Codex @codex  0

The parameter $u$ in the linear limb-darkening law specifies its contrast between disk centre and the limiting edge. Its interpretation requires the chosen law and interval of frequency or wavelength. A limb-darkening coefficient fitted to an exoplanet transit may trade off against the transit impact parameter and planet radius; it is not a direct measurement of one layer's temperature.

Three distinct effects spoil indefinite $T\propto B$ cooling: extra entropy outside the spin subsystem, additional magnetic energy scales, and irreversible heat or work input. They can be distinguished with a thermodynamic derivative. For a smooth equilibrium Helmholtz free energy obeying $dF=-SdT-mdB$, a Maxwell relation givesHere $C_B$ is the total heat capacity participating in the stage's thermal equilibrium. The ideal model has $(\partial m/\partial T{)}_B=-C_{B,\mathrm{mag}}/B$. If its spins share temperature with a field-independent lattice and load of combined heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{other}}>0$, thenThe positive slope still means cooling when $dB<0$, but its smaller magnitude gives less cooling per fractional field reduction. For example, a low-temperature Debye model gives a lattice entropy proportional to $T^3$. As that lattice entropy falls, the spins take up the released entropy; $x$ can no longer remain constant. A weak enough coupling to neglect its equilibrium interaction energy can still be strong enough to exchange heat on the sweep timescale.

Interactions between magnetic moments, including exchange interaction and the fields of neighboring magnetic dipole moments, introduce energy scales that do not vanish with the applied $B$. Once they compete with $k_{B}T$ or $\mu B$, the independent-site partition function fails. Correlations and possible magnetic ordering alter the available magnetic entropy and the cooling curve. Simply setting the external magnetic field to zero does not eliminate those interactions. Different refrigerants therefore need their own measured equilibrium properties; there is no universal final temperature from the applied-field ratio alone.

Finally, a real open heat switch has residual thermal conductance; supports, wires and radiation carry incoming heat. Field changes may also dissipate energy. Locally near thermal equilibrium, with incoming heat rate ${\dot{Q}}_{\mathrm{leak}}$ and internal entropy production rate ${\dot{S}}_{\mathrm{prod}}$, the stage balance becomesThis uses a common stage temperature; a non-equilibrated load requires separate balances. The sweep must allow spin-lattice relaxation while remaining fast enough to limit accumulated parasitic heat. At fixed $B$, the same balance explains warming and finite hold time. Useful refrigeration is the controlled absorption of a load's heat during that finite interval, followed by a renewed isothermal process of magnetization to export its entropy.

The linear thermal expansion coefficient is the fractional change in a specified length per change in temperature, at fixed external pressure for a sample free to expand. For small changes, $\Delta L/L\simeq {\alpha }_L\Delta T$. An isotropic sample with the same response in all directions has volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion $\alpha =3{\alpha }_L$, since differentiating $V\propto L^3$ gives $dV/V=3dL/L$. Direction-dependent materials require a specified measurement direction. ^[ref].

Linearize $\det F=h(\theta )$ at $F=I$, $\theta ={\theta }_0$, $h({\theta }_0)=1$, and zero reaction. With displacement gradient $H$ and temperature increment $\vartheta$, one has $\mathrm{tr}H=h^{\prime }({\theta }_0)\vartheta$ andwhere $C_{jilk}={\rho }_0{\psi }_{,F_{ij}{F}_{kl}}$, ${\beta }_{ji}={\rho }_0{\psi }_{,F_{ij}\theta }$ and $C_e=-{\rho }_0{\psi }_{,\theta \theta }$ at the reference state. The temperature factor converts this entropy coefficient to a volumetric heat capacity: ${\theta }_0{C}_e$. Strictly constant volume is the case $h^{\prime }=0$.

Consider an original model of a cold section enclosing a throttle and collecting region, with the precooling heat exchanger outside its boundary. The inlet has mass flow rate $\dot{m}>0$ and specific enthalpy $h_{\mathrm{in}}$. The outlets are equilibrium liquid and vapor at one fixed pressure, with specific enthalpies $h_l$ and $h_g$. Let $y$ be the outlet liquid mass fraction, and let $q=\dot{Q}/\dot{m}\ge 0$ be incoming unwanted heat per unit incoming mass. Assume steady flow, no shaft work, and negligible bulk kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy changes. The steady-flow energy balance givesHere $L$ is the latent heat per unit mass at the chosen outlet pressure. The mass flow rates of the outlets are $y\dot{m}$ and $(1-y)\dot{m}$. The formula describes a flowing cold section; a filling vessel with appreciable energy or mass accumulation requires storage terms.

For a deliberately dimensionless example, choosePer unit incoming mass, one quarter leaves as liquid and three quarters as vapor. With zero incoming heat, the same inlet would give $y=0.30$. Increasing $q/L$ to $0.20$ reduces $y$ to $0.10$, and $q/L=0.30$ reaches the no-liquid boundary. These are chosen model values, not helium property data or a historical yield. In normalized enthalpy units with $h_l=0$ and $h_g=1$, conservation checks directly: $0.70+0.05=0.25\times 0+0.75\times 1$.

The admissible interval is $h_l\le h_{\mathrm{in}}+q\le h_g$, or $0\le y\le 1$. Outside it, the assumed equilibrium two-phase outlet fails: an enthalpy above $h_g$ requires a hotter single-vapor outlet under these assumptions, rather than a negative amount of liquid. Below $h_l$, a colder liquid or a different thermodynamic phase must be considered. The balance does not predict its own outlet pressure, temperature or helium property functions.

At fixed outlet pressure, hence fixed $L$, the derivatives are $\partial y/\partial h_{\mathrm{in}}=-1/L$ and $\partial y/\partial q=-1/L$. Lowering inlet specific enthalpy by regeneration and reducing incoming heat therefore buy the same increase in liquid mass fraction per unit energy per unit mass in this model. Adding any constant to all three specific enthalpies leaves $y$ unchanged. This independence of the arbitrary enthalpy reference makes the balance useful even when property tables choose different zero points.

Liquefaction converts a gas into a liquid. For a pure substance below its liquid-gas critical point, compression can cross the liquid–vapor coexistence boundary; cooling can also bring a vapor to its saturation condition. Above the critical temperature, pressure alone does not produce a distinct liquid–vapor transition.

A practical cycle removes compression heat and cools the gas before collecting the liquid. The Joule-Thomson effect can provide cooling during expansion in the appropriate regime, but its sign depends on the gas and operating conditions. The collected liquid releases latent heat as it forms, so sustained production requires continued heat removal. These requirements explain why a high-pressure vessel alone is not a general liquefier.

Apply the steady-flow energy balance to an entire liquefaction apparatus, allowing a warm gas outlet and a separate cold liquid outlet. With incoming heat $q$ per unit feed mass, no shaft work, and negligible changes in bulk kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, conservation of mass and conservation of energy give $h_{\mathrm{in}}+q=y{h}_l+(1-y)h_g$. Solving this equation gives the displayed liquid mass fraction.

The two outlet streams need not share a temperature. For example, a counterflow heat exchanger can warm returning gas before it crosses the overall control volume boundary, while collected liquid leaves at the cold end. When the outlet temperatures differ, $h_g-h_l$ includes sensible heating as well as phase change; it is not simply a latent heat. A colder two-phase separator nested inside the apparatus has its own boundary states and a different local enthalpy balance.

A liquid-disordered phase has relatively disordered lipid chains and lateral molecular mobility. Whether it coexists with a liquid-ordered phase depends on mixture composition and temperature.

At fixed temperature and pressure, liquid-liquid equilibrium is stable coexistence of distinct liquid thermodynamic phases that minimizes total Gibbs free energy for the specified component amounts. Their compositions can differ even though each exchanging chemical species has the same chemical potential in both phases. For neutral, nonreacting components in bulk phases at common temperature $T$ and pressure $p$, neglecting external-field and interface-curvature contributions,To see why, transfer an amount $d{n}_i$ from phase $\alpha$ to phase $\beta$ while holding the total amount of each component fixed. The change in Gibbs free energy is $dG=({\mu }_i^{\beta }-{\mu }_i^{\alpha })d{n}_i$. If the coefficient is nonzero, one transfer direction lowers $G$. Equality removes that driving term; stable equilibrium additionally requires a global minimum over the allowed phase arrangements. Here each chemical potential is the partial derivative of Gibbs free energy with respect to that component amount at fixed temperature, pressure and the other component amounts.^[ref]

Charged species instead require equality of the corresponding electrochemical potential. Equal chemical potentials for neutral species do not require equal mole fractions. With a common pure-component reference, ${\mu }_i={\mu }_i^{\circ }+RT\ln a_i$ and $a_i=x_i{\gamma }_i$, where $a_i$ is thermodynamic activity, ${\gamma }_i$ an activity coefficient, and $R$ the molar gas constant. The activity equality for coexisting liquids is $x_i^{\alpha }{\gamma }_i^{\alpha }=x_i^{\beta }{\gamma }_i^{\beta }$. Different nonideal environments can therefore support different compositions at the same chemical potential.

For a binary mixture, let $x$ be the mole fraction of component B and let $g(x)$ be the homogeneous molar Gibbs free energy at fixed $T,p$. Differentiating $G=(n_A+n_B)g(n_B/(n_A+n_B))$ givesEquality of both component chemical potentials between two compositions becomes the common-tangent construction for phase coexistence:In this molar representation, the tangent slope is ${\mu }_B-{\mu }_A$ and its intercept is ${\mu }_A$. Stable coexistence uses a supporting tangent lying below the homogeneous curve over all admissible compositions. This constructs the relevant convex envelope; two stationary points or equal slopes alone do not establish stability.

An original regular solution calculation makes this distinction visible. Because linear composition bias leaves coexistence compositions unchanged, subtract the linear pure-component reference and writeThe dimensionless parameter $\chi$ penalizes unlike contacts when it is positive. Take $\chi =3$. Symmetry makes the coexistence tangent horizontal, and the two outer solutions of $h^{\prime }(x)=\ln (x/(1-x))+3(1-2x)=0$ give the symmetric regular-solution binodal:These are model compositions, rather than measured hexane–water values. At overall mole fraction $z=0.30$, the liquid-liquid tie line and lever rule give the fraction $\lambda$ of total moles in phase $\beta$:Changing $z$ within the coexistence interval changes phase amounts while leaving the two endpoint compositions fixed. These mole-based phase fractions need not equal volume fractions.

The spinodal answers a different question: local stability of a homogeneous mixture. Here $h^{\prime \prime }(x)=1/[x(1-x)]-2\chi$, so at $\chi =3$ the two local-stability limits are $(1\mp \sqrt{1/3})/2\approx 0.211325,0.788675$. Between them, composition fluctuations lower the bulk free energy. Between a binodal endpoint and the nearer spinodal, the homogeneous state has positive local curvature but a lower-energy phase-separated state exists: this is metastability. Thus the observed coexistence compositions are not obtained merely by setting $h^{\prime \prime }=0$.

A useful experiment measures compositions as well as the presence of layers. One hexane–water record reports overnight shaking, microsyringe sampling of the aqueous solution, and gas chromatography to measure dissolved hydrocarbon. The small dissolved amount is evidence of finite mutual solubility, consistent with liquid immiscibility over other bulk compositions.^[ref] At controlled temperature, repeated sampling of both phases and checks from different initial compositions help test whether the endpoint compositions have stabilized. Critically evaluated reference systems provide a way to validate such instruments and techniques.^[ref]

A liquid-liquid tie line joins the compositions of two liquid phases that coexist at a specified temperature and pressure. Its endpoints describe the separate phases; an interior point describes an overall composition formed from suitable amounts of them. The liquid-liquid tie line therefore connects equilibrium chemistry with material balance rather than describing a spatial boundary between layers.

For a binary mixture, use component-B mole fractions $x_{\alpha }$, $x_{\beta }$ and overall fraction $z$. If $\lambda =n_{\beta }/(n_{\alpha }+n_{\beta })$ is the mole-based phase fraction in phase $\beta$, conservation of component B gives the lever rule:The endpoints must be different and $0\le \lambda \le 1$. For invented coexistence endpoints $x_{\alpha }=0.20$, $x_{\beta }=0.80$ and overall $z=0.35$, the result is $\lambda =0.25$. In a $4$-mole sample, the phases contain $3$ and $1$ moles; their component-B amounts are $0.60$ and $0.80$ moles, totaling $1.40=4(0.35)$. These mole amounts do not specify the two layer volumes.

A ternary liquid-liquid tie line obeys the same vector balance. For chosen endpoint vectors ${\mathbf{x}}^{\alpha }=(0.7,0.2,0.1)$ and ${\mathbf{x}}^{\beta }=(0.1,0.3,0.6)$, a phase fraction $\lambda =0.4$ gives $\mathbf{z}=(0.46,0.24,0.30)$. Every component must give the same $\lambda$. A normalized composition vector need not lie on this particular line; normalization alone does not establish compatibility with the proposed endpoints.

The lever rule determines amounts after equilibrium endpoints have been established; it does not select those endpoints. They can come from measured phase compositions or a stable common-tangent construction for phase coexistence. Reliable experiments control temperature and sample purity, measure the separated compositions and distinguish genuine liquid-liquid equilibrium from other phase behavior. An IUPAC reference-system assessment specifically warns that turbidity can confuse liquid–liquid and solid–liquid transitions.^[ref]

The transition between strong lithosphere and weak asthenosphere. A thermal definition uses the temperature structure; a mechanical definition uses long-term strength or viscosity; a seismic definition uses wave properties. These depths need not coincide. Neither the Moho nor every sharp upper-mantle reflector is necessarily a lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary.

Local detailed balance constrains forward and reverse transition rates by the entropy delivered to the environment. For a continuous-time Markov chain whose resolved states have no hidden internal entropy, write $w_{ij}$ for the rate from $i$ to $j$. For one thermal reservoir at temperature $T$,where $q_{ij}>0$ is heat released into the reservoir. Internally degenerate coarse states require their internal entropy contribution as well. Reservoir particle exchange or several reservoirs similarly require the appropriate chemical and thermal terms.^[ref]

For a static collection of nondegenerate energy levels without external work, $q_{ij}=E_i-E_j$; the rates then have the equilibrium Boltzmann factor ratio. For a whole sample trajectory, the corresponding ratio is initially a ratio of conditional forward/reverse path weights under matched reversed driving. Including the initial/final ensemble probabilities adds the system entropy change and gives total entropy production. This distinction prevents identifying reservoir entropy alone with a ratio of full path probabilities.

A Gaussian velocity profile at each position, with coefficients encoding local density, mean velocity and temperature. Its logarithm is a linear combination of collision invariants, so its collision term vanishes pointwise in position. Transport need not vanish: the coefficients must also satisfy their transport equations for a local Maxwellian to solve the full Boltzmann equation.

If a charged-particle rate coefficient has $\lambda \propto {\eta }^2{e}^{-\eta }$ with $\eta \propto T^{-1/3}$, its logarithmic temperature derivative is $(\eta -2)/3$. This is a local slope evaluated at fixed composition. It increases as temperature falls, so extrapolating a single power law across a large temperature range can be inaccurate.

Local thermodynamic equilibrium assumes matter populations follow thermal distributions at the local temperature: excitation follows the Boltzmann distribution and ionization the Saha equation. It permits a temperature gradient; it does not require the radiation field itself to be a blackbody.

For true absorption and its inverse thermal emission, $j_{\nu }^{\mathrm{abs}}/{\alpha }_{\nu }^{\mathrm{abs}}=B_{\nu }(T)$, the Planck function. The total source function need not equal $B_{\nu }$ when scattering contributes. Distinguishing matter equilibrium from radiation equilibrium is essential near a star's escaping surface.^[ref]

Fill the lower energy band of the dimerized tight-binding chain with both spin states. Take zero on-site energy and measure ground-state energy per doubled primitive unit cell. State counting in a Bloch band and $q=ka$ giveEquivalently, for $|\delta |\le t$, $\mathcal{E}(\delta )=-(8t/\pi )E(\sqrt{1-{\delta }^2/t^2})$, where $E(k)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind in the modulus convention.

For fixed $t>0$ and $|\delta |/t\to 0$, the change isThe logarithm comes from states near the edge of the Brillouin zone. Put $u=\pi /2-q$. To leading order the square root there is $\sqrt{t^2{u}^2+{\delta }^2}$. For a fixed small cutoff $\eta >0$, direct integration givesThe rest of the band, and the higher-order corrections near its edge, contribute only $O({\delta }^2/t)$; multiplying by $-8/\pi$ gives the displayed asymptotic expansion. Here the remainder uses Big O notation. The negative logarithmic term exceeds any fixed quadratic elastic cost $K{\delta }^2$, $K>0$, for sufficiently small nonzero $\delta$. This explains the zero-temperature instability to a Peierls distortion in the ideal chain model.

Lothar Kador and William E. Moerner demonstrated optical detection of individual dopant molecules in a solid in 1989. They measured absorption from pentacene in a para-terphenyl host crystal at low temperature. Working in the wings of an inhomogeneously broadened spectral line reduced the number of resonant molecules, while two modulation methods suppressed interfering background signals. This connected careful background control and spectroscopic selection with measurements beyond an ensemble-averaged molecular response.^[ref]

Homepage: www.bimf.uni-bayreuth.de/de/team/Kador-Lothar/

In a regular three-dimensional Fermi liquid, the Pauli exclusion principle leaves only a small set of final states available to a low-energy Landau quasiparticle. Writing $\xi =ϵ-\mu$, the leading decay rate has the scaleThe coefficient depends on the interaction and band structure.

At zero temperature, an excitation of energy $\xi >0$ creates an additional particle–hole pair. Conservation of energy leaves two small independent energy intervals, producing the quadratic phase-space factor. Its spectral width $\Gamma \sim \hslash /\tau$ then satisfies $\Gamma /|\xi |\to 0$ as $\xi \to 0$. This zero-temperature limit is the sense in which excitations become sharp at the Fermi surface. ^[ref]

At fixed nonzero temperature, the rate instead approaches a finite value proportional to $T^2$ as $\xi \to 0$. One must not infer a vanishing ratio $\Gamma /|\xi |$ in that different limit. A joint low-temperature, low-energy limit compares the width with the relevant excitation scale.

At fixed pressure and material content, $S=-(\partial G/\partial T{)}_p$. If the equilibrium entropy tends to zero, the Gibbs free energy approaches its zero-temperature value with zero slope. When $C_p=a{T}^r+o(T^r)$ with $r>0$ and zero residual entropy, integrating $dS=C_{p}dT/T$ gives $S=(a/r)T^r+o(T^r)$ and $G=G(0,p)-a{T}^{r+1}/[r(r+1)]+o(T^{r+1})$. Nonzero residual entropy $S_0$ instead contributes $-S_{0}T$ to $G$; a horizontal limiting tangent requires the zero-entropy hypothesis.

Low-temperature calorimetry measures a small sample's heat capacity by resolving a small temperature change after a known electrical energy input. The experimental challenge is that the support, heater and thermometer also warm up. Their calorimeter addenda must be removed before interpreting the sample's phonons or electronic heat capacity. The Debye T-cubed test turns the corrected response into a test of the low-temperature vibrational spectrum.

Manuel Brando's 2009 experiment used a sapphire platform suspended by four alloyed platinum wires from a copper ring fixed to a cryostat stage. Grease attached the sample; a chip heater and ruthenium-oxide resistance thermometer served platform PLS-2. A controller stabilized the bath; a lock-in amplifier supplied heating pulses and read the calibrated sensor. The steady rise calibrated thermal conductance as $G=P/\Delta T$. A separate $59.1\mathrm{mg}$, $99.99\%$ pure gold sample, compared with reference heat capacities, established the calorimeter addenda. Small pulses limited property variation; imperfect sample contact required a second relaxation time. The platform contribution rose below $1.5\mathrm{K}$, making simple extrapolation unsafe.^[ref]

For an original idealization, assume sample and platform share one temperature $T$, the bath remains at $T_b$, and both the total heat capacity and the weak-link thermal conductance $G$ are approximately constant across one small pulse. Ignore other heat transfer and any phase transition. The first law of thermodynamics becomesHere $C_s$ is sample heat capacity, $C_a$ is calorimeter addenda, $P$ is deposited electrical power from Joule heating, and $\tau$ is a time constant. This is the same balance as calorimeter heat-loss correction, used here with a deliberately weak cryogenic link and a separately subtracted platform. For a constant pulse $P_0$ beginning at bath temperature, then switched off at $t_h$,The cooling exponential decay determines $\tau$, while the heating plateau determines $G=P_0/(T_{\infty }-T_b)$. Together with calorimeter addenda, they give $C_s=G\tau -C_a$. Cooling alone determines a ratio, not an absolute heat capacity. With finite $t_h$, the observed end rise is smaller than the plateau; fit the full response or apply the displayed correction rather than identifying the two.

For the stipulated figure parameters, $G=5.00\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $\tau =20.0\mathrm{s}$, and $C_a=2.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ give $C_s=8.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The asymptotic rise is $0.0400\mathrm{K}$, only $2\%$ of bath temperature. At $100\mathrm{s}$, the rise is $0.0397305\mathrm{K}$. Of $2.00\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$ input, only $3.97305\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{J}$ remains stored: the other $1.60270\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$ has flowed to the bath. Treating this long pulse as an isolated $Q/C$ experiment would overestimate total heat capacity by a factor of $5.034$.

Suppose independent standard uncertainties are $u(G)=0.05\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, $u(\tau )=0.2\mathrm{s}$ and $u(C_a)=0.10\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. First-order propagation of uncertainty givesThe uncertainty is one standard deviation under those assumptions, about $2.2\%$ of sample heat capacity. Shared thermometer calibration errors can correlate fitted $G$ and $\tau$; then their covariance contributes too. Smaller samples amplify the relative influence of calorimeter addenda. Proposed checks include varying pulse amplitude, repeating with a reference sample, checking sensor self-heating, and comparing single- and two-time-constant fits. A drifting bath, slow internal equilibration or a transition invalidates this simple reduction even if a cooling curve looks smooth.