The collection

Every essay — page 7

One idea per essay, ordered so that the earlier ones set up the later ones — but nothing here depends on being read in sequence.

Mechanics

Motion, force, and the quantities that refuse to change.

Arms in: 4.33× the rate, and 4.33× the energy. A body of 1.2 kg m² carrying two 4 kg masses on arms, spinning freely at 60 revolutions a minute with the arms out at 0.75 m, as the arms are pulled in to 0.12 m. The axis runs right to left, in the direction the arms move. Angular momentum is flat — nothing exerts a torque about the axis, and pulling inward is a force along a radius, which has no moment about the centre. The rate rises as the inverse of the moment of inertia, by a factor of 4.33 here, and the kinetic energy L²/2I rises by exactly the same factor, which is where the usual account stops and where the question starts. The fourth curve is the work done by whoever pulled the arms in, integrated from the force needed to hold each mass on its circle. It lies on the energy curve, to 1.6e-7 joules. Nothing is unaccounted for and nothing is created: the energy is bought, at full price, by pulling against the force that would otherwise fling the arms out.

The quantity that survives a change of shape

A skater pulls her arms in and spins four times faster. Angular momentum is conserved, which is the usual explanation, and it accounts for only half of what happened — because the kinetic energy has gone up by the same factor, and something had to pay for it.

5 figures · part 4 on Rotation

A 120 g top at 3000 rpm, precessing once every 1.92 s. A disc of radius 30 mm spinning at 3000 revolutions a minute on a shaft 45 mm long, tilted 30° from the vertical. The weight acts at the centre of mass and the pivot holds the bottom, so the torque about the pivot is horizontal and at right angles to the plane containing the axis and the vertical. Angular momentum points along the axis; a torque at right angles to a vector turns it without changing its length, so the axis sweeps round the dashed circle instead of falling. The precession rate is Mgl divided by I₃ω₃ to leading order, which is 3.269 radians a second here, or one turn every 1.92 seconds — slower the faster it spins.

The push that comes out sideways

Push down on a spinning wheel's axle and it swings horizontally. Nothing about that is mysterious once angular momentum is a vector — but the steady precession every demonstration shows is a solution nobody's initial conditions select, and a top released from rest does something else first.

5 figures · part 5 on Rotation

The same steady pull, twice. Spring force divided by the normal load, against time, with the far end drawn away at 100 µm/s in both traces and every property of the contact the same. The soft holder at 0.4 k_c produces events every 3.75 s, each of which reaches 0.94 m/s — 9.4e+3 times the speed it is being pulled at. The stiff one at 1.6 k_c settles to a straight line and stays on it.

The chatter a stiffer holder removes

A brake squeals, a bow sounds a string, a fault slips in jerks. The usual explanation is that static friction exceeds kinetic friction — and that explanation, taken seriously, predicts the jerking would happen no matter how the thing were held. It does not, and what decides is a length nobody mentions.

7 figures · part 2 on Friction

Six observers, six energies, one loss. The kinetic energy of the same collision before and after it, as measured by observers moving at 6 different speeds. No two of them agree about how much energy there was: the totals here range from 5.50 to 25.50 in the same units. Every one of them agrees about how much was lost — the gap between the two curves is 3.413 for all of them, varying by 6.2e-15. Energy is a quantity an observer owns; a change in it is not, and that is why heat, deformation and sound can be counted at all.

The energy that depends on the observer

A moving train has kinetic energy. Watched from a second train alongside it, it has none. Both statements are correct, neither can be corrected, and the whole of mechanics still works — because what conservation laws constrain is not how much energy there is but how much of it changes.

4 figures · part 2 on Energy

Waves

Oscillation, and everything that turns out to be an oscillation.

The Cornu spiral, and the chords that are amplitudes. Fresnel's two integrals plotted against each other, traced from v = -4.2 to 4.2. Arc length along the curve is v — the distance along the wavefront in units of √(λL/2) — and the amplitude arriving from any stretch of that front is the straight chord between the stretch's two endpoints, not the length of curve between them. The two eyes at ±(½, ½) are where the far parts of an unobstructed front pile up, so the whole open front is the chord between them, of length 1.4142. A straight edge blocks half of it and leaves a chord of 0.7071 — exactly half the amplitude, so a quarter of the intensity, at the geometrical shadow's edge. The chord drawn here runs to v = 1.217, is 1.6556 long, and is the longest chord from the eye that exists: its square over the open chord's square is 1.370, which is why the brightest fringe outside a shadow is brighter than no obstacle at all.

The spiral that says how much light arrives

Huygens' construction says where a wave has got to and refuses to say how bright it is, because an envelope is a locus and a locus has no amplitude. Adding the wavelets with their phases instead of taking their envelope turns the whole subject into one curve, and every near-field pattern there is becomes a chord of it.

7 figures · part 2 on Huygens

The response of a machine with a 10% absorber bolted to it. The amplitude of the driven mass, in units of the deflection the same force would cause if applied slowly, against drive frequency in units of the machine's own natural frequency. Dashed: the machine alone, with its single resonance. Solid: the same machine with a second mass and spring attached, weighing 10 per cent of it and tuned to the same frequency. At that frequency the driven mass does not move at all — the amplitude is zero rather than small, and the absorber is moving 10.0 static deflections to make it so. What the device costs is the two new resonances it creates, at 0.854 and 1.171 times the original frequency, which are infinite in this undamped calculation and straddle the frequency the machine was protected at.

The mass that makes another stand still

Bolt a small mass on a spring to a machine that is shaking itself apart, tune it to the frequency that is doing the damage, and the machine stops moving. Not moves less — stops, exactly, at that one frequency. The price is two new resonances either side of it, and the whole device is a bet that the drive stays where it was put.

7 figures · part 3 on Resonance

Optics

Light, and the small number of rules it obeys.

$The index that depends on which way the light is going. The two refractive indices of 3 uniaxial crystals, against the angle between the wave normal and the crystal's optic axis. The flat lines are the ordinary index, which is the same in every direction because the ordinary wave's field is always perpendicular to the axis. The curves are the extraordinary index, which runs from the ordinary value along the axis — where the two waves are identical and the crystal behaves like glass — to its extreme value at right angles to it. calcite (CaCO₃) has n_o = 1.6584 and n_e = 1.4864, so n_e − n_o = -0.1720; quartz (SiO₂) has n_o = 1.5443 and n_e = 1.5534, so n_e − n_o = 0.0091; lithium niobate has n_o = 2.3005 and n_e = 2.2075, so n_e − n_o = -0.0930. The sign of that difference is what makes a crystal positive or negative, and it decides which of the two images in a double-refracting crystal is the one that moves.$

The crystal that answers twice

Lay a piece of calcite on a printed page and the print appears twice. One image sits still when the crystal is turned and the other goes round it. Nothing has been done to the light except pass it through a material whose response to a field is not a number.

8 figures · part 3 on Polarisation

The reflected beam does not leave from where it arrived. The lateral displacement of a totally reflected beam along the surface, for the two polarisations, at 550 nm from n = 1.5 into n = 1. Geometrical optics puts the outgoing ray at the point where the incoming one struck. It is not there: it is displaced forward along the surface by a distance comparable with a wavelength, which was measured by Goos and Hänchen in 1947 by reflecting a beam many times and looking at the accumulated offset. The displacement is different for the two polarisations — at 42°, 1361 nm for s and 2991 nm for p, at 45°, 350 nm for s and 560 nm for p, at 50°, 237 nm for s and 261 nm for p, at 60°, 183 nm for s and 127 nm for p, at 75°, 161 nm for s and 79 nm for p — which is why an unpolarised beam comes back slightly split. A displacement is only possible if the light spent time on the far side of a boundary it never crossed, and it is the most direct evidence there is that the evanescent field is a real field rather than a bookkeeping term.

The reflection that happens where the glass is not

Total internal reflection sends back every photon, which is why it is called total. It does not send them back from where they arrived — the beam re-emerges displaced along the surface, by a fraction of a wavelength, and a displacement is only possible if the light spent time on the far side of a boundary it never crossed.

7 figures · part 2 on Total internal reflection

Electromagnetism

Charge, field, and the lines drawn between them.

A disc that generates 0.785 V with no changing flux anywhere. The force per unit charge on a carrier in a conducting disc of radius 100 mm spinning at 3000 revolutions a minute in an axial field of 0.5 tesla, against how far out the carrier is. Each carrier is moving through the field at ωr, so v × B pushes it radially with a force per unit charge of ωrB — zero at the axle and largest at the rim. The area under the line is the potential difference between the axle and the rim, which is ½BωR² = 0.7854 volts. Nothing in this calculation mentions a loop, a flux or a rate of change, and the flux through the circuit formed by the disc, the contacts and the external wire does not change at all while the machine runs.

The rule that is two laws wearing one coat

The flux rule folds two entirely different pieces of physics into one number, and they agree exactly, which is why nobody notices there are two. A disc spinning in a steady field generates a voltage with no changing flux anywhere, and the folding comes apart.

5 figures · part 3 on Induction

Thermodynamics

Heat, disorder, and the one law with a direction in it.

The viscosity of a gas, over 8 decades of pressure. The viscosity of 3 gases at 300 K against pressure, on a logarithmic pressure axis and a linear viscosity one. The lines are flat, and that is the whole figure. Viscosity is the rate at which momentum is carried across a shear, which is the density of carriers times the distance each one carries it: ⅓ρv̄λ. Doubling the pressure doubles the density and halves the free path, and the two cancel exactly, so the same gas at a hundredth of an atmosphere is exactly as viscous as at one — which is not what anybody expects of a thinner gas and is what is measured. nitrogen comes out at 17.9 μPa·s against a measured 17.9, helium comes out at 19.3 μPa·s against a measured 19.9, argon comes out at 21.7 μPa·s against a measured 22.7. The flatness ends when the free path reaches the apparatus rather than the next layer of gas: at a vessel 10 mm across that is around 0.68 Pa for nitrogen, 1.94 Pa for helium, 0.69 Pa for argon, below which there is no gas-to-gas hand-off left to make.

The viscosity that does not care how much gas there is

Pump most of the air out of a vessel and the air that is left is exactly as viscous as it was. Maxwell derived that in 1860, did not believe it, and spent six years building an apparatus to measure it — which is a better description of how a prediction becomes knowledge than any amount of agreement would have been.

4 figures · part 6 on Kinetic theory

Relativity

Space and time, drawn on the same axes.

The curve that makes both fusion and fission release energy. Binding energy per nucleon against mass number: how much energy would have to be supplied, per particle, to take a nucleus apart into free protons and neutrons. The curve is the semi-empirical mass formula, evaluated at whichever proton number binds most tightly for each mass number rather than at a guessed one; the points are measured values. It rises steeply at the light end, peaks at mass number 58, and falls slowly thereafter. Everything about nuclear energy follows from that shape and from nothing else. Two light nuclei joined move up the curve and release the difference; one heavy nucleus split moves up it too, from the other side. Both directions are downhill in energy because the peak is in the middle, and the peak is in the middle because two effects fight — the surface term, which penalises small nuclei for having most of their nucleons on the outside, and the Coulomb term, which penalises large ones because every proton repels every other. The energy released is the height climbed times the number of nucleons carried, and it is a million times a chemical bond for the same reason the vertical axis is in millions of electronvolts rather than in single ones.

The mass that is missing

A helium nucleus weighs less than the two protons and two neutrons it is made of. The shortfall is not an error in the weighing; it is the binding energy, converted at the going rate. One curve of that shortfall against size explains why both fusion and fission release energy.

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

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.

5 figures · part 2 on Simultaneity

A cube photographed at four speeds. The outline a camera records of a cube passing at β = 0, β = 0.4, β = 0.7, β = 0.9, moving to the right, seen at the moment it passes. The dashed square is what the usual picture shows: the cube flattened along its motion by the Lorentz factor. It is not what the camera gets. Light from the far face left earlier than light from the near face, by the time it needed to cross the extra distance, and the cube moved in that interval — so the far face appears displaced backwards and the side of the cube comes into view. The two effects together are exactly a rotation: at β = 0.4 the cube photographs as one turned 23.6°, at β = 0.7 the cube photographs as one turned 44.4°, at β = 0.9 the cube photographs as one turned 64.2°. The contraction has not gone anywhere — a ruler laid alongside still reads 43.6 per cent of the proper length at the highest speed drawn — but it is a statement about two positions at one time, and a photograph is not that.

The contraction no photograph shows

Every textbook picture of a relativistically moving object drawn between 1905 and 1959 showed it squashed. A camera would have shown it turned. The contraction is entirely real in the measurement that defines it, and a photograph is not that measurement.

4 figures · part 3 on Length contraction

The rotation two boosts leave behind. The angle through which a frame's axes are turned after two boosts of equal size, against the angle between the two boosts, for 4 speeds. Two boosts in the same direction compose to a boost and nothing else, which is the zero at the left; two in different directions do not. What is left over is a rotation, and it is not small at large speeds: at β = 0.3 it peaks at 2.7° when the boosts are 91° apart, at β = 0.6 it peaks at 12.8° when the boosts are 96° apart, at β = 0.85 it peaks at 36.1° when the boosts are 108° apart, at β = 0.95 it peaks at 63.2° when the boosts are 122° apart. Each curve here is computed by multiplying the two boost matrices and pulling the rotation out of the product, not by evaluating a formula; the closed form for perpendicular boosts is used to check the extraction and appears nowhere in the drawing. The consequence is that the Lorentz boosts do not form a group by themselves — compose two and you leave the set — and that an object carried round a closed path in velocity space comes back turned.

The turn that two pushes leave behind

Two boosts in different directions do not compose to a boost. The product carries a rotation, so a frame carried once round a closed path comes back turned — and the size of that turn was the factor of two standing between the calculated and the measured splitting of a spectral line.

5 figures · part 2 on Velocity addition

Quantum

Where the continuous picture runs out, and what replaces it.

Two costs, and the width that balances them. The energy of a particle in a harmonic well against how tightly its wavefunction is squeezed, in units of ħω and of the width that minimises the total. Two terms compete. Squeezing the particle into a smaller region raises its kinetic energy, because the uncertainty relation makes a narrow position spread a wide momentum spread and momentum is squared in the energy; that term rises as the inverse square of the width and goes to infinity as the particle is localised. Letting it spread out raises its potential energy, since the well gets steeper away from the bottom; that term rises as the square of the width. The sum has a minimum at a width of 1.0000 in these units, where the total is 0.5000 ħω and the two terms are equal at a quarter each. That number is exactly the true ground-state energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator, obtained here with nothing but the uncertainty relation and a minimisation. What the figure shows and the formula does not is why there is a floor at all: it is not that the particle happens to keep moving, but that every way of stopping it costs more than it saves.

The motion that cannot be stopped

A particle in a well cannot sit at the bottom of it. Squeezing it into a smaller region costs kinetic energy faster than it saves potential energy, so there is a width that minimises the total — and the minimum is not zero. Helium never freezes because of it.

4 figures · part 2 on Uncertainty

How much of copper's electron sea a temperature can reach. The probability that a state of a given energy is occupied, in copper, at 4 temperatures, with energy measured in units of the Fermi energy — 7.04 eV here. At absolute zero the curve is a step: every state below the ceiling is full and every state above it is empty. Raising the temperature rounds the step, and rounds it over a range of about kT, which is the whole point — at room temperature kT is 0.0259 eV against a ceiling of 7.04 eV, so the rounding is 1.6 per cent of the way down the sea and everything deeper is untouched. An electron in the deep is not held there by a force; it simply has nowhere to go, because every state it could be promoted to is occupied. at 0 K the step is spread over 0.00 per cent of E_F, at 300 K the step is spread over 1.61 per cent of E_F, at 3000 K the step is spread over 16.13 per cent of E_F, at 20000 K the step is spread over 107.52 per cent of E_F.

The pressure that is not a temperature

Copper's conduction electrons are at a temperature of eighty thousand kelvin, in a wire that is at room temperature. That is not a figure of speech, it is what the exclusion principle does to a mole of particles, and it explains the largest unexplained number in the theory of metals.

5 figures · part 2 on Exclusion

Fluids

Matter that will not hold a shape, and the forces that act in it anyway.

$Buoyancy that falls away as the body sinks. The net upward force on a body containing a little gas, against how deep it has been taken, for 3 gas fractions. The weight does not change with depth. The buoyancy does, because the gas obeys Boyle's law and the pressure rises by an atmosphere every ten metres, so a body that displaced its own weight at the surface displaces less at depth. Every curve therefore slopes downward, and that slope is the whole point: where a curve crosses zero the body is in equilibrium, and the crossing is always from above, which makes every one of these equilibria unstable. Push the body a little deeper and the force does not push back — it turns downward and grows. The crossings drawn are at 8.2 m, 10.0 m, 13.6 m, and a body sitting at one of them is balanced in the sense that a pencil is balanced on its point. This is why a diver at neutral buoyancy has to keep adjusting, why a submarine's depth is held by hydroplanes and not by ballast alone, and why a fish that loses the use of its swim bladder sinks rather than drifting.$

The depth past which it must sink

A body carrying a pocket of gas can be trimmed to hang motionless in water at exactly one depth. Push it a little deeper and it does not come back — the gas compresses, the buoyancy falls, and the equilibrium turns out to have been balanced on its point.

5 figures · part 3 on Buoyancy $Two ways to weaken a surface. Surface tension is a property of a surface rather than a constant of a liquid, and this shows how far it moves. The steep curve is water with ethanol dissolved in it, against ethanol mole fraction, through nine measured points: two per cent of ethanol takes the tension from 72 to 56.4 mN/m, a fall of 22% for a change of composition small enough to taste and not to see. The initial slope is 837 mN/m per unit of mole fraction, because ethanol collects preferentially at the surface and a little of it covers a great deal of area. The gentle line is pure water against temperature, read on the same horizontal axis as degrees rather than fraction: about 0.15 mN/m per degree, so a difference of ten degrees across a surface is worth about a millinewton per metre. Neither dependence would be interesting if surfaces were uniform. What makes them matter is that a difference in tension across a surface is a force along it, and nothing in the liquid prevents such a difference from existing.$

The surface that pulls toward the stronger side

Surface tension is usually treated as a constant of a liquid, and it is not — it depends on temperature and on what is dissolved, and a difference in it along a surface is a force along that surface — which drags the liquid underneath and needs no pressure difference at all.

5 figures · part 4 on Surface tension

Where a drying drop loses its liquid. The rate at which liquid leaves the surface of a drying drop, against distance from the centre in units of the drop's radius, for 5 contact angles. The flux is not uniform, and it is not a property of the liquid: it is set by how vapour diffuses away from a lens-shaped object, which is the same boundary-value problem as the field around a charged lens and has the same answer — a power law in the distance from the rim, with an exponent that depends only on the contact angle. at 10° the exponent is 0.471, and the loss has doubled by 87.8 per cent of the way out, at 40° the exponent is 0.357, and the loss has doubled by 92.5 per cent of the way out, at 70° the exponent is 0.182, and the loss has doubled by 98.9 per cent of the way out, at 90° the exponent is 0.000 and the drop dries evenly everywhere, at 120° the exponent is -0.500 and the flux falls toward the rim. Below a right angle the flux diverges at the contact line; at exactly a right angle it is uniform; above it the edge is the slowest-drying part of the drop. Since a pinned edge must be resupplied from the interior, that sign decides which way the liquid inside the drop flows — and therefore whether everything suspended in it ends up in a ring at the rim or in a spot at the centre.

The ring the drop leaves behind

A drop of coffee dries into a ring rather than a disc, and nothing about coffee is responsible. The pattern is produced by a boundary condition — an edge that cannot move — and it survives replacing the coffee with anything else that will stay suspended.

7 figures · part 5 on Surface tension

The height a siphon cannot pass

A siphon will not lift water more than about ten metres, and the usual explanation for the limit is also given as the explanation for the mechanism. It cannot be both. A siphon runs in a vacuum, with degassed water, over a crown no atmosphere could support.

5 figures · part 4 on Hydrostatics

Astrophysics

Gravity read as geometry, and the laws carried where no laboratory can follow.

The bigger the hole, the gentler the horizon. The difference in gravitational pull between the two ends of a 1.8 metre body, at the moment it crosses the horizon, against the mass of the hole. Both axes are logarithmic and the line is straight, of slope -2.00: the tidal acceleration at a horizon falls as the square of the mass, because the tide goes as the mass over the cube of the radius and the radius itself is proportional to the mass. At the low end — a hole of a few solar masses — the stretch is 1.9e+7 times Earth's gravity across a person, which pulls them apart long before they arrive. At the high end it is 1.9e-11, which is nothing at all: crossing the horizon of a large enough hole is locally unremarkable, and an observer would notice no boundary being passed. The two meet at 1.0e+4 solar masses, above which the horizon can be crossed intact. That is the sharpest available statement of what a horizon is and is not. It is not a surface, nothing is there, and nothing local marks it — it is the place from which no future path leads out, which is a statement about the whole of the future rather than about anything present.

The horizon that nothing marks

A falling body is torn apart by the difference in gravity between its ends. At the horizon of a black hole that difference goes as the inverse square of the mass, so a large enough hole can be entered intact — and nothing local happens at the crossing to say it has occurred.

5 figures · part 3 on Horizons $The same start, four force laws. Orbits under 4 different central force laws, every one started at the same radius with the same fraction — 0.72 — of the local circular speed, and every one integrated for 6 radial oscillations. The paths are drawn to different scales because the excursions differ; what is comparable between the panels is whether the curve retraces itself. Under the inverse square it does: the orbit is a closed ellipse and the sixth circuit lies exactly on the first. Under the linear force it does too, and the ellipse is centred on the source rather than focused on it. Under anything in between the path is a rosette that never closes, because the angle between successive closest approaches is not a rational fraction of a full turn. Those angles are 180.0° at n = -2, 145.9° at n = -1.5, 126.4° at n = -1, 90.0° at n = 1. The closure is not a matter of degree — a rosette that nearly closes is not nearly a closed orbit, since after enough circuits it fills the annulus.$

The orbit that does not come back to itself

A bounded orbit under any central force oscillates between a smallest and a largest radius for ever. That it should also return to the same point is a further demand, and only two force laws in existence meet it — the inverse square, and the linear spring.

4 figures · part 2 on Orbit stability

The delay that is not a bend

The same metric that bends a ray also slows it, and the two are different tests. A radar echo from Venus arrives 233 microseconds late when its path grazes the Sun — and half of that delay is accumulated more than twenty solar radii away, in a field thousands of times weaker.

5 figures · part 2 on Light deflection

The blow-out band has two edges, not one. The ratio of radiation force to gravity against grain radius, with the radiation-pressure efficiency included: a grain much smaller than the wavelength of the light barely interacts with it — the efficiency falls as the fourth power of the size, which is Rayleigh's law — so the ratio stops rising and turns over. The dashed line is the same ratio with the efficiency taken as one, which is the usual drawing and is right only to the right of the turnover at 115 nm. The consequence is that a grain can be too small to be blown out as well as too large. Taking the threshold at a half — the value at which a grain released from a circular orbit is unbound — the band runs from 48.2 nm to 574 nm, and the largest ratio any grain of this material reaches is 1.87. Everything outside that band stays, and what stays does not stay put: it spirals.

The size the light cannot blow away

Radiation pressure and gravity both fall as the inverse square of distance, so their ratio is a property of the grain and not of where it is. What follows is a band of sizes that get blown out — with a lower edge as well as an upper one — and a drag, on everything else, that is the same pressure read one order further in v/c.

5 figures · part 2 on Radiation pressure

Every field · every reading path · every object named · every figure · what is taught wrongly · search