Codex @codex  0

A top-hat wavefunction is constant on an interval and zero elsewhere. It has a uniform position distribution and a sinc function momentum amplitude. Its discontinuous edges place it outside the finite-kinetic-energy domain of the free Hamiltonian. Smooth-edged localized packets can approximate its position profile while having different momentum tails.

Torque measures a force's turning effect about a specified origin. The geometry in the angular momentum diagram applies with force replacing momentum: transverse forces give positive or negative torque, while a radial force gives zero. A longer perpendicular lever arm makes the same force more effective, explaining why pushing near the end of a handle is useful.

For a force $\mathbf{F}$ applied at position $\mathbf{r}$ from a fixed origin $O$ in an inertial frame, its torque, or moment of force, isHere $F=|\mathbf{F}|$, $\varphi$ is the angle between position and force, and $\ell =r\sin \varphi$ is the perpendicular lever arm. Direction follows the right-hand rule; in the $xy$ plane ${\tau }_z=x{F}_y-y{F}_x$, positive counterclockwise as viewed from $+z$. The International System of Units unit is $\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. Although torque and energy have the same physical dimensions, torque is an axial vector and energy is a scalar; their roles differ.

For $\mathbf{r}=(2,0,0)\mathrm{m}$ and $\mathbf{F}=(0,3,0)\mathrm{N}$, ${\tau }_z=+6\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$. Applying the same force at $(1,0,0)\mathrm{m}$ gives $+3\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$; reversing it gives a negative torque; directing it along $\mathbf{r}$ gives zero. More generally, sum ${\mathbf{r}}_i\times {\mathbf{F}}_i$ to find the total torque about one common origin.

For a constant-mass point mass, the product rule and Newton's second law show why net torque changes angular momentum:The first cross product vanishes because its factors are parallel. For a collection with canceling internal torques, the remaining sum is external torque, giving conservation of angular momentum when it vanishes.^[ref]

A nonzero torque can turn the direction of angular momentum as well as change its magnitude. Indeed, the dot product gives $d|{\mathbf{L}}_O{|}^2/dt=2{\mathbf{L}}_O\cdot {\mathbf{\tau }}_O$: a perpendicular torque changes direction without instantaneously changing the magnitude. This is the geometry behind gyroscope precession. For a rapidly spinning symmetric top with a fixed tip, centre of mass distance $d$ from the tip, mass $M$, and spin-dominated angular momentum magnitude $L\simeq I\omega$, the slow steady precession approximation gives $\Omega \simeq Mgd/L$, where $g$ is gravitational acceleration. ^[ref] This is an approximation with $\Omega \ll \omega$; the uniform precession of a heavy symmetric top retains contributions omitted by the spin-dominated estimate.

Assume a constant positive mass $m$, a twice differentiable trajectory in the fixed plane, a fixed origin in an inertial frame, and Newton's second law for the net force. The product rule gives the short proofThe term $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{v}$ vanishes. This is the planar angular momentum balance written in area language.^[ref]

On a connected time interval, areal velocity is constant if and only if ${\tau }_n=0$ throughout. Since both position and acceleration lie in the fixed plane, the net torque has only that normal component. For $r\ne 0$, zero net torque is therefore equivalent to net force parallel to $\mathbf{r}$: its instantaneous direction is central, possibly inward, outward or zero. This diagnoses the net force along this motion, not its dependence on position or time elsewhere. Opposing transverse forces may cancel.

A central force about a fixed origin gives conservation of angular momentum, irrespective of its radial dependence: an inverse-square law is sufficient but unnecessary. With nonzero conserved angular momentum, $\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{L}=0$ fixes the orbital plane. Zero angular momentum gives radial motion and zero areal velocity; it does not select a unique orbital plane. The converse needs the fixed-plane assumption: a constant projected areal velocity in three dimensions only constrains one torque component. Also, $r=0$ makes the instantaneous torque vanish regardless of force and makes plane polar coordinates singular. A moving origin or changing plane requires additional terms.

If the origin of a nonrotating reference frame has inertial position $\mathbf{a}(t)$ and a particle has relative position $\mathbf{R}$, then $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{a}$. Newton's second law becomes $m\ddot{\mathbf{R}}=\mathbf{F}-m\ddot{\mathbf{a}}$. The effective inertial force is therefore $-m\ddot{\mathbf{a}}$. No rotation-dependent terms arise because the coordinate axes remain parallel to the inertial axes.

Choose positions in one inertial frame and let $M=m_1+m_2$. The centre of mass and two-particle relative coordinate areThe lighter body is farther from the centre of mass. Reconstructing both positions from these equations is part of solving the two-body problem; $\mathbf{r}$ alone describes their separation, not either body's laboratory position.^[ref]

Substitute the reconstructed velocities into the kinetic energy. The result is the exact two-particle instance of kinetic-energy decomposition about the centre of mass:The mixed dot product has coefficient $-m_1{m}_2/M+m_2{m}_1/M=0$; the coefficient of $|\dot{\mathbf{r}}{|}^2$ is $(m_1{m}_2^2+m_2{m}_1^2)/M^2=\mu$. This algebra needs constant positive masses but no particular force law. In the stationary centre of mass frame, the fraction of internal kinetic energy carried by body 1 is $m_2/M$, and by body 2 is $m_1/M$: the lighter body carries more.

For a closed pair with no external forces, write $\mathbf{F}$ for the force on body 2 and $-\mathbf{F}$ for that on body 1, as required by Newton's third law. Adding and subtracting their Newton's second law equations yieldsThus the centre of mass moves uniformly while the two-particle relative coordinate behaves like one body of reduced mass. Equal-opposite internal forces suffice for these equations. For an internal central force, $\mathbf{F}=f(r)\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ with $r=|\mathbf{r}|>0$, the internal torque vanishes and conservation of angular momentum gives constant ${\mathbf{L}}_{\mathrm{rel}}=\mu \mathbf{r}\times \dot{\mathbf{r}}$. If the central force comes from a time-independent potential energy $U(r)$, then $f(r)=-dU/dr$ and the internal mechanical energy $E_{\mathrm{rel}}=\mu |\dot{\mathbf{r}}{|}^2/2+U(r)$ is conserved. The kinetic energy split alone does not establish either conservation law.

The University of New South Wales documents an undriven, visitor-started Foucault pendulum. A fixed vertical wire and wall line define its initial north–south swing plane. The documented comparison one hour later shows reduced amplitude and about nine degrees of anticlockwise precession. The apparatus swings for several hours without an electromagnetic drive.^[ref]

To turn that demonstration into a quantitative experiment, the following is a proposed measurement protocol. Establish a rigid support with no preferred horizontal swing direction, measure the wire length to the bob's centre, and mark two perpendicular horizontal axes fixed to the building. Start with a small displacement along the sighting plane, then release with as little transverse velocity as possible. Record the actual launch method; burning a fine restraining thread is one possible proposed release, not a claim about the documented UNSW launch. Keep people clear of the bob and avoid touching the suspension during the observation.

Record the horizontal position from above with a stationary, calibrated camera, or sight the bob against the wire and wall line at recorded times. Fit the long axis of each short group of swings to estimate its orientation $\psi$; use the extrema on both sides rather than following the bob's rapidly reversing velocity. A swing line has orientation modulo $\pi$, so unwrap successive small direction changes continuously. Rotate no camera or reference between measurements. Record the fast oscillation period separately, and compare the slope of $\psi (t)$ with the Latitude law of Foucault precession. Repeat launches along different directions and monitor ellipses, pivot motion, and air currents before attributing the slow change to Earth's rotation.

Velocity is the vector giving the rate of change of position with time, measured in a specified reference frame. For a differentiable path $\mathbf{r}(t)$, its instantaneous velocity and its average velocity between two times areThe displacement in the numerator retains direction. In Cartesian coordinates, each vector component is a derivative, for example $v_x=dx/dt$; its sign tells whether the corresponding coordinate is increasing or decreasing. The SI unit of velocity is $m/s$. ^[ref]

For a concrete reversal, let $x(t)=(1\mathrm{m})+(1m/{\mathrm{s}}^2)t^2-(2m/s)t$ for $0\le t\le 2\mathrm{s}$. Its signed velocity is $v_x(t)=(2m/{\mathrm{s}}^2)t-2m/s$: at $t=0$ it is $-2m/s$, at $t=1\mathrm{s}$ it is zero, and at $t=2\mathrm{s}$ it is $+2m/s$. The opposite endpoint velocities describe opposite directions, although the endpoint speeds agree. The position moves from $1\mathrm{m}$ to $0$ and back to $1\mathrm{m}$.

Recovering displacement from a measured velocity is an integration problem: $\mathbf{r}(t_2)-\mathbf{r}(t_1)={\int }_{t_1}^{t_2}\mathbf{v}(t)dt$, with the integral taken component by component. In the reversal example, ${\int }_0^{2\mathrm{s}}{v}_x(t)dt=0$: the negative and positive contributions cancel. This distinction is useful in navigation, where the final position depends on direction as well as speed.

For a differentiable path in plane polar coordinates with $r>0$, the moving unit vectors are $\hat{\mathbf{r}}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ and $\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}=(-\sin \theta ,\cos \theta )$. Differentiating the position $\mathbf{r}=r\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ and using $\dot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}=\dot{\theta }\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$ proves the displayed velocity. Its signed radial and transverse vector components are $\dot{r}$ and $r\dot{\theta }$. A second differentiation gives the acceleration in polar coordinates. The complex representatives of the two moving unit vectors are $e^{i\theta }$ and $i{e}^{i\theta }$.

For an ordinary differential equation $\ddot{x}=f(x,t)$ with acceleration independent of velocity, the velocity Verlet method advances position and velocity byHere $h$ is the time step and $t_{n+1}=t_n+h$. For sufficiently smooth $f$, the global error on a fixed time interval is $O(h^2)$, so halving $h$ reduces the leading global error by a factor of four once the asymptotic regime is reached.

The virial theorem relates the average value of a function along a trajectory to the forces that bind it. For an isolated system of particles interacting through Newtonian gravitational potential energy, it gives $2⟨K⟩+⟨U⟩=0$: the average kinetic energy is half the magnitude of the average negative potential energy. An eccentric Kepler orbit makes the distinction vivid: kinetic energy and potential energy vary throughout the orbit, although their sum is constant. The relation concerns their time averages, rather than their values at every instant. It underlies the virial mass estimate and the negative heat capacity of a virialized gravitational system.

Use constant positive particle masses $m_i$, positions ${\mathbf{r}}_i$, mechanical momenta ${\mathbf{p}}_i=m_i{\dot{\mathbf{r}}}_i$, and total kinetic energy $K={\sum }_i{\mathbf{p}}_i^2/(2m_i)$. The auxiliary quantity $G(t)$ is a sum of dot products, not the gravitational constant, which we denote here by $G_N$:This finite-$T$ identity is exact wherever Newton's second law holds along a regular trajectory; ${\mathbf{F}}_i$ must include every force. The endpoint term is what a finite observation window leaves behind. For the infinite-time theorem, suppose the averages on the left exist and $(G(T)-G(0))/T\to 0$. A sufficient condition is uniformly bounded positions and velocities for finitely many particles. More generally $G(T)=o(T)$ suffices, even without those individual bounds. Bounded positions alone do not supply a bound on momenta, especially near a singular potential energy; nor does a small endpoint term prove thermodynamic equilibrium. Periodic motion with $G(T)=G(0)$ gives the identity without an endpoint term at that finite $T$. For an isolated system, use an inertial centre of mass frame so translational drift does not contribute bulk kinetic energy.^[ref]

For a differentiable potential energy that is a homogeneous function of degree $q$, choose its additive constant so that the scaling law really holds. With conservative forces, the Euler theorem for homogeneous functions givesThus a harmonic oscillator has $q=2$ and $⟨K⟩=⟨U⟩$. An isolated system with Newtonian gravitational potential energy hasEach interacting pair occurs once, and $U=0$ at infinite separation. Here the total energy $E=K+U$ is conserved. An external field or a mixture of different scaling powers requires its own force term; one cannot assign the whole potential energy a single degree $q$. The virial theorem for a homogeneous pair potential states the corresponding general energy relation.

The proof is a single time derivative. Apply the product rule to each dot product and use Newton's second law:Integrating from $0$ to $T$ gives the endpoint identity; the stated sublinear condition removes the endpoint term only in the infinite-time limit. Equivalently, for the scalar inertia $I=\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_i{m}_i|{\mathbf{r}}_i{|}^2$ used in the pairwise moment-of-inertia identity, $\dot{I}=G$ and $\ddot{I}=2K+{\sum }_i{\mathbf{r}}_i\cdot {\mathbf{F}}_i$. Specifying this factor of one half avoids confusion with another common inertia convention.

In On a Mechanical Theorem applicable to Heat by R. Clausius (1870, pp. 123-124), the author defines stationary motion through bounded positions and velocities, includes planetary orbits and elastic vibrations, and names the average negative half of the force-position sum the “virial”. That historical convention differs from the auxiliary $G(t)$ defined above. His proof on pp. 126-127 keeps an endpoint term, then explains why it vanishes over a complete period or becomes small in a long bounded irregular motion. The same paper separates internal and external forces and includes uniform boundary pressure on pp. 125-126: confinement was already part of the formulation, rather than a reason to omit external stresses.^[ref]

Consider the exact two-body problem with masses $m_1,m_2$. In the inertial centre of mass frame, its internal kinetic energy is $K=m|\dot{\mathbf{r}}{|}^2/2$, where $\mathbf{r}$ is their relative position, $m=m_1{m}_2/(m_1+m_2)$ is the reduced mass, and $U=-\kappa /r$ with $\kappa =G_N{m}_1{m}_2$. Take a noncollision elliptic Kepler orbit with semi-major axis $a$ and orbital eccentricity $0<e<1$. Write $\eta$ for eccentric anomaly, to avoid confusing it with total energy $E$. With mean motion $n=\sqrt{\kappa /(m{a}^3)}$ and orbital period $P=2\pi /n$, Kepler's equation and the orbit geometry giveThe time origin is periapsis. Since $dt=(1-e\cos \eta )d\eta /n$, the time average of $1/r$ over one orbital period is exactly $1/a$. Therefore $⟨K{⟩}_P=\kappa /(2a)$ and $⟨U{⟩}_P=-\kappa /a$, independently of orbital eccentricity. Equal steps in eccentric anomaly are not equal time steps; unweighted averaging of a drawing of the ellipse gives the wrong answer.

The original dimensionless example in both diagrams has $m=a=\kappa =1$ and $e=0.6$. At periapsis, $r=0.4$, $K=2$, $U=-2.5$; at apoapsis, $r=1.6$, $K=0.125$, $U=-0.625$. Both have $E=-0.5$, but $2K+U$ is respectively $1.5$ and $-0.375$. Only the orbital period averages are $⟨K{⟩}_P=0.5$ and $⟨U{⟩}_P=-1$. The instantaneous zero of $2K+U$ occurs at $r=a$, not at every point of the orbit.

The endpoint term can also be evaluated exactly: $G=m\mathbf{r}\cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}}=mn{a}^{2}e\sin \eta$. Starting at periapsis, a window ending at eccentric anomaly $\eta$ hasAt $T=P/4$, Kepler's equation gives $\eta \simeq 2.09133$ and a positive residual $\simeq 0.3314\kappa /a$. At $T=P/2$ or $P$, $G$ returns to zero and the residual vanishes exactly. The lower panel shows the running residual and its endpoint expression coinciding; the shaded quarter-orbital period window explains why a short observation need not satisfy the infinite-time theorem.

For a point mass of constant mass $m$ observed in an inertial frame, the net work along its actual path equals its change in kinetic energy:The middle expression is a line integral; the dot product selects the component of force along the displacement. Positive net work increases speed, negative net work decreases it, and zero net work leaves the endpoint speeds equal. Equal endpoint speeds do not imply equal velocities: a perpendicular force can continually change direction while doing zero work. ^[ref]

The bridge to Newton's second law is short: take the dot product of $m\dot{\mathbf{v}}={\mathbf{F}}_{\mathrm{net}}$ with velocity. The chain rule gives $d(m|\mathbf{v}{|}^2/2)/dt={\mathbf{F}}_{\mathrm{net}}\cdot \mathbf{v}$, equating the rate of change of kinetic energy to instantaneous power. Integrating gives the theorem. No conservative force assumption entered this argument; friction also contributes to the net work.

For the harmonic oscillator with spring stiffness $k=2N/m$, release a mass $m=0.5\mathrm{kg}$ from rest at $x=0.3\mathrm{m}$. The spring exerts $F=-kx$. Its work before the first passage through $x=0$ isThus $m{v}^2/2=0.09\mathrm{J}$ gives speed $0.6m/s$ there. The velocity is negative on this passage because the position is decreasing. The energy calculation alone determines its magnitude, so the direction still requires information about the motion.

For a time-independent potential energy $V$, the conservative force contributes work $-\Delta V$. Separating all other work as $W_{\mathrm{other}}$ gives $\Delta (T+V)=W_{\mathrm{other}}$. Consequently conservation of mechanical energy requires zero net other work; the work-energy theorem itself does not require that conservation. With damping, mechanical energy decreases even though the theorem remains valid. ^[ref]