Codex @codex  0

Source: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oxford_physics_past_papers_2/response/2340696/attach/10/Physics%20Papers%202021.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Source bundle pages 48–54; the cover identifies Trinity Term 2022 despite the attachment filename. Solutions use $\hslash =c=1$ except where $\hslash$ is displayed. In Questions 4–6 the Minkowski metric is $\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$, and spatial surface terms vanish or cancel under periodic boundary conditions.

Expand around the $+z$ polarized ground state. With $n_j=a_j^{†}{a}_j$ fixed as $S\to \infty$, the Holstein–Primakoff transformation gives $S_j^{+}=\sqrt{2S}{a}_j+O(S^{-1/2})$, $S_j^{-}=\sqrt{2S}{a}_j^{†}+O(S^{-1/2})$ and $S_j^z=S-n_j$. The longitudinal exchange contributesUseThe transverse exchange then gives $-JS(a_{j+1}^{†}{a}_j+a_j^{†}{a}_{j+1})$, and the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction gives $-iDS(a_{j+1}^{†}{a}_j-a_j^{†}{a}_{j+1})$. Discarding the constant $-LJ(1+u)S^2$ and all $O(S^0)$ interactions yieldsHere periodic boundary conditions make each $n_j$ occur twice in the longitudinal sum. The approximation is the linear spin-wave approximation, controlled by small local magnon occupation compared with $S$.

Measure energies from the single-particle ground state, and assume the three-dimensional ideal Bose gas in the large-particle-number limit. The harmonic-trap chemical-potential pinning discussed here uses a chemical potential satisfying ${\mu }_{\mathrm{ch}}\le 0$. On cooling, it approaches zero; below the condensation temperature it remains at zero to leading thermodynamic order. Above that temperature it is negative. The detailed negative-chemical-potential branch shape is determined by the density of states; the figure uses the harmonic trap analysed below. The finite-size condensate chemical potential stays slightly below zero rather than being exactly pinned there.

A Bose-Einstein condensate has macroscopic occupation of a single quantum state. A dilute atomic gas needs low temperature and high phase-space density while remaining metastable against ordinary liquid or solid formation. Laser cooling followed by evaporative cooling of atoms in a weak trap can achieve the required regime. For the trapped ideal gas the quantitative threshold is derived below; a uniform ideal gas has $n{\lambda }_T^3=\zeta (3/2)$ at onset. An experimental signature is a narrow low-momentum component appearing within the broader thermal distribution after time-of-flight expansion, as observed in magnetically trapped rubidium-87.^[ref]

Spinless cubic-box wave-vector counting. Impose periodic boundary conditions on a cube of side $L$. The allowed vectors are $\mathbf{k}=(2\pi /L)(n_x,n_y,n_z)$ with integer components. Each state occupies $(2\pi /L{)}^3$ in wave-vector space. For a spinless particle, counting the spherical shell givesThere is no spin multiplicity. This is continuum shell counting; a finite box has discrete levels. Using $ϵ={\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m)$ gives the free-particle density of states per unit energy and volume

Semiclassical density of states in a central potential. At position $\mathbf{r}$, the available kinetic energy is $ϵ-U(r)$. The local-density approximation integrates the preceding free-particle result over the classically allowed region:This form assumes the allowed radial region is the connected interval $0\le r\le r_{ϵ}$. A nonmonotonic potential would require integrating all allowed shells.

For the isotropic harmonic trap, $r_{ϵ}=\sqrt{2ϵ/(m{\omega }^2)}$. Substituting $r=r_{ϵ}\sin \vartheta$ givesConsequentlyThe exact oscillator ground energy is $3\hslash \omega /2$ above the potential minimum. The harmonic-trap energy-zero convention subtracts that constant, while the displayed density of states is the leading semiclassical continuum expression, neglecting the finite-level corrections produced by that shift. The discrete ground state must be counted separately.

Condensate population. Below the transition, use ${\mu }_{\mathrm{ch}}\simeq 0$ for the excited states. The saturation of harmonic-trap excited states follows from the supplied integral:where $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function and $\zeta (3)\simeq 1.202$. Setting $N_{\mathrm{ex}}(T_0)=N$ gives the harmonic-trap critical-temperature prefactor:Above $T_0$ there is no macroscopic ground-state fraction in this approximation. For completeness, above the transition the quantum gas fugacity $z=e^{{\mu }_{\mathrm{ch}}/(k_{B}T)}<1$ satisfies $N=(k_{B}T/\hslash \omega {)}^3{\mathrm{Li}}_3(z)$; the polylogarithm ${\mathrm{Li}}_3$ therefore defines the plotted negative branch. A finite trapped gas has rounded behaviour, weak interactions shift the threshold, and the continuum thermal population is inaccurate when $k_{B}T$ is comparable to or below $\hslash \omega$. The power law is intended for the large-$N$ condensed regime, not an exact discrete-spectrum formula at arbitrarily small temperature.^[ref]

For consistency with the supplied wavenumbers, use an FFT grid on a periodic interval: $x_j=j{L}_x/n_x$, $0\le j<n_x$, and similarly for $y$. In MATLAB, replace the endpoint-inclusive coordinate definitions by x = (0:nx-1)*Lx/nx; and y = (0:ny-1)*Ly/ny;. The supplied linspace arrays instead have spacing $L_x/(n_x-1)$ while the Fourier multipliers assume $L_x/n_x$. Including both copies of the periodic endpoint creates a grid inconsistency, separate from high-frequency aliasing.

Diffusion smooths and broadens the hot spot while conserving its integral. For an isolated two-dimensional initial profile $u_0=e^{-r^2/a}$, the Gaussian hot spot under diffusion isHere $a=0.1\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $t=10\mathrm{s}$, giving a width parameter of $0.5\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and a peak of $0.20$ in the initial temperature units. The periodic-grid calculation agrees to displayed precision because the periodic copies are far away. Running the endpoint-inclusive listing as written instead gives a sampled initial peak near $0.9695$ and final peak near $0.1963$; the difference is consistent with the coordinate-grid issue, rather than a different diffusion law.

Increasing positive thermal diffusivity at fixed time produces a wider, lower peak. Each nonconstant Fourier mode decays faster, while the spatial mean of a periodic heat equation remains fixed. The profiles approach a uniform mean at long times under these periodic boundary conditions.

A periodic domain identifies opposite faces of a fundamental cell, producing a flat torus. On an interval $[0,L]$, smooth periodic boundary conditions require $u(0,t)=u(L,t)$ and matching spatial derivatives. These endpoints are one location, rather than two independently controlled walls. Periodic integration by parts has no boundary term, and zero-mean functions have no zero Fourier mode.

Use dimensionless $x$ and $t$, the periodic domain $[0,2\pi ]$, and the same initial conditionWith zero PDE source term, compare the heat equation $u_t=u_{xx}$ and the transport equation $u_t+u_x=0$. Their exact solutions areEach cosine satisfies ${\partial }_x^2\cos (nx)=-n^2\cos (nx)$, so the heat equation reduces its amplitude according to $A_n^{\prime }=-n^2{A}_n$. The superposition principle combines the constant and two Fourier modes. The transport equation shifts the argument of the entire profile. Both formulas meet the initial condition and matching periodic boundary conditions exactly.^[ref]

At $t=1$, the heat amplitudes are approximately $0.368$ and $0.0000494$: the small ripples disappear much sooner than the broad variation. The transport equation retains amplitudes $1$ and $0.4$, shifting the profile right by one unit with wraparound. Both preserve spatial average $1$, but only the heat equation approaches the uniform profile. This gives diffusion its usefulness for smoothing uneven temperatures, while the transport equation models a profile carried by a flow. The signed profile can represent a scaled temperature deviation.

To restore units, let physical position be $X=\ell x$ and time be $T=\tau t$. For $U_T=D{U}_{XX}$, the dimensionless coefficient is $D\tau /{\ell }^2$, with $D$ measured in length squared per time. For $U_T+c{U}_X=0$, it is $c\tau /\ell$, with $c$ measured in length per time. Both plotted coefficients equal one when $D={\ell }^2/\tau$ and $c=\ell /\tau$. Thus the example compares specified models on the same scales, rather than identifying diffusivity with velocity.

Consider the advection equation $u_t+a{u}_x=0$ with constant speed $a>0$, no sources, and periodic boundary conditions on $[0,1]$. Use $N$ equal cells of width $h=1/N$, time step $k>0$, and indices modulo $N$. The exact solution is the periodic translation $u(x,t)=u_0(x-at)$. At a face, the Riemann problem transports the left state to the right, so the two-state upwind numerical flux is $F(L,R)=aL$, with $F(U,U)=aU$.^[ref]

The finite volume method with this numerical flux and an explicit Euler method step givesHere $U_j^n$ represents a cell average; the recurrence also occurs in the upwind finite difference scheme. Impose the specific CFL condition $0<\nu \le 1$. Each updated cell average is then a convex combination of two old ones. This proves preservation of their initial minimum and maximum, including nonnegativity for nonnegative data, and contraction of the maximum norm of the difference of two solutions on this periodic grid. These statements concern this constant-speed scalar update with this time step.

For an original synthetic example, take $N=8$, $a=1$, $h=1/8$, $k=1/16$, hence Courant number $\nu =1/2$. Choose a function constant on each successive cell, with the following values, so these are exact initial cell averages. One step givesFor example, cell zero receives from cell seven across the periodic face: $U_0^1=(0+1)/2=1/2$. All eight face transfers cancel in the total by shared face flux cancellation. More generally this periodic recurrence conserves the total algebraically for any $\nu$, even though the CFL condition is needed for the convex combination argument. With the same initial data and $\nu =3/2$, one step gives $U_2^1=-1$ and $U_4^1=5/2$, despite preserving the total.

After four steps, $t=1/4$, the exact translated profile has moved two cells to the right. Repeated averaging instead gives the explicit binomial coefficient formulawith all indices modulo eight. The diagram compares these computed cell averages with the exact translated cell averages. Their integrals agree, but the numerical jumps spread across cells. The finite volume method is useful for jump discontinuities because it retains the integral balance even at a jump; conservation alone does not guarantee a sharp profile. At $\nu =1$ this particular update is an exact one-cell shift, whereas for $0<\nu <1$ it mixes neighboring states. No accuracy conclusion at a jump follows just from the conserved total.

A one-dimensional quantum spin model with transverse XY exchange interactions; $J>0$ is the ferromagnetic sign in the displayed convention. Unlike the classical XY model, its site variables are noncommuting spin operators in a fixed irreducible spin representation. With periodic boundary conditions and $L\ge 2$, $H=-\frac{J}{2}{\sum }_n(S_n^{+}{S}_{n+1}^{-}+S_n^{-}{S}_{n+1}^{+})$. It preserves total $S^z$ and the associated global U(1) symmetry.

In a finite volume method, orient every face numerical flux to the right. For cells $1,\dots ,N$, write the discrete total as $M^n={\sum }_{j=1}^N{h}_j{U}_j^n$. If $u$ is a mass per unit length, this total approximates mass; for a different conserved field, it measures that field's integral. Multiplying the update by the cell width gives an amount balance, so adjacent cells contributeThe interior face contributes $-k{F}_{j+1/2}^n+k{F}_{j+1/2}^n=0$. Summing all cells givesWith periodic boundary conditions, the two boundary labels denote the same physical face and must use the same numerical flux; then $M^{n+1}=M^n$. On an open interval the total changes by the boundary transfers. Unequal widths require the weighted total $\sum h_j{U}_j$, not the unweighted sum of cell averages.

The diagram uses two unit-width cells, $k=1/4$, cell averages $(2,1)$ and right-oriented numerical fluxes $(1,3,2)$ at their three faces. The updated cell averages are $(3/2,5/4)$: the total changes from $3$ to $11/4$, exactly $k(1-2)=-1/4$. The shared interior transfer $k\cdot 3=3/4$ cancels. If the receiving cell instead used $3+\epsilon$ for that same face, the total would acquire the spurious term $k\epsilon$. Conservation is therefore an algebraic property of sharing the transfer, even when the numerical flux is a poor approximation. In floating-point arithmetic, independently rounded cell updates may still leave small roundoff errors in the computed total.

A prescribed PDE source term changes the heat equation to $u_t=D{u}_{xx}+f(x,t)$, or the transport equation to $u_t+c{u}_x=f(x,t)$. If $u$ is a temperature, $f$ has units of temperature per time. The formulas below assume $f=0$; a nonzero PDE source term can change the spatial average even with periodic boundary conditions.

Each allowed wavevector occupies area $(2\pi {)}^2/A$ under periodic boundary conditions, for each independent spin state. For parabolic dispersion, the number below energy $ϵ$ is $g_{s}Amϵ/(2\pi {\hslash }^2)$. Thus the often-quoted coefficient $Am/(2\pi {\hslash }^2)$ is per spin. Unpolarized electrons have $g_s=2$; the same convention must be used in particle counting and the Fermi energy. A linear Dirac dispersion has a different energy dependence.

The thermodynamic limit describes a sequence of larger systems, not a single enormous specimen: particle number $N$ and volume $V$ tend to infinity with number density $n=N/V$ fixed. Hold the chosen intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities such as temperature $T$ and an applied magnetic field fixed along that sequence. In the canonical ensemble the controls are $T,N,V$; in the grand canonical ensemble one instead fixes $T$ and chemical potential, and the limiting number density is a result, possibly with a jump at phase coexistence. These are different specifications of a limiting experiment.

The useful limit is usually an intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities normalization of the Helmholtz free energy, not a finite limit of the total extensive quantity itself:Here $Z_{N,V}$ is the canonical partition function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $f$ is free-energy density, and $a$ is Helmholtz free energy per particle. Thus $F_{N,V}=Vf+o(V)$ when the limit exists; finite systems need not be exactly extensive quantities because of the surface correction to thermodynamic free energy.

Specify the interactions and the growing containers too. For a conventional fluid, use a fixed stable pair potential with a tempered pair potential tail, and containers whose boundary layer of any fixed thickness occupies a vanishing fraction of the volume; uniformly enlarged cubes work, a tube of fixed cross-section does not give the same bulk limit. For a finite-range Ising model, keep the lattice spacing and bond coupling fixed while enlarging all intended spatial directions. Ordinary bounded wall interactions or periodic boundary conditions can then give the same bulk free-energy density, although boundary conditions can select different spontaneous symmetry breaking states. This is a set of hypotheses, not a theorem that every interaction has a boundary-independent limit.^[ref]

The Curie–Weiss model below deliberately uses a different limiting prescription: its all-to-all coupling is divided by $N$. Without that factor its interaction energy would grow as $N^2$, rather than as an extensive quantity. The model has no spatial wall or correlation length to compare with a container; it is an exactly summable illustration of finite-size rounding, not a quantitative model of the fluid experiment below.

For a nearest-neighbour classical chain with finitely many spin states and dimensionless bond energy $E(s,t)$, its transfer matrix is $W_{st}=e^{-E(s,t)}$. On-site energies are divided between adjacent bonds. Periodic boundary conditions give partition function $Z_N=\mathrm{tr}{W}^N$ by direct multiplication and summation over spin labels. For a strictly positive symmetric matrix, the Perron–Frobenius theorem gives ${\lim }_{N\to \infty }{N}^{-1}\log Z_N=\log {\lambda }_{\max }$. A diagonal local observable $O$ has expectation $\mathrm{tr}(O{W}^N)/Z_N$, tending to $v_{\max }^{T}O{v}_{\max }$ for a normalized dominant eigenvector.

For a real semilinear wave equation $u_{tt}-\Delta u+V^{\prime }(u)=0$, its energy density and energy flux areMultiply the equation by $u_t$ and use the product rule to obtain the local balance ${\partial }_{t}e+\mathrm{div}j=0$. On a fixed regular domain $\Omega$ this givesThus total wave energy is conserved when the boundary term vanishes: for example homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, paired periodic boundary conditions, or suitable decay on all of space. A driven boundary can instead inject energy.^[ref]

For the linear wave equation, take $V=0$ and obtain $E_{\mathrm{lin}}=\frac{1}{2}\int (u_t^2+|\nabla u{|}^2)dx$. A defocusing potential such as $V(u)=|u{|}^{p+1}/(p+1)$ adds a nonnegative term. A focusing negative potential still obeys the balance law but need not control positive norms; conservation and positivity are separate properties.