Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Idealisation — where it appears

A deliberate simplification kept because it makes a problem solvable, and worth stating so that the range it holds over can be given. The useful kind comes with an estimate of its own error, and the dangerous kind is the one that returns exactly zero for a quantity that is measurably not zero.

Named by 7 essays across 6 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The same law, three shapes of source. Field strength against distance on logarithmic axes, for a point, a long line and a wide plane carrying charge. The exponent is the slope, and it is set by how the area of the enclosing surface grows rather than by anything about the force law.

The shape decides the falloff, and the force law never changes

A point charge gives an inverse square, a line gives an inverse, a plane gives a constant. All three come from the same law, and the exponent belongs to the geometry of the source rather than to the physics.

electromagnetism · Gauss's law Where the particle is likely to be found. A particle confined between two walls one unit apart. States 1, 4, 16 are drawn, each riding on a line at its own energy — 1E₁, 16E₁, 256E₁ — because the energies go as n². The curves are |ψ|², the probability of finding the particle at each position. The dashed line on each is the classical answer: a ball bouncing between the walls at constant speed is equally likely to be anywhere, and the quantum density oscillates about it and converges onto it as n rises.

Where the quantum picture hands back the old one

A confined particle's probability density oscillates violently at every quantum number, and never stops. What makes the classical answer come back is not that the oscillations die away — it is that nothing can resolve them.

quantum · Correspondence 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 One volume of liquid, several solids. 4 drops of the same 5 µL of liquid, on 4 solids it meets at 20°, 60°, 90°, 140°. Each is the spherical cap that volume and that angle force, so the footprint radius is computed rather than chosen: 20° gives 2.61 mm, 60° gives 1.71 mm, 90° gives 1.34 mm, 140° gives 0.69 mm. At every contact line the three interfacial tensions are drawn to scale, and only their horizontal components balance — γsv = γsl + γlv cos θ. The vertical pull of the liquid surface is taken up by the solid, which is why the angle belongs to three interfaces at once and to no single liquid: change the solid and nothing about the water has changed.

The angle a liquid makes with what it sits on

Everything capillarity does — climbing, beading, wicking, waterproofing — is the sign and size of one cosine, and that cosine belongs to three interfaces at once rather than to the water. Change the solid and nothing about the water has changed, yet the same five microlitres goes from a footprint 2.61 mm across to one of 0.69 mm.

fluids · Capillarity Every line that goes in has to come out. Field lines of a 5:1 solenoid in the plane through its axis, each traced by stepping along the local direction of a field summed turn by turn from Biot–Savart. Inside the winding they are parallel and evenly spaced, which is the picture the textbook argument is about. Outside they are not absent: they are spread over the whole of the rest of space, which is why the field there is small — 1.60e-2 of the centre value at 2 radii off the axis — and why it cannot be zero. A line has no end, so every one of the lines through the bore returns outside, and a field with no outside would be a field whose lines stop.

The field outside the solenoid, which is not zero

Ampère's law says the field outside a solenoid vanishes, and every step of that argument is exact — for a winding of infinite length. A real one is a bar magnet seen from outside, its external field falls as the inverse square of its length rather than to nothing, and the "exactly zero" that makes the derivation so satisfying is the one part of it a laboratory cannot have.

electromagnetism · Ampere law 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 Rough contact grows as W^1.000, and one smooth bump as W^0.667. Real contact area against load, both logarithmic, three ways. Plastic flow of the asperities gives A = W/H, a slope of exactly one, which is the account Bowden and Tabor's argument uses. A single elastic sphere gives Hertz's answer, A ∝ W^(2/3), and a friction coefficient falling as W^(−1/3) — Amontons' law would be false. A rough elastic surface, with many asperities spread exponentially in height and integrated here rather than quoted, gives a slope of 1.0000, because pressing harder mostly recruits new contacts rather than enlarging existing ones. The dotted curve repeats that integration with a Gaussian spread of heights and gives 0.9695 — the upper tail of a Gaussian is nearly exponential, so the answer is nearly and not exactly linear. Amontons' law does not need plasticity. It needs roughness, it is exact for one distribution and good to three per cent for another, and it survives whichever way the individual junctions deform.

The grip that is not a coefficient

A friction coefficient is independent of load and of area, and the reason is usually given as plastic flow of the asperities. It is not — a rough elastic surface gives the same law, integrated here to a slope of 1.0000, because pressing harder recruits new contacts rather than enlarging old ones. What breaks the law is a contact that is smooth, or a material that dissipates in its bulk — where μ passes one and stops being a coefficient at all.

mechanics · Friction

Named alongside it

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

CausalityCrossover scaleDipole radiationFluxScalingSymmetryAccelerationAdhesionAmperes lawBoundary conditionsCapillary lengthClassical electron radius

All concepts