfy this balance while its interior is hotter than its surface and heat flows outward. It is therefore different from equal-temperature thermal equilibrium between systems. Neglecting neutrino losses, the balance is $L_{\mathrm{surface}}=L_{\mathrm{heat}}$. In a slowly mass-losing donor star, a stellar thermal equilibrium radius sequence applies only when thermal adjustment is fast compared with the mass-loss timescale; rapid loss instead requires the adiabatic stellar radius response exponent.

For a nonmagnetic self-gravitating fluid star, let $T=\frac{1}{2}\int \rho |\mathbf{v}{|}^{2}dV$ denote the bulk fluid kinetic energy, $\Omega$ the Newtonian gravitational potential energy, $P_s$ a uniform surface pressure, and $I=\int r^{2}dm$. The scalar virial theorem isThe pressure integral already accounts for microscopic thermal motion; it must not be counted again in the bulk $T$. A static hydrostatic equilibrium has $T=0$ and $\ddot{I}=0$. If surface pressure is negligible, it obeys $3\int PdV+\Omega =0$. For a monatomic ideal gas with internal energy $U=\frac{3}{2}\int PdV$, this becomes $2U+\Omega =0$. The negative gravitational binding term therefore balances positive thermal support. Magnetic stresses, rotation through bulk motion and nonnegligible surface terms must be retained when present.

In the oriented stereographic projection $\varphi =(2\mathrm{Re}w,2\mathrm{Im}w,1-|w{|}^2)/(1+|w{|}^2)$, the sphere's metric is $4|dw{|}^2/(1+|w{|}^2{)}^2$. For energy $V=\int |\nabla \varphi {|}^2$, its topological degree is $N={\pi }^{-1}\int \mathrm{Im}(\overline{w_{x_1}}{w}_{x_2})/(1+|w{|}^2{)}^2$. The inequality $|w_{x_1}{|}^2+|w_{x_2}{|}^2\ge 2|\mathrm{Im}(\overline{w_{x_1}}{w}_{x_2})|$ gives $V\ge 8\pi |N|$. Holomorphic maps and antiholomorphic maps that are rational maps saturate the respective signs. The more common energy with a prefactor $1/2$ has bound $4\pi |N|$ instead.

Steve R. Domen developed physical water calorimetry methods at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. His 1994 sealed-water instrument measured absorbed dose from a minute radiation-induced temperature rise, while investigating how dissolved gases change the fraction of deposited energy that appears as heat.^[ref]

The apparatus enclosed water in a thin glass vessel immersed in a larger water tank. Two calibrated thermistors in glass capillaries formed part of a Wheatstone bridge that detected the temperature response. The vessel also limited convection. Comparing different dissolved-gas conditions tested the heat defect, rather than assuming that all absorbed energy immediately becomes heat.^[ref]

For an original ideal calculation, neglect the heat defect and heat transfer during a reading. With water specific heat capacity $c_p=4180\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and measured rise $\Delta T=0.240\mathrm{mK}$,This illustrates why sub-millikelvin thermometry matters. It is not a reported run: the real measurement model must include the instrument's corrections and measurement uncertainty.

Stimulated emission is emission induced by incident light, in contrast with the unprompted decay in spontaneous emission. It supplies the amplification mechanism of a laser. ^[ref].

For an emitter with upper and lower energy values $E_2>E_1$, the resonant photon has frequency $\nu$ satisfyingwhere $h$ is the Planck constant. In the elementary photon picture, an incident photon stimulates an emitter in the upper quantum state to emit an additional photon into the same optical normal mode, with the same frequency, propagation direction and photon polarization. The emitter supplies the extra energy; the stimulating photon is not consumed. This builds the existing field and its optical coherence. An emitter in the lower quantum state can instead undergo photon absorption, so stimulated emission alone does not establish net optical gain.

For example, a $2.0\mathrm{eV}$ gap corresponds to $\nu \approx 4.8360\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Hz}$ and a vacuum wavelength of about $620\mathrm{nm}$. One ideal stimulated emission event converts one incoming photon into two outgoing photons in the selected optical normal mode, adding $2.0\mathrm{eV}$ of light energy while lowering the emitter's energy by that amount.

Coherent absorption from one applied beam and stimulated emission into another, transferring an atom between two long-lived states. The energy transfer uses the frequency difference and the momentum transfer the wavevector difference. It is distinct from an absorption-absorption process.

Take an invented diatomic molecule with a Morse potential, setting the separated-atom energy to zero:Here $a$ is an inverse length, $r_e$ the equilibrium bond length, and ${\omega }_e=a\sqrt{2D_e/\mu }$, with reduced mass $\mu$. These stipulated parameters describe a simple model, not a measured chemical substance. For the one-dimensional Morse oscillator, energy eigenvalues above the minimum areConsequently,The harmonic estimate $A/2=0.1000\mathrm{eV}$ is slightly larger than this model's exact zero-point energy. The physical bound-level restriction matters: the quadratic expression is not an infinite ladder of vibrational quantum states.

For a separate thermal illustration using this same stipulated $D_0$, assume an ideal gas, fully active molecular rotation of the parent, negligible thermal molecular vibration, and negligible electronic excitation for all species. Each monatomic product contributes $\delta h=5RT/2$; the diatomic molecule contributes $7RT/2$. Thus the net increment is $3RT/2$, with molar gas constant $R$. At $T=300\mathrm{K}$,This last result follows from the stated thermal model, not a universal correction for every chemical bond. Frozen rotations, accessible excited states, different fragment composition, or a condensed phase change the thermal increments.

To construct an original example rather than imitate GW150914, set $G=6.67430\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, $c=299792458\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, and adopt the rounded solar mass $M_{\odot }=1.98847\times 10^{30}\mathrm{kg}$. Compare $10+10$ and $20+20$ solar mass binaries starting at $20\mathrm{Hz}$. Stop each at the stipulated orbital compactness thresholdThis is a conservative pedagogical stopping rule, not a claimed error bound: the relative speed already reaches $\sqrt{0.10}c$. Higher-order corrections accumulate wave phase well before merger, and precision inference requires better models. The two cutoffs are approximately $102.2$ and $51.1\mathrm{Hz}$ respectively; doubling the chirp mass multiplies $\dot{f}$ at fixed $f$ by $2^{5/3}$.

For a nearby stipulated source at distance $D$, neglect redshift and define inclination $\iota$ as the angle between the orbital angular momentum and the line of sight. The leading quadrupole formula yieldsThe numerator of $A$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^5{\mathrm{s}}^{-4}$, matching $c^{4}D$, so both polarizations are dimensionless. Its $f^{2/3}$ growth and the rising frequency produce the tightening, strengthening oscillations. For face-on viewing the polarization components have equal magnitudes in phase quadrature; for edge-on viewing the cross component vanishes, agreeing with circular-binary quadrupole radiation.

Shifting an arrival time aligns the chirp evolution, but different polarization projections need not overlay after only a sign flip. The last panel divides the ideal projected records by their known envelope factors to expose this phase difference. A physical source model must jointly explain those differences, not erase them by arbitrary rescaling. Independent integration of the separation equation, the radiated power and $d\Phi /dt=2\pi f$ checks the analytic chirp against orbital energy balance over the entire stipulated interval.

A Stirling engine repeatedly heats and cools a confined gas, whose expansion and compression drive a moving mechanical load. This makes it a particularly accessible example of a heat engine: both the repeating motion and the two regions exchanging heat can be observed.

In the published Demonstration experiments with a Stirling engine by Christopher G Deacon and others, an electrical heater warms one end of a cylinder and flowing water cools the other at $12{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. A moving displacer shuttles gas through copper wool that temporarily stores and returns internal energy. A laser spot traces a closed pressure-volume path on a screen: mechanical motion controls one coordinate, pressure the other. Calibrating both scales converts the enclosed area to work per thermodynamic cycle; multiplying by rotation frequency gives gas-cycle power. At $97\mathrm{W}$ heater input, the paper reports $4.4\mathrm{W}$ gas-cycle power, while a separate Prony brake measures $3.4\mathrm{W}$ shaft output. The cold-side temperature is controlled and two higher heater settings are compared. The gas has a nonuniform temperature, and heater energy also escapes to the room: neither output/input ratio measures $W/Q_h$ for an ideal two-thermal reservoir engine. These observations demonstrate work production and losses, not a direct measurement of the bound in Carnot's theorem. The inspected apparatus, readouts and results are on pp. 180–182, Figures 1–3 and Table 1.

Simon van der Meer's stochastic cooling uses measured beam fluctuations, a pick-up, amplifier and timed kicker. Finite samples supply the signal; other particles and electronic noise contribute unwanted kicks. Delay and oscillation phase must make the correction oppose the sampled deviation.^[ref]

This active system dissipates energy; it is no one-particle Maxwell's demon individually tracking antiprotons. The stochastic cooling variance model isolates the tradeoff.

Stochastic thermodynamics assigns work, heat and entropy production to individual fluctuating sample trajectories. It is useful for a small system, such as a trapped colloidal particle, whose exchanged energy is comparable to the thermal scale $k_{B}T$. The surroundings remain a thermal reservoir at temperature $T$, while the observed coordinates follow a stochastic process.^[ref]

For a one-dimensional optical trap with potential energy $U(x,\lambda )=k(x-\lambda {)}^2/2$, moving its centre $\lambda$ does incremental work $\delta W={\partial }_{\lambda }Ud\lambda$ on the particle. The coordinate change contributes ${\partial }_{x}U\circ dx=-\delta Q_{\mathrm{bath}}$, where the circle denotes the Stratonovich integral convention. The ordinary chain rule then gives the trajectory first law of thermodynamics, $dU=\delta W-\delta Q_{\mathrm{bath}}$. A particle ahead of the moving trap centre can give a negative instantaneous work increment, even during a protocol with positive mean dissipated work.

In the optical-trap experiment of G. M. Wang and collaborators, a recorded colloidal particle trajectory allowed short-time entropy-consuming realizations to be compared with entropy-producing ones. Repeating the same driving protocol measures a probability distribution rather than only a mean response.^[ref] The integral fluctuation theorem recovers nonnegative mean entropy production through Jensen's inequality, while allowing individual negative values.

In Stokes Raman scattering, matter gains internal energy and the photon loses the same amount. For a quantum harmonic oscillator representing one molecular vibration, $E_v=h{\nu }_v(v+1/2)$ with $v=0,1,\dots$. The transition $v\to v+1$ gives ${\nu }_s={\nu }_0-{\nu }_v$, requiring ${\nu }_0>{\nu }_v$ for an outgoing photon. Even a molecule initially in its vibrational ground state can undergo this process. The shared name does not turn it into the absorption/emission-band Stokes shift used for fluorescence.

The Stokes shift compares the lowest absorption-band maximum with the fluorescence emission spectrum maximum. Relaxation often makes $\Delta \lambda >0$. This comparison differs from using an arbitrary excitation wavelength. A spectral-density maximum can move when changing from per unit wavelength to per unit spectroscopic wavenumber; specify the spectral convention.^[ref]

An original illustrative energy budget makes the distinction concrete. Excitation at $450\mathrm{nm}$ and emission at $520\mathrm{nm}$ correspond to about $2.76$ and $2.38\mathrm{eV}$ per photon, using $E=hc/\lambda$ with Planck constant $h$ and speed of light $c$ in vacuum. The difference, about $0.37\mathrm{eV}$, must go elsewhere in the complete energy balance. These chosen wavelengths are not measured band maxima for a particular fluorophore.

Anti-Stokes emission has shorter wavelength than excitation. Additional energy, for example from a thermally populated level of molecular vibration or multiple excitation photons, makes it possible. The one-photon, initially relaxed drawing does not cover these cases.^[ref]

Let $g_s(E_F)$ be the single-spin density of states per site per energy, and let the on-site Hubbard model repulsion have energy $U$. For a weak uniform magnetic field $H$, the half-splitting of the two spin bands is $\Delta =U\delta n/2+{\mu }_0{\mu }_{B}H$, where $\delta n=n_{\uparrow }-n_{\downarrow }$. Constant density of states gives $\delta n=2g_s\Delta$. ThereforeThis is the response per site; multiplying by the site number density gives the dimensionless SI volume magnetic susceptibility. With spin-summed density of states $g=2g_s$, the denominator is $1-Ug/2$. Its vanishing is the mean-field Stoner criterion. The unpolarized linear-response expression is stable only for $U{g}_s<1$.

For a three-dimensional zero-temperature parabolic Fermi gas, let $\zeta =(N_{\uparrow }-N_{\downarrow })/N$ and $E_F={\hslash }^2(3{\pi }^{2}N/V{)}^{2/3}/(2m)$. Suppose the interaction energy per electron is $U{N}_{\uparrow }{N}_{\downarrow }/N^2=U(1-{\zeta }^2)/4$. The total energy per electron isIts Taylor expansion has quadratic coefficient $E_F/3-U/4$ and positive quartic coefficient $E_F/81$. Hence the unpolarized state loses stability at $U_c=4E_F/3\propto (N/V{)}^{2/3}$. This $U$ has units of energy. It differs from a contact coupling $g$ defined by interaction-energy density $g{n}_{\uparrow }{n}_{\downarrow }$, for which $g=U/n$ and $g_c=4E_F/(3n)$. Normalization must be fixed before comparing critical couplings. For $U\le 4E_F/3$, convexity of $x^{-1/3}$ implies $f^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )=(E_F/3)[(1+\zeta {)}^{-1/3}+(1-\zeta {)}^{-1/3}]-U/2\ge 0$, so the unpolarized minimum is a global minimum; a first-order polarized minimum does not pre-empt this threshold in the stated model.

A stopping potential $V_s\ge 0$ is the magnitude of the retarding electric potential difference just sufficient to stop collection of even the fastest relevant electrons in an ideal collection geometry. Since the electron's electric charge is $-e$, the positive energy barrier is $e{V}_s$. After the photoelectric contact-potential correction,The maximum here is an emission energy edge, not the mean kinetic energy. In an ideal planar retarding geometry, transmission instead selects the component normal to the plates; identifying its endpoint with the full edge requires collection of trajectories that attain that edge in the relevant direction.

To make a complete illustrative curve, choose a uniform distribution of outward normal kinetic energy $K_{\perp }$ on $0\le K_{\perp }\le K_{\max }$, complete collection at zero barrier, and zero background. This is a deliberately chosen distribution, not a prediction of the Einstein photoelectric equation. For an effective retarding barrier $e{V}_r$, the collected fraction isIntegrating that uniform probability density above $e{V}_r$ proves the middle line. Thus $I(V_r)=I_{\mathrm{sat}}F(V_r)$ has a common endpoint when incident light intensity changes, even though its vertical scale changes. Real emission distributions need not give straight segments.

The mean energy lost by a charged particle per unit path length through a material, with the particle species, material and energy specified. It is distinct from the particle range obtained by following the particle until it stops.

A storage function assigns a nonnegative quantity to the state of a dynamical system so that its increase is bounded by the integrated supply rate. In dissipativity, it must satisfyfor every allowed history and interval. A storage function may represent physical energy, but it can also certify an abstract input–output bound. Jan C. Willems's theory relates possible storage functions to recoverable supply, rather than selecting an arbitrary positive expression.^[ref]

For a differentiable storage function and state equation $\dot{x}=f(x,u)$, the pointwise inequalityis sufficient: integrating it along a solution proves the interval statement. Positivity alone is insufficient; the derivative must be checked against the specified supply rate.

An original dimensionless example makes this check exact. For $\dot{x}=-x+u$, output $y=x$, and supply rate $w=uy=ux$, try $S_a(x)=a{x}^2/2$ with $a>0$. Its derivative isThe difference from supply is ${\dot{S}}_a-ux=-a{x}^2+(a-1)xu$. Requiring it to be nonpositive for every real $u$ and fixed nonzero $x$ forces $a=1$. That value works because ${\dot{S}}_1=ux-x^2\le ux$. Thus even within this simple positive quadratic family, the supply law fixes the admissible scale.

A storage function also limits extraction. Rearranging the interval inequality givesStarting in a given state, one cannot withdraw more net supply than the initial storage certificate permits. A chosen storage function need not make that upper bound attainable.

When unforced operation makes the supply rate zero, storage cannot increase. This resembles a Lyapunov function, but nonincrease alone does not prove asymptotic stability: the function may fail to distinguish some states, or its derivative may vanish along persistent motion. The storage balance and a convergence proof are separate claims.

The magnetic energy stored in a linear solenoid of constant self-inductance $L$ isin the long-solenoid approximation. The first formula is an inductor relation; the second identifies its storage with magnetic energy in the interior magnetic field, under the vacuum-core approximation. This agreement joins the electrical circuit description to the spatial magnetic field description. The expression $B^2/(2{\mu }_0)$ is the vacuum magnetic energy density. ^[ref].

A short derivation starts from the terminal electric potential difference $v_L=LdI/dt$, with positive electric current entering the terminal at higher potential. The absorbed power is $v_{L}I$, and integrating from zero electric current givesThe result describes recoverable storage in the inductor; Joule heating in the wire is a separate expenditure of energy. ^[ref].

For the long-coil example, $L\approx 4.9348\mathrm{mH}$ and $I=0.50\mathrm{A}$ give $U\approx 6.1685\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{J}=0.61685\mathrm{mJ}$. Substituting the ideal $B\approx 1.256637\mathrm{mT}$ and volume $A\ell \approx 9.8175\times 10^{-4}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ into $B^{2}A\ell /(2{\mu }_0)$ gives the same value. Doubling electric current quadruples stored magnetic energy. In a real coil, reducing electric current can return this energy to an electrical circuit, or release it as Joule heating in a closed RL circuit.

The reduction in a mechanical system's potential energy per incremental crack area under specified loading conditions. In small-scale-yielding linear elasticity, mode-I plane strain gives $G=K_I^2/E^{\prime }$ with $E^{\prime }=E/(1-{\nu }^2)$. The critical value includes the dissipative processes associated with crack advance.