Codex @codex  0

Each energy component acquires its own phase:The $1/\sqrt{S}$ factor normalizes the printed rounded input; it can be omitted if the coefficients are regarded as an already normalized rounded representation.

The energy probabilities and $⟨E⟩$ remain constant under this time-independent hamiltonian because phase factors have unit modulus. position probabilities can nevertheless vary: interference between different energy components generally changes with their relative phases. A stationary energy distribution is not the same thing as a stationary spatial probability distribution.

For a no-slip spherical tracer of radius $a$ in an isotropic incompressible elastic continuum, a small translation produces restoring force $6\pi aG\mathbf{x}$. ThusCombining this with the equilibrium three-dimensional positional variance givesEquivalently, if $P_{\infty }$ is the stationary three-dimensional displacement-MSD plateau, $G=k_{B}T/(\pi a{P}_{\infty })$. For a single measured coordinate, $⟨x_i^2⟩=k_{B}T/k$ and $G=k_{B}T/(6\pi a⟨x_i^2⟩)$.

This is passive microrheology. Calibrate bead radius, position sensitivity, temperature and localization noise; subtract drift and test that a plateau is resolved. The continuum must be meaningful on the bead scale, the bead must couple without slip, and thermal equilibrium must hold. Boundaries, compressibility, active motion, probe attachment and unresolved relaxation can change the inferred response. An imposed optical trap adds stiffness and must be removed or independently calibrated rather than mistaken for material elasticity.

Interpret the given noise correlation as the three-dimensional dot-product correlation. Each Cartesian component then has $⟨{\xi }_i(t){\xi }_j(t^{\prime })⟩=2\gamma k_{B}T{\delta }_{ij}\delta (t-t^{\prime })$. For the usual Gaussian thermal-noise idealization, each coordinate is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. With $\tau =\gamma /k$,For a particle initially at ${\mathbf{x}}_0=0$,Hence its long-time displacement about the trap/elastic equilibrium hasThis also follows from equipartition theorem: each of three quadratic coordinates contributes $k_{B}T/2$.

A different common experimental quantity is the stationary time-lag displacement. It obeyswith long-lag RMS $\sqrt{6k_{B}T/k}$. The factor of two distinguishes fluctuations about a mean position from differences between two decorrelated positions. The observation convention must be stated rather than silently interchanged.

For standard deviations of position and momentum,Confinement to a region of size $R$ requires a momentum spread of order $\hslash /R$, hence kinetic energy of order ${\hslash }^2/(2m^{\ast }{R}^2)$. A sufficiently small semiconducting nanocrystal therefore has discrete energy levels and an optical edge shifted above the bulk band gap.

An illustrative strong-confinement model iswhere $\alpha$ is a geometry-dependent number of order unity. The positive confinement contribution grows as $R^{-2}$; electron-hole Coulomb interaction contributes an attractive term of order $-R^{-1}$. The uncertainty principle motivates the scale, not the exact coefficient or oscillator strength. Strong size dependence occurs near the exciton Bohr radius. Finite barriers, dielectric mismatch and surface states modify this model, while size distributions broaden ensemble spectra.

The time-independent Schrödinger equation isPut $\alpha =m\omega /\hslash$. For $\psi =e^{-\alpha x^2/2}$, differentiation gives ${\psi }^{\prime \prime }=({\alpha }^2{x}^2-\alpha )\psi$. Substitution cancels the terms in $x^2$ and leaves $E_0={\hslash }^2\alpha /(2m)=\hslash \omega /2$.

The Gaussian integral gives $\int e^{-\alpha x^2}dx=\sqrt{\pi /\alpha }$. Hence a normalized wave function isMultiplication by any constant of modulus one gives the same quantum state. The position probability density is $|{\psi }_0{|}^2=\sqrt{\alpha /\pi }{e}^{-\alpha x^2}$. Its first moment vanishes by oddness. Integration by parts gives $\int x^2{e}^{-\alpha x^2}dx=(2\alpha {)}^{-1}\int e^{-\alpha x^2}dx$, with the boundary term zero. Therefore

Put $s=1+it$. Logarithmic differentiation givesThereforeso the appropriate potential energy is $\boxed{V(x)=0}$. The wavefunction never vanishes, so no other time-independent potential gives the same equation for this precise phase choice.

The squared modulus isIt changes width and height with time, so this is not a stationary state. Its integral is the constant $\sqrt{\pi \hslash /m}$; multiplying the wavefunction by $(m/(\pi \hslash ){)}^{1/4}$ normalizes it. The normalized Gaussian wave packet stays centred at zero but spreads, with position variance $\hslash (1+t^2)/(2m)$. It represents a localized free particle with a spread of momenta, rather than an energy eigenstate. Free Gaussian wave packet evolution broadens the packet even with zero mean momentum.

Put $s=1+it$. Logarithmic differentiation givesThereforeso the appropriate potential energy is $\boxed{V(x)=0}$. The wavefunction never vanishes, so no other time-independent potential gives the same equation for this precise phase choice.

The squared modulus isIt changes width and height with time, so this is not a stationary state. Its integral is the constant $\sqrt{\pi \hslash /m}$; multiplying the wavefunction by $(m/(\pi \hslash ){)}^{1/4}$ normalizes it. The normalized Gaussian wave packet stays centred at zero but spreads, with position variance $\hslash (1+t^2)/(2m)$. It represents a localized free particle with a spread of momenta, rather than an energy eigenstate. Free Gaussian wave packet evolution broadens the packet even with zero mean momentum.

The familiar result follows if the force laws have Galilean invariance; the three abstract Newton's laws of motion do not guarantee that invariance. Isaac Newton's Corollary V correctly identifies a central feature of ordinary Newtonian mechanics, but its general physical scope requires assumptions about interactions as well as about the relation between force and acceleration.^[ref]

Take a constant velocity $\mathbf{U}$ and a Galilean transformationThen ${\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_i^{\prime }={\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_i$, ${\mathbf{x}}_i^{\prime }-{\mathbf{x}}_j^{\prime }={\mathbf{x}}_i-{\mathbf{x}}_j$, and ${\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_i^{\prime }-{\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_j^{\prime }={\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_i-{\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_j$. Any interaction depending only on these relative quantities, with unchanged parameters, supplies the same forces for the transformed initial data. Newton's second law consequently gives the same relative accelerations; uniqueness of the resulting initial value problem supplies the same relative histories. An inverse-square central interaction is a standard example. Newton's third law helps establish the common centre of mass result, but the boost argument principally needs invariant interactions and the second law.

Here is a counterexample to deduction from the three laws alone. Give two equal masses a preferred inertial frame and write $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{x}}_1-{\mathbf{x}}_2$, $\mathbf{V}=({\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_1+{\dot{\mathbf{x}}}_2)/2$. For fixed $k>0$ and speed scale $u_{\ast }>0$, specifyThe forces are equal, opposite and central, the centre of mass is inertial, and each body obeys $m{\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}_i={\mathbf{F}}_i$. An elementary body with no force is inertial. Nevertheless,Boosting an isolated pair from $\mathbf{V}=0$ to $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{U}$ changes its internal oscillation frequency. All three motion laws hold, but the proposed universal boost equivalence fails. The extra preferred structure in the force law is what makes the failure possible.

A passive coordinate transformation of this same model remains possible: transform the preferred frame's description too. That mathematical freedom does not establish an active dynamical symmetry which changes the physical pair's velocity relative to the preferred structure while holding the laws' background data fixed. Confusing those operations would hide the counterexample.

Finally, a change to rotating coordinates introduces centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces; their dependence on position or velocity can change internal experiments. Constant translational velocity has no analogous effect when the interactions have Galilean invariance. Corollary V expresses that physical symmetry, with the interaction assumption made explicit, rather than a consequence of action–reaction alone.

There are two different issues: whether a law follows logically from the other laws, and whether an experiment can test it without assuming anything else. Newton's laws of motion have empirical content when combined with rules for identifying inertial frames, measuring mass and specifying forces. An experiment tests predictions of that combination. Calling every observed acceleration an otherwise unspecified force would remove the empirical constraint rather than verify Newton's second law. The distinction is central to the empirical testing of Newton's laws of motion.

Newton's first law contributes the claim that a common family of inertial frames exists: bodies with zero net external force have uniform straight motion in those frames. It is not enough to choose coordinates which straighten the trajectory of just one body; an admissible frame must accommodate many independent bodies and interactions. Once that frame and the ordinary constant-positive-mass form of Newton's second law are assumed,This conditional deduction does not establish the existence of the required frame, or independently identify the physical circumstances in which the net force vanishes. Defining an inertial frame and then counting a straight trajectory as proof of the definition would not be a test.

Nevertheless, the law of inertia has testable implications in a network of assumptions. Consider low-friction motion along an air track: determine positions at measured times, reduce the known residual influences, and ask whether the remaining acceleration approaches zero in the same laboratory frame for different bodies. Rotating the frame changes the description through Coriolis forces and centrifugal forces; this dependence must be accounted for. No finite experiment establishes that every unmeasured influence is absent, but varying the apparatus can discriminate an interaction from a frame effect. A failed prediction is evidence against some part of the package, not automatically the isolated verbal statement of Newton's first law.

Newton's second law is more than a definition if the force law and mass assignments constrain predictions before the new acceleration is measured. For instance, independently characterize a spring's reproducible extension response, specify the same interaction in several configurations, and compare the resulting accelerations for different bodies. If its strength and every mass are freely refitted to each outcome, agreement is empty. If they are fixed by an independently checked model and calibration, the law predicts held-out trajectories. Such a test remains conditional on the spring model, initial conditions and frame identification; this is an instance of the Duhem problem, not a reason to deny all empirical content.

Newton's third law supplies a different constraint. For two bodies exchanging forces, Newton's second law giveswhen there is no net external force. Equal-and-opposite interaction forces imply conservation of momentum for the pair. The two second-law equations alone do not require that cancellation: assigning ${\mathbf{F}}_{12}=\mathbf{f}$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_{21}=-2\mathbf{f}$ is algebraically consistent with both second-law equations while violating the third law. This is a logical countermodel, not a proposed isolated physical interaction. Measuring paired impulses or checking the pair's total momentum therefore tests an additional constraint, conditional on the assumed absence of momentum exchange with anything else.

The system boundary matters. In electromagnetism, matter can exchange momentum with the electromagnetic field. Instantaneous mechanical forces between two particles need not satisfy the simple pairwise statement, although total matter-plus-field momentum is conserved under the appropriate closed-system conditions. Likewise, Noether theorem can derive conservation of momentum from a translationally invariant action; that uses an extra symmetry assumption and does not derive the third law from the second alone.

Thus the first law is not an additional differential consequence once the full second-law framework is fixed, and the third law is not a consequence of that framework. All three can contribute to empirical tests, but none is tested in total isolation from frame, interaction and measurement assumptions. This preserves the difference between logical dependence and experimental testability.^[ref]

Let the pivot's prescribed horizontal position be $x(t)$ and measure $\theta$ from the downward vertical. The bob's coordinates are $X=x+l\sin \theta$ and $Y=-l\cos \theta$. ThereforeWith zero gravitational potential energy at pivot height, the bob's Lagrangian isHere $x(t)$ is a prescribed input, not yet a free coordinate. Terms depending only on that prescribed time function can be dropped without changing the $\theta$ equation. The moving block's own kinetic energy becomes relevant when its motion is free in part (d).

Take the natural release interpretation: both block and bob are initially at rest, the block starts at $x_0$, and the bob has small horizontal displacement $\delta =l{\theta }_0$ relative to the downward line through the pivot. Then $P=0$, $\dot{\theta }(0)=0$ andThe bob's horizontal position isThe block and bob therefore oscillate in opposite phase about the fixed horizontal centre of mass $x_0+m\delta /(M+m)$. Their horizontal oscillation amplitudes are $m\delta /(M+m)$ and $M\delta /(M+m)$ respectively. They pass the centre-of-mass line together when the rod is vertical. If the bob were also given an unspecified initial velocity, the additional sine and translational terms in part (d) would be needed; the source's displacement-release case selects the cosine solution.

The photon starts at $x_E^{\prime }=\gamma L$ and travels left to the runner at the fixed position $x^{\prime }=0$. ThusThis distance is not the simultaneous contracted tunnel length $L/\gamma$, because the runner is not at the entrance when the photon is emitted in $S^{\prime }$. Adding the entrance-to-runner gap from part (ii) to $L/\gamma$ indeed gives $\gamma L$.

At that simultaneous entrance-clock event, $x_G=0$ and $t_G=-vL/c^2$. Its runner-frame position isThe runner is at $x^{\prime }=0$, so the entrance is still ahead by distance $\gamma {\beta }^{2}L$ at the runner-frame emission time. The simultaneously measured distance between the two tunnel ends is $x_E^{\prime }-x_G^{\prime }=\gamma L(1-{\beta }^2)=L/\gamma$, consistent with length contraction.

Use spherical coordinates about the fixed pivot, with fixed rod length $l$, polar angle $\theta$ measured from the downward vertical, and azimuth $\varphi$. The bob's position iswhen the Cartesian $z$ axis points upward. Differentiation gives kinetic energy $T=m{l}^2({\dot{\theta }}^2+{\sin }^2\theta {\dot{\varphi }}^2)/2$. Taking zero gravitational potential energy at pivot height gives $V=-mgl\cos \theta$. The spherical pendulum's Lagrangian is thereforeThe rod is light, rigid and of fixed length; pivot friction and air drag are neglected. A rigid rod, unlike a string, may sustain either tensile or compressive constraint force.

Let $\mathbf{r}$ be the orbiting point mass's position relative to the attracting body, and let its velocity be $\mathbf{v}=\dot{\mathbf{r}}$. Its angular momentum isConservation of angular momentum keeps both the magnitude and direction of $\mathbf{L}$ fixed. Since $\mathbf{L}$ is perpendicular to $\mathbf{r}$, a nonradial orbit lies in a fixed plane. During a short interval $dt$, the radius vector sweeps a thin triangle of areaThus the areal velocity is constant:Equal time intervals give equal swept areas: this is Kepler's second law. In plane polar coordinates, the same statement is $L=m{r}^2\dot{\varphi }$ and $\dot{A}=r^2\dot{\varphi }/2$. The attracting body is at the relevant focus of the ellipse, not its geometric centre. The area argument needs conserved angular momentum, not specifically an ellipse; a central force provides this conservation because its torque $\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}$ vanishes.

There is no external horizontal force, so momentum conservation keeps the student–punt centre of mass fixed if the system starts at rest. Let the student's walking direction be positive. If the punt's displacement relative to the water is $X$, the student advances $X+L$, where $L=3\mathrm{m}$ is measured relative to the punt. Constancy of the centre of mass givesThe punt moves $1.04\mathrm{m}$ opposite to the student's walking direction; the student's net displacement relative to the water is $3+X\simeq 1.96\mathrm{m}$. These displacements are relative to the initial state, not distances travelled relative to the punt.

Under the same ideal assumptions, merely changing the walking speed or walking back more slowly cannot produce unlimited travel. Returning the student to the original place on the punt restores the original internal mass distribution and hence the punt's original position. A finite punt bounds the displacement available through internal rearrangement. Propulsion over large distances requires an external horizontal impulse, for example a push against the bed or momentum transferred to the water. Such an interaction changes the isolated, frictionless model rather than evading centre of mass conservation.

Plot position $x$ horizontally and $ct$ vertically, with equal length scales, so vacuum light rays have slopes $\pm 1$. A possible cause of the spacetime event $A$ must lie on or inside its past light cone, with $\Delta t=t_A-t_{\mathrm{cause}}>0$. Equivalently, causality requires $|\Delta x|\le c\Delta t$.

From $B$ to $A$, $\Delta x=6\mathrm{m}$ and $\Delta t=10^{-8}\mathrm{s}$. Using $c\simeq 3.00\times 10^8\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the available light-travel distance is only $c\Delta t=3.00\mathrm{m}$. In the $(-,+,+,+)$ metric signature, the Minkowski interval isThere is spacelike separation, so a signal would need speed $6\times 10^8\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\simeq 2c$:From $C$ to $A$, $\Delta x=-2\mathrm{m}$ and $\Delta t=1.5\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{s}$. Now $c\Delta t=4.50\mathrm{m}>|\Delta x|$, givingThis is timelike separation, with a possible signal velocity $-2/(1.5\times 10^{-8})\simeq -1.33\times 10^8\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Therefore

For a satellite of mass $m$ moving in the Newtonian gravitational field of a much larger, effectively fixed mass $M$, put $\mu =GM$. Its conserved mechanical energy, with gravitational potential energy zero at infinity, isHere $r$ is the instantaneous centre-to-centre distance, $v$ the satellite's speed, $G$ the gravitational constant, and $a$ the semi-major axis of its bound elliptic orbit. The kinetic energy and potential energy vary around the orbit, while their sum remains constant. Dividing by $m$ and solving for $v$ gives the vis-viva equation, $v^2=\mu (2/r-1/a)$.

For this Hohmann transfer orbit, the periapsis and apoapsis distances are $r_1=1\mathrm{AU}$ and $r_2=1.52\mathrm{AU}$, soThe vis-viva equation gives the endpoint speedsAs a check, conservation of angular momentum at the two endpoints gives $r_1{v}_{\mathrm{p}}=r_2{v}_{\mathrm{a}}$ because each velocity is perpendicular to its radius. Using $1\mathrm{AU}=1.49598\times 10^{11}\mathrm{m}$ and $\mu =1.32712\times 10^{20}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ gives $v_1=29.78\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ andThe departure impulse must increase the speed in the direction of the initial circular orbit:These are Sun-centred speeds; leaving the Earth's own gravitational field would require an additional calculation beyond this idealized solar orbit transfer.

At $r_2$, the desired circular orbit speed is $v_2=\sqrt{\mu /r_2}=24.16\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. The arrival impulse is thereforeThe required thrust on the spacecraft is forward, tangent to its orbit, to accelerate it. The rocket ejects exhaust backwards, opposite to the spacecraft's velocity; this distinguishes the direction of thrust from the direction in which the exhaust is fired.

The Hohmann transfer time is half the orbital period of the transfer ellipse. From Kepler's third law, relative to the Earth's one-year orbital period,Meanwhile Mars's orbital period is $T_M=1.52^{3/2}\mathrm{yr}=1.8740\mathrm{yr}$. The spacecraft arrives $\pi$ radians from its departure position. For a rendezvous, Mars must reach that same position after advancing through $2\pi t_H/T_M$. Thus its initial lead angle over the departing spacecraft isMars must be ahead by this angle in the common direction of motion around their orbits. At departure the spacecraft and the Earth share the inner orbital position; arrival occurs on the opposite side of the Sun.

For a normalized top-hat wavefunction of width $L$ centred at zero, $\psi (x)=L^{-1/2}$ inside the interval and zero outside. Its position distribution has $⟨x⟩=0$ and $\Delta x=L/\sqrt{12}$. With Fourier convention $(2\pi \hslash {)}^{-1/2}$, the momentum amplitude isThe momentum density has long oscillatory $1/p^2$ tails. Consequently $\int p^2|\tilde{\psi }{|}^{2}dp$ diverges: the ideal discontinuous top hat has infinite r.m.s. momentum spread. Its symmetric momentum density has formal principal-value mean zero, but no finite absolute first moment either. The finite-variance form $\Delta x\Delta p\ge \hslash /2$ is therefore not saturated and cannot be evaluated using the width of the central diffraction lobe as $\Delta p$.

The first momentum zeros occur at $p=\pm 2\pi \hslash /L$, showing the inverse-width scale. Smoothing the edges sufficiently gives a finite momentum variance and restores the ordinary finite-variance uncertainty comparison; sharper edges require larger high-momentum components. It is the ideal jump, not a violation of the uncertainty principle, that causes the divergence.

For the oppositely travelling components, write $u=c_1{e}^{ikx}$ and $v=c_2{e}^{-ikx}$ after removing the common time phase. Then ${\partial }_x\psi =ik(u-v)e^{-i\omega t}$. In $\mathrm{Im}({\psi }^{\ast }{\partial }_x\psi )$ the interference terms contribute no imaginary part, soA standing-wave interference pattern can therefore change density without adding a cross-term to the net current.

For barrier-top scattering, the stationary equation inside the barrier is $-{\hslash }^2{\psi }_2^{\prime \prime }/(2m)=0$. Thus its spatial part is linear: ${\psi }_2=(bx+c)e^{-i\omega t}$. Take incident amplitude one, $k=\sqrt{2mE}/\hslash$ and $\omega =E/\hslash$. Continuity of the spatial wave function and its derivative at the two finite steps givesSolving these four equations yieldsThe equal exterior velocities mean flux ratios are squared amplitude ratios:This is the threshold limit of finite-barrier scattering, not exponential decay with a nonzero interior decay constant.

The interior constants areSince $\mathrm{Im}[(bx+c{)}^{\ast }b]=\mathrm{Im}(c^{\ast }b)=k/(1+k^2{a}^2)$,It is positive and independent of position, matching the transmitted flux. Although the classical kinetic energy inside is zero, the complex linear quantum wave function carries conserved probability current; its phase varies with position.