A Can Equilibrium State Determine Complex Potential?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between an observable C and a complex potential B, expressed as C = B̅B, with C evaluated at an equilibrium reference state C₀. The original poster questions whether they can infer any conclusions about B or its conjugate B̅ at this equilibrium state. Participants note issues with LaTeX formatting, suggesting that proper syntax is crucial for clarity. The conversation highlights the challenge of deriving information about B from the known value of C at equilibrium. Ultimately, the inability to determine B or B̅ from C at the equilibrium state remains unresolved.
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
I have an observable denoted by C, related to a complex potential B by :

## C= \bar{B}B ,##

where ##B## is a complex potential. I know that ## \left. C \right|_0 =C_0 ##, a known constant, where the evaluation at ##_0## denotes an equilibrium \ reference state. From this, I can not make any conclusions on ## \left. B \right|_0##, or ## \left. \bar{B} \right|_0## can I ?

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
binbagsss said:
I have an observable denoted by C, related to a complex potential B by :

## C= \bar{B}B ,##

where ##B## is a complex potential. I know that ## \left. C \right|_0 =C_0 ##, a known constant, where the evaluation at ##_0## denotes an equilibrium \ reference state. From this, I can not make any conclusions on ## \left. B \right|_0##, or ## \left. \bar{B} \right|_0## can I ?

Thanks.
You forgot to use '##'. It is always a good practice to preview Latex to make sure it is doing what you want.
 
FactChecker said:
You forgot to use '##'. It is always a good practice to preview Latex to make sure it is doing what you want.
i didn't, it just created it on a new line and i didnt want that.
 
In your first post, I see a lot of single '#'s. Those should all be double '##'.
 
i thought double creates a new line. anyway, it wont let me edit it now.
 
(LaTex fixed)
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara and FactChecker
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top