Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Causality — where it appears

The requirement that a cause precede its effect in every frame, secured by the fact that only spacelike-separated pairs can be reordered. Nothing can carry an influence across a spacelike interval, so the ordering of every pair that could be cause and effect is agreed by everybody.

Named by 20 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A spacetime diagram at β = 0.5. Position across, time up, in units where light travels at 45°. The shaded wedges are the future and past reachable by light; the tilted axes belong to an observer moving at 0.5 of the speed of light.

Two axes, one speed, and a diagram that does the arguing

Put position across and time up, insist that light travels at forty-five degrees for everyone, and nearly every result in special relativity becomes something to read off rather than derive.

relativity · Spacetime diagram Simultaneity at β = 0.5. Two events on the same horizontal line happen at the same time for the stationary observer. The moving observer slices spacetime along the tilted line, and for them one event happens before the other.

Now is a choice of slicing

Two events happening at the same time is not a fact about the events. It is a fact about who is asking, and different observers slice spacetime at different angles.

relativity · Simultaneity Composing a boost with a speed, and never passing one. The speed one observer measures when a body moving at v is seen from a frame already moving at u, for u = 0.4, 0.6, 0.9, 1 times the speed of light. Every curve ends at one and none crosses it. The straight dashed line is the Galilean answer, u + v, which reaches 1.4c and is wrong. The flat line at the top is light: composing c with anything gives c back.

Speeds that refuse to add, and the quantity that does

Run at half the speed of light, throw something forward at half the speed of light, and the result is not the speed of light. It is four-fifths of it, and there is a variable in which the arithmetic is still simple addition.

relativity · Velocity addition What puts a scale on a tilted axis. A spacetime diagram with a second observer's axes at β = 0.6. The curves are the sets of events at a fixed interval from the origin — c²t² − x² = s², one branch each for s = 0.5, s = 1, s = 1.5 — and the whole point of them is where they cross. A unit of the moving observer's time is wherever the s = 1 curve meets the tilted time axis, and on the page that point is 1.250 times as far from the origin as the stationary observer's own unit. Without the hyperbolae the tilted axes carry no scale at all, and every argument about which of two clocks is behind is unreadable off the diagram. Each drawn crossing reads back as its own interval to 0.0e+0.

The quantity nobody argues about

Relativity takes away the length of a rod and the duration of an event and hands back exactly one thing in their place. Its hyperbolae are what put a scale on the tilted axes of a spacetime diagram — without which the diagram is a picture with no units on it.

relativity · Spacetime diagram Simultaneity at β = 0.866. Two events on the same horizontal line happen at the same time for the stationary observer. The moving observer slices spacetime along the tilted line, and for them one event happens before the other.

The pole that fits and does not fit

A twenty-metre ladder is carried through a ten-metre barn at 0.866 of light speed, and both doors shut behind it. In the ladder's own frame the barn is five metres long and there is plainly no room. Both accounts are correct, and the doors' closings are 57.8 nanoseconds apart in one of them.

relativity · Length contraction The correlation, and the best a shared list of answers can do. The coincidence correlation between two polarisation analysers against the angle between them, over two full turns of the correlation — a polariser turned through 180° is the same polariser, so the picture repeats. The singlet gives −cos 2Δ, drawn through −1.00 at 0°, 1.00 at 90°, −1.00 at 180°, 1.00 at 270°. Beside it is the best correlation any shared list of pre-agreed answers can produce: straight lines between the same four extremes, with corners where the cosine is smooth. The two agree exactly at the multiples of 45° and nowhere else, and they are furthest apart — by 0.2105 — at 19.77° and 70.23°, which is ½ arcsin(2/π) from either end of the quarter turn. The difference is not a matter of degree: it is a curve against a shape with a corner in it, and no list can be bent into the curve.

The correlation no instructions can produce

A pair of gloves in two boxes agrees perfectly and needs no physics, because the answers were settled at packing. What no packing can imitate is the shape that appears as the two analysers are turned relative to each other, and the shape is a number — 2.828 where every list of pre-agreed answers is stuck at 2.

quantum · Entanglement A peak that leaves before it should have arrived. Two pulses at the far face of a cell, both normalised to the peak the vacuum one reaches. One has crossed empty space; the other has crossed a medium with two gain lines either side of its carrier, whose group index there is -3.85 — negative, so the envelope's peak should emerge early, and it does. Measured off the two curves the advance is 616 in units where the carrier period is 2π, against 582 predicted from the group index alone; the difference is the higher-order dispersion the group index leaves out. The advance is 0.21 of the pulse's own duration, and the peak leaves the far face before the input peak has entered the near one. Nothing has outrun anything. The emergent pulse is a reshaped version of the input's leading edge, which arrived in plenty of time and already contained — for a smooth pulse — everything needed to reconstruct the rest; the medium amplifies it by 1.14× and delivers it early. Give the pulse a genuine front, a moment before which it is exactly zero, and that front travels at the speed of light in every medium there is.

The speed that carries no signal

In the right medium a pulse's peak emerges from the far side before it entered the near one. The measurement is real, it has been made, and nothing has outrun light — because the peak of a smooth pulse was never carrying any information in the first place.

waves · Wave packets Which happened first, asked of several observers. Two events on a spacetime diagram: one at the origin and one 3 light-seconds away and 1 second later, so that light leaving the first cannot reach the second. Through the second event runs a family of lines, each one the set of events some observer calls simultaneous with it; an observer moving at a fraction β of the speed of light has such a line of slope β on these axes. Where a line meets the vertical axis is the time that observer assigns to the second event. For a slow observer that meeting point is above the origin and the second event happens later; for a fast one it is below and the second event happens EARLIER. The changeover is at β = 0.3333, which is the time separation divided by the space separation, and it is a legal speed only because the separation is spacelike. So the order of these two events is not a property of the events. What every observer does agree on is that neither could have caused the other, because the two lie outside each other's light cones — drawn here as the diagonals — and that agreement is what causality rests on rather than on any shared notion of before.

Which came first, and who decides

Two events far apart can happen in either order, depending on who is asked, and both answers are correct. That is not a loophole in causality but the reason causality survives at all — because the pairs whose order is negotiable are exactly the pairs neither of which could have caused the other.

relativity · Simultaneity The shell of news, and the kink inside it. A charge that was moving at 0.6c to the right, stopped over a short interval, and has been at rest ever since. Outside the sphere of radius ct nothing has heard: the field there still points at the position the charge would have reached had it carried on, marked ahead of it. Inside, the field is that of a charge at rest. In between is a shell one deceleration-time thick, and across it the field line has to bend, because a field line cannot simply stop in empty space — the two ends are joined here to 8.5e-14 pixels. That bend is transverse to the radius, and it is the radiation. It is not an extra thing the charge emitted; it is the join between two static fields that do not line up, and it travels outward at c because that is where the news front is.

The field that points where the charge is now

The field here was set by what the charge was doing a distance over c ago, so it ought to point at where the charge used to be. For a charge moving steadily it points at where the charge is — not approximately, exactly — and nothing has outrun light. What breaks the arrangement is a change of motion, and the break is the whole of radiation.

electromagnetism · Retardation Water's permittivity across six decades of frequency. The real and imaginary parts of water's permittivity against frequency, on logarithmic axes, from 10 to 16 in powers of ten hertz. ε′ begins at 80.1 — the number a textbook prints — falls through the Debye relaxation near twenty gigahertz, is dragged down again by the librational, bending and stretching bands of the molecule, and settles at 1.777 in the visible, whose square root is 1.3330: water's refractive index. The identity n = √ε_r is exact and is an identity between two numbers taken at the same frequency; using the static permittivity in it predicts an index of 8.9 and is the most instructive wrong answer in the subject. The curve is a Debye term and four Lorentz oscillators, with two parameters solved so that the two plateaus are the measured ones rather than fitted by eye.

The constant that depends on how fast it is asked

Water's relative permittivity is 80.1. Its refractive index is 1.333, and the square of 1.333 is 1.777. The identity n = √ε_r is exact, the two numbers differ by a factor of forty-five, and nothing is wrong with either — because a permittivity is a function of frequency and the two measurements were made eight orders of magnitude apart.

electromagnetism · Dielectrics The self-force matters at 6.27 × 10⁻²⁴ s, and nowhere a charge has ever been. The ratio of the radiation reaction to the applied force, which is τ divided by the time the force takes to change, on a logarithmic axis. τ = μ₀q²/6πmc = 6.266e-24 s for an electron, and light crosses 1.879 femtometres in that time — two thirds of the classical electron radius. a 3 GHz accelerating cavity: 1.9e-14; a 500 nm optical field: 3.8e-9; an electron orbiting a proton, ground state: 4.1e-8; an X-ray at 0.1 nm: 1.9e-5; over a classical electron radius: 6.7e-1. The largest of them, "over a classical electron radius", is still 1.5e+0 times too slow. So the correction is never large for any force anybody can apply, and the only regime where it would be is one in which the charge's own structure has already made the whole description meaningless.

The force a charge exerts on itself

Larmor's formula says how much an accelerating charge radiates and says nothing about who pays. Conservation says the charge does, so there is a force on it — and the equation that force produces has a free particle accelerating for ever with nothing pushing it, or else beginning to move before it is pushed. Both solutions are absurd, and the interval over which they are absurd is smaller than the electron the equation was written for.

astrophysics · Radiating charge A horizon 0.97 light years behind, made by nothing but the motion. Position across and time up, in units where light travels at 45°, for a rocket holding a constant proper acceleration of 1 gravity. The worldline is the hyperbola x² − c²t² = (c²/a)², asymptotic to the light line it never crosses. Three light signals are drawn: one released at x = 0.55 catches up at t = 0.63, one released at x = 0 never arrives, one released at x = -0.6 never arrives. The dividing line is the asymptote itself. Everything at or behind it is permanently out of reach, and for one gravity that boundary sits 0.97 light years behind the rocket's starting point. Nothing is there — no mass, no field, no surface. The horizon is a consequence of never stopping.

The wall of silence behind a rocket that never stops

Hold a constant acceleration and the worldline is a hyperbola asymptotic to a light ray — so there is a light ray that never catches it. An observer who never stops accelerating has a horizon a distance c²/a behind, made by nothing but the motion, and at one gravity it sits 0.97 light years back. Nothing is there. No mass, no surface, no field.

relativity · Accelerated frames Three vector potentials for one magnetic field. Three different vector potentials, drawn as arrow fields over the same square, every one of which describes the same uniform magnetic field of 1 tesla out of the page. The symmetric gauge circulates about the origin; the two Landau gauges are unidirectional and point in perpendicular directions, and neither has any circulation about anything a reader can see. Underneath each is the field recovered from its own arrows, by adding up the potential round a small square and dividing by the area enclosed — which is what the curl is. The three numbers 1.000000, 1.000000, 1.000000 agree to the last digit computed. The picture is the argument: a vector potential has no physical direction, no physical magnitude and no physical circulation of its own, because a change of gauge alters all three and alters nothing that can be measured. What survives is the curl, and the curl is the field.

The potentials that are not unique

Nobody solves Maxwell's equations for the fields. They are solved for potentials instead, and the potentials are not unique — three completely different vector potentials describe the same uniform magnetic field, and one of them changes everywhere the instant a charge moves, at any distance, without anything having outrun light.

electromagnetism · Maxwell equations Absorption and refraction, drawn as one function. The real and imaginary parts of a Lorentz oscillator's susceptibility against frequency, in units of the resonance. The imaginary part is the absorption: a symmetric line centred on the resonance, with a full width at half maximum equal to the damping — 0.05, 0.12, 0.30 here. The real part is the refraction, and it is what the same medium does to the speed of light. The two curves are not two facts about the medium: either one determines the other completely, by an integral over all frequencies, and that is a consequence of the medium responding after it is asked rather than before. Between x = 0.97 and x = 1.02 the refraction runs the wrong way — the index falls as the frequency rises, which is anomalous dispersion — and that region is exactly the width of the absorption line. Away from the line the index rises with frequency, which is ordinary dispersion and is why a prism separates colours in the order it does: every transparent material is on the low-frequency tail of an ultraviolet absorption it is not otherwise showing. A narrower line is a taller one, because the area under the absorption is fixed by how many electrons there are and by nothing else.

The answer that cannot come first

A medium absorbs at some frequencies and bends light at all of them, and those look like two separate facts to be measured separately. They are one fact. The requirement that a material respond after it is asked rather than before ties the absorption at every frequency to the refraction at every other, by an integral — and a material given the two halves independently answers before the question arrives.

waves · Attenuation The far end that has not been told yet. A rod 3 metres long, pushed at one end at time zero. On the left, position across and time upwards, for the two fastest disturbance speeds drawn here, with the light cone beside them: nothing may lean further to the right than that line, which crosses the rod in 10.0 nanoseconds. A rigid rod would be the vertical dashed line — the far end moving at the same instant as the near one — and it is not a limit that a hard material approaches. It is a signal at infinite speed. On the right, how long the far end actually waits, against how fast the disturbance travels, both logarithmic, with every material on it: 8.8 ms at 3.4e+2 m/s, 600.0 μs at 5.0e+3 m/s, 250.0 μs at 1.2e+4 m/s, 100.0 ns at 3.0e+7 m/s, 20.0 ns at 1.5e+8 m/s. The line has slope −1 and the light cone is a hard floor beneath it. Ordinary materials sit four to five decades above that floor, which is why rigidity is such a good approximation and why it is still not a limit: steel's delay is not small compared with light's, it is 6e+4 times larger. Everything usually derived from rigid bodies survives, because the delay is beneath notice in ordinary circumstances. What does not survive is the use of rigidity in an argument about simultaneity, which is where it does real damage: a rod pushed at one end is compressed for as long as the wave takes to cross it, and there is a frame in which its far end is still at rest while its near end is moving.

Nothing is allowed to be rigid

A rigid body would move its far end at the instant its near end was pushed, which is a signal at infinite speed. Relativity forbids it — not approximately, and not as a limit that a hard enough material approaches. What follows is a ceiling on how stiff matter may be, and that ceiling caps the mass of every neutron star.

relativity · Relativistic dynamics The delay that stops caring how thick the wall is. The Wigner phase time — how late the transmitted packet's peak arrives, compared with a free particle covering the same distance — for an electron under a 3 eV barrier, at 0.2 nm, 0.5 nm, 1 nm thick. 0.2 nm: 0.3728 fs at half the barrier height; 0.5 nm: 0.4372 fs at half the barrier height; 1 nm: 0.4388 fs at half the barrier height. The widths span a factor of 5.0 and the times span 1.18. A thicker barrier is exponentially harder to cross and the delay in crossing it barely moves — which is either a remarkable fact about tunnelling or a sign that the phase time is not a traversal time, and the rest of the essay is about which.

How long the crossing takes

Tunnelling has a probability, and asking how long it takes turns out to be a different kind of question. The delay a transmitted packet shows stops growing once the barrier is opaque, so a thicker wall is crossed in the same time — and several defensible clocks give several different answers.

quantum · Tunnelling One boost, three constants, three pictures. The axes of a frame moving at 0.5 in units where the constant is one, drawn for the three signs the constant can have. The faint cross is the original frame's axes; the two heavy lines are the moving frame's, obtained by boosting them rather than by tilting them by hand. With a positive constant the two axes close in on one another symmetrically, and the line they are closing on is the invariant speed. With a zero constant only the time axis tilts and the space axis stays where it was, which is absolute simultaneity — every frame agrees which events are at the same time. With a negative constant the pair rotates rigidly, like a pair of axes turned in a plane. Nothing about light has been used to draw any of them. The three are the whole of what homogeneity, isotropy, the group property and the relativity principle permit, and choosing between them is a measurement rather than a postulate.

The transformation that never mentions light

Assume space and time are homogeneous, that space is isotropic, that two changes of frame compose into a third, and that the relativity principle holds. Those four leave exactly one free constant — and three possible worlds, one of them Galileo's and one of them Einstein's. Light appears nowhere in the derivation; it enters only when the constant has to be measured.

relativity · Spacetime diagram Two solutions, and nothing in the equations to choose between them. A spherical pulse leaving a point and a spherical pulse arriving at one, each drawn at three times 0.35, 0.6, 0.85 in units where the speed is one. Both are exact solutions of the same wave equation, which is checked here by differencing the drawn samples twice in space and twice in time and requiring the residual to vanish for each. The one on the left is what is always used; the one on the right is discarded, and the equations do not do the discarding. The incoming pulse grows as it converges for the same reason the outgoing one decays as it spreads — the same energy through a smaller sphere — and it is as consistent with conservation as its mirror image is.

The solution that is thrown away

Maxwell's equations admit a field that converges on a charge exactly as readily as one that leaves it, and nothing in them prefers either. Retardation is a boundary condition rather than a law. Which boundary condition is right has been argued about for a century, one of the answers makes the arrow of time a property of there being absorbers, and the laboratory version of the question — whether an atom emits at all — has a measured answer that depends on what is listening.

electromagnetism · Retardation A map that keeps every cone and bends every worldline. Left: a grid of inertial worldlines, drawn solid, lines of simultaneity, faint, and light lines at 45°, dashed, in one space dimension. Right: the same grid after a map that stretches the light-cone coordinates u = t − x and v = t + x by two different increasing functions, u + 0.45·tanh(1.5u) and sinh(0.45v)/0.45. Light lines go to light lines, still at 45° to within a part in a billion, and the causal order of every one of 4000 sampled pairs of events is unchanged: whatever could influence what still can, and nothing new can. But the straight worldlines are bent — the one through x = 1 by 0.19 across the window — and the lines of simultaneity are no longer straight. In one space dimension the light cones cannot tell this picture from the inertial one.

What the light cones alone can decide

Keep nothing of spacetime but its light cones — which events could influence which — and ask how much geometry survives. With one dimension of space, almost none: any pair of increasing stretches of the two families of light lines preserves every cone and bends every straight worldline. With two or more, almost all of it: the only maps that keep every cone are Lorentz transformations, shifts and a uniform stretch, and nothing about straightness has to be assumed.

relativity · Spacetime diagram All of flat spacetime in a diamond. The whole of flat spacetime with one space dimension, squeezed into a finite diamond by applying arctan separately to the two light-cone coordinates u = t − x and v = t + x. Solid curves are the worldlines of observers at rest at x = −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3; faint curves are the instants t equal to the same values; the dashed lines are the two light rays through the origin, still at 45°, as every light line is — checked to a part in a billion — and the causal order of 4000 sampled pairs is unchanged. Infinity is not one place. Every worldline at rest runs from the bottom corner i⁻ to the top corner i⁺; every instant runs between the side corners i⁰; and light rays begin on the lower edges ℐ⁻ and end on the upper edges ℐ⁺. Each of these limits is checked at ten million units out.

The five places infinity turns out to be

Flat spacetime goes on for ever in every direction, and it can still be drawn whole on a page. Squeeze each family of light rays with a function that keeps their order and the infinite plane becomes a diamond with every light cone still at 45°. The price is distance, which the picture no longer shows. What it shows instead is that infinity is not one place: observers slower than light all end at a single point, instants end at another, and light ends along a whole edge of its own.

relativity · Spacetime diagram

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Light coneThe Lorentz transformationDispersionInvariant intervalRadiationSpacetime diagramGroup velocityThe Lorentz factorPhase velocityProper timeRapidityRefractive index

All concepts