DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantization of Matter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantization of Matter 129 C hapter 5 Quantization of Matter Photo: Brown University An experiment showing the path of single electrons passing through liquid helium. Atoms of the different chemical elements are different aggregations of atoms [particles] of the same kind.... Thus on this view we have in the cathode rays matter in a new state, a state in which the subdivision of matter is carried very much further than in the ordinary gaseous state: a state in which all matter—that is, matter derived from different sources such as hydrogen, oxygen, etc.—is of one and the same kind; this matter being the substance from which all the chemical elements are built up. J. J. THOMSON , Philosophical Magazine 44, 293 (1897) Introduction The study of Einstein’s special theory of relativity has expanded and com - pletely altered our fundamental view of nature from that suggested by classical mechanics. It is important to realize that our new perception of the concepts of length, mass, time, and energy resulted from essentially 130 Ch. 5 Quantization of Matter one new basic postulate of nature (the invariance of the speed of light) and an application of classical mechanics to fundamental physical consid - erations of macroscopic phenomena. Additional deviations from classical physics and insights of microscopic phenomena will be detailed in this and the next few chapters, as we consider other theoretical and experimental contributions to modern physics. The method of inquiry is similar to that utilized in the study of Einsteinian relativity, in that a few new fundamen - tal postulates of nature are combined with well known principles of clas - sical mechanics and electromagnetic theory to produce a new nonclassical view of nature on the microscopic level. The immediate objective of this chapter is to study the quantization of matter, a concept that suggests matter is composed of basic constituents or minute particles. After a brief review of the evolution and scientific ac - ceptance of this atomic view , the qualitative physical properties of an elec - tron will be investigated. This is immediately followed by a study of the early measurements and estimates of the specific charge ( e/me), absolute charge, mass, and size of an electron. The emphasis of these discussions is not on the actual experiments and analyses performed by physicists in obtaining these early estimates. Instead, the logical application of basic principles of classical physics is emphasized in the development of rela - tionships capable of predicting theses fundamental physical properties of an electron. Further, a limited discussion of the modern model of the atom and nucleus is presented, followed by theoretical considerations for the mass, size, and binding energy of an atom. As a number of fundamental relationships of classical electromagnetic theory will be utilized in this chapter, a review of the basic equations, SI units, defined units, and con - ventional symbols presented in a general physics textbook might prove beneficial. 5.1 historical perspective The concept of matter being quantized (i.e., discrete) was suggested as early as the fifth century B.C. by Greek philosopher Democritus. This view, however, was mostly disregarded for nearly two thousand years by scien - tists in favor of the Aristotelian philosophy that consider space and matter as being continuous . Serious theoretical support for the atomic view of matter by Pierre Gassendi, Robert Hooke, and Isaac Newton appeared in the middle and latter part of the seventeenth century. These efforts, how - ever, were essentially ignored for nearly another hundred years, before ini - tial experimental evidence from quantitative chemistry was available in support of the quantization of matter . Of the many scientists involved in the development of quantitative 5.1 Historical Perspective 131 chemistry at the turn of the nineteenth century, the more noteworthy in - clude chemists Antoine Lavoisier, J. L. Proust, John Dalton, J. L. Gay- Lussac, and the Italian physicist Amedeo Avogadro. The work of these individuals clearly established that basic substances participate in chemical reactions in discrete or quantized entities. Their efforts led to the definition of chemical elements and the concept of atomic masses (originally called atomic weights ). In fact Dalton suggested each element was composed of physically and chemically identically atoms and that these atoms were dif - ferent from the atoms of any other element. He also introduced the con - cept of atomic masses; however, it was Avogadro who provided the best rationale for finding atomic masses by way of his hypothesis that at the same temperature and pressure equal volumes of gases contain the same number of particles . He was also the first to recognize that two or more atoms could combine to form what he called a molecule , a concept that was not fully understood until the development of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century. His hypothesis is of fundamental importance to physics and physical chemistry in that it predicts the number of atoms or molecules in one mole of a substance (any element or compound) as being exactly equal to a number No, called Avogadro’s constant. Although the absolute magnitude of No was not known for more than fifty years after Avogadro’s hypothesis, knowledge of its existence was sufficient and of primary importance in the development of relative atomic masses for the chemical elements. In the last section of this chapter Avogadro’s hypoth - esis and the value of No will be utilized in calculating the absolute mass and size of an atom. An enormous amount of evidence for the quantization of matter was provided by the advent and development of kinetic theory in the nine - teenth century, which was complementary to and independent of the view suggested by quantitative chemistry. Kinetic theory arises from the appli - cation of Newtonian mechanics to a gas considered as a system consisting of a very large number of identical particles. These particles are imagined to exist in a state of random motion and have elastic collisions with one another and the gas container. This large and very elegant subject was the first microscopic model of matter describing the physical properties of a gas. It was initially developed in part by Daniel Bernoulli In 1738; however, the major contributions and development occurred in the nineteenth cen - tury and were brought about notably by J. P. Joule, R. J. Clausius, J. C. Maxwell, L. Boltzmann, and J. W. Gibbs. Although kinetic theory per se is not germane to our immediate objectives, it is appropriate to acknowl - edge its contribution to the atomic view of nature. Many of the results of kinetic theory will be independently developed and discussed later in this textbook, when we consider the fundamental principles and physical ap - plications of statistical mechanics . 132 Ch. 5 Quantization of Matter One other contribution supporting the atomic view of matter came from the law of electrolysis developed by Michael Faraday in 1833. By al - lowing electricity to flow though electrolytic solutions and observing the components of the solution being liberated at the electrodes, Faraday was able to predict the existence of a discrete unit of electrical charge. His work supported not only the quantization of matter, but also the quantization of electrical charge . This discreteness in nature was later confirmed by ex - perimental investigation of cathode and canal rays, which led to measure - ments of the elemental electrical charge in nature and measurements of atomic masses, respectively. The qualitative physical properties of cathode rays is the topic of discussion in the next section, while canal rays will be considered in some detail in Section 5.6. 5.2 Cathode rays During the second half of the nineteenth century considerable scientific effort was devoted to the investigation of electrical discharge through rar - efied gases. In 1853 a Frenchman by the name of Masson discharged an electrical spark through a rarefied gas and found that the glass tube con - taining the gas was filled with a bright glow, instead of the normal spark as observed in air. A few years later the German glass blower Heinrich Geissler manufactured a number of these gaseous discharge tubes and sold them to scientists around the world. The Geissler tube , as illustrat ed in Figure 5.1, essentially contained an anode and cathod e electrode em - bedded in a partially evacuated glass tube. As the in ternal pressure to the tube is further decreased, the electrical discharge through the rarefied gas undergoes a number of different phases, as was reported by W. Crookes, Faraday, and others. At a pressure of roughly 0.01 m m o f H g a g l ow dis - charge is produced, as the entire tube tends to glow w it h a f a int g reenish light. The initial explanation was that invisible rays, c a lled cathode rays , emanating from the cathode electrode would strike the walls of the tube and cause a florescence of the glass. The existence of these invisible cath - ode rays caused considerable investigatory excitement in the scientific com - munity during the remainder of the nineteenth century. Figure 5.1 Discharge tube A simple Geissler dis - charge tube containing two electrodes. Anode Cathode 5.2 Cathode Rays 133 Cathode rays Cathode Figure 5.2 A Crookes demonstra - tion tube illustrating Object the rectilinear propaga - Shadow tion of cathode rays. Anode It can be easily demonstrated that the rays travel from the cathode to the anode in a straight line by using a discharge tube similar to that of Figure 5.2, where the dashed lines represent the rays emanating from a point source . A greenish fluorescence is observed where the rays strike the glass, while the glass in the shadow of the object remains dark. Since the shadow is distinctive and always on the side opposite the cathode, the rays must be traveling in straight lines and emanating from the cathode elec - trode.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stochastic Quantization of Fermionic Theories: Renormalization of the Massive Thirring Model
    Instituto de Física Teórica IFT Universidade Estadual Paulista October/92 IFT-R043/92 Stochastic Quantization of Fermionic Theories: Renormalization of the Massive Thirring Model J.C.Brunelli Instituto de Física Teórica Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona, 145 01405-900 - São Paulo, S.P. Brazil 'This work was supported by CNPq. Instituto de Física Teórica Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona, 145 01405 - Sao Paulo, S.P. Brazil Telephone: 55 (11) 288-5643 Telefax: 55(11)36-3449 Telex: 55 (11) 31870 UJMFBR Electronic Address: [email protected] 47553::LIBRARY Stochastic Quantization of Fermionic Theories: 1. Introduction Renormalization of the Massive Thimng Model' The stochastic quantization method of Parisi-Wu1 (for a review see Ref. 2) when applied to fermionic theories usually requires the use of a Langevin system modified by the introduction of a kernel3 J. C. Brunelli (1.1a) InBtituto de Física Teórica (1.16) Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona, 145 01405 - São Paulo - SP where BRAZIL l = 2Kah(x,x )8(t - ?). (1.2) Here tj)1 tp and the Gaussian noises rj, rj are independent Grassmann variables. K(xty) is the aforementioned kernel which ensures the proper equilibrium limit configuration for Accepted for publication in the International Journal of Modern Physics A. mas si ess theories. The specific form of the kernel is quite arbitrary but in what follows, we use K(x,y) = Sn(x-y)(-iX + ™)- Abstract In a number of cases, it has been verified that the stochastic quantization procedure does not bring new anomalies and that the equilibrium limit correctly reproduces the basic (jJsfsini g the Langevin approach for stochastic processes we study the renormalizability properties of the models considered4.
    [Show full text]
  • Avogadro Number, Boltzmann Constant, Planck Constant, Information Theory, Comparative and Relative Uncertainties
    American Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2018, 8(5): 93-102 DOI: 10.5923/j.ajcam.20180805.02 h, k, NA: Evaluating the Relative Uncertainty of Measurement Boris Menin Mechanical & Refrigeration Consultation Expert, Beer-Sheba, Israel Abstract For verification of the measurement accuracy of fundamental physical constants, the CODATA unique technique is used. This procedure is a complex process based on a careful discussion of the input data, and the justification and construction of tables of values sufficient for the direct use of the relative uncertainty are conducted using modern advanced statistical methods and powerful computers. However, at every stage of data processing, researchers must rely on common sense, that is, an expert conclusion. In this article, the author proposes a theoretical and informational grounded justification for calculating the relative uncertainty by using the comparative uncertainty. A detailed description of the data and the processing procedures do not require considerable time. Examples of measurements results of three fundamental constants are analysed, applying information-oriented approach. Comparison of the achieved relative and comparative uncertainties is introduced and discussed. Keywords Avogadro number, Boltzmann constant, Planck constant, Information theory, Comparative and relative uncertainties theories of physics can be proved by carefully studying the 1. Introduction numerical values of these constants, determined from different experiments in different fields of physics. It is expected that in 2018 that the International System of One needs to note the main feature of the CODATA Units (SI) will be redefined on the basis of certain values of technique in determining the relative uncertainty of one some fundamental constants [1].
    [Show full text]
  • X-Ray Crystal Density Method to Determine the Avogadro and Planck Constants
    X-ray Crystal Density Method to Determine the Avogadro and Planck Constants Horst Bettin Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig, Germany Proposed New Definition of the Kilogram The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.626 070 040 x 10 -34 when expressed in the unit J s, which is equal to kg m2 s-1, where the metre and the second c ∆ν are defined in terms of and Cs . *) X represents one or more digits to be added at the time the new definition is finally adopted. α 2 - = M (e )c NAh 2 R∞ N h −10 A = 3.990 312 7110(18) × 10 Js/mol, Amedeo Avogadro Max Planck with relative uncertainty of 0.45 × 10 -9 (1776-1856) (1858-1947) Page 2 of 19 Avogadro Constant Definition of Avogadro constant NA • Number of molecules per mol • 6.022... x 10 23 mol -1 Amedeo Avogadro Current definition of mol (1776-1856) • Number “entities” like 12 C atoms in 12 g • i. e. 6.022... x 10 23 12 C atoms have a mass of 12 g 12 12 g/mol = NA m( C ) Faraday constant F = NA e (e: elementary charge) Molar gas constant R = NA k (k: Boltzmann constant) Page 3 of 19 Counting Atoms: XRCD Method 3 Use of a silicon crystal! 1. Volume a0 of the unit cell 3 2. Volume of an atom: a0 /8 3. Volume V of a sphere 4. Number N of the atoms 8 V8 VM N = = ⋅ mol A N 3 3 a0 a0msphere Page 4 of 19 Lattice parameter measurement (INRIM) d220 (2011)=192014712.67(67) am d220 (2014)=192014711.98(34) am -9 ur(2014) = 1.8 x 10 Page 5 of 19 Lattice parameter set-up at PTB S M1 M M2 AL AA OH Page 6 of 19 Sphere Interferometer of PTB mK-temperature stabilisation Camera 1 Camera 2 Fizeau- Fizeau- Collimator Objective 1 Objective 2 Diode laser Page 7 of 19 Diameter results (2014) Relative Mean apparent Sphere Lab.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Quantization
    Chapter 1 Second Quantization 1.1 Creation and Annihilation Operators in Quan- tum Mechanics We will begin with a quick review of creation and annihilation operators in the non-relativistic linear harmonic oscillator. Let a and a† be two operators acting on an abstract Hilbert space of states, and satisfying the commutation relation a,a† = 1 (1.1) where by “1” we mean the identity operator of this Hilbert space. The operators a and a† are not self-adjoint but are the adjoint of each other. Let α be a state which we will take to be an eigenvector of the Hermitian operators| ia†a with eigenvalue α which is a real number, a†a α = α α (1.2) | i | i Hence, α = α a†a α = a α 2 0 (1.3) h | | i k | ik ≥ where we used the fundamental axiom of Quantum Mechanics that the norm of all states in the physical Hilbert space is positive. As a result, the eigenvalues α of the eigenstates of a†a must be non-negative real numbers. Furthermore, since for all operators A, B and C [AB, C]= A [B, C] + [A, C] B (1.4) we get a†a,a = a (1.5) − † † † a a,a = a (1.6) 1 2 CHAPTER 1. SECOND QUANTIZATION i.e., a and a† are “eigen-operators” of a†a. Hence, a†a a = a a†a 1 (1.7) − † † † † a a a = a a a +1 (1.8) Consequently we find a†a a α = a a†a 1 α = (α 1) a α (1.9) | i − | i − | i Hence the state aα is an eigenstate of a†a with eigenvalue α 1, provided a α = 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Electron-Positron Pairs in Physics and Astrophysics
    Electron-positron pairs in physics and astrophysics: from heavy nuclei to black holes Remo Ruffini1,2,3, Gregory Vereshchagin1 and She-Sheng Xue1 1 ICRANet and ICRA, p.le della Repubblica 10, 65100 Pescara, Italy, 2 Dip. di Fisica, Universit`adi Roma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy, 3 ICRANet, Universit´ede Nice Sophia Antipolis, Grand Chˆateau, BP 2135, 28, avenue de Valrose, 06103 NICE CEDEX 2, France. Abstract Due to the interaction of physics and astrophysics we are witnessing in these years a splendid synthesis of theoretical, experimental and observational results originating from three fundamental physical processes. They were originally proposed by Dirac, by Breit and Wheeler and by Sauter, Heisenberg, Euler and Schwinger. For almost seventy years they have all three been followed by a continued effort of experimental verification on Earth-based experiments. The Dirac process, e+e 2γ, has been by − → far the most successful. It has obtained extremely accurate experimental verification and has led as well to an enormous number of new physics in possibly one of the most fruitful experimental avenues by introduction of storage rings in Frascati and followed by the largest accelerators worldwide: DESY, SLAC etc. The Breit–Wheeler process, 2γ e+e , although conceptually simple, being the inverse process of the Dirac one, → − has been by far one of the most difficult to be verified experimentally. Only recently, through the technology based on free electron X-ray laser and its numerous applications in Earth-based experiments, some first indications of its possible verification have been reached. The vacuum polarization process in strong electromagnetic field, pioneered by Sauter, Heisenberg, Euler and Schwinger, introduced the concept of critical electric 2 3 field Ec = mec /(e ).
    [Show full text]
  • 1.3.4 Atoms and Molecules Name Symbol Definition SI Unit
    1.3.4 Atoms and molecules Name Symbol Definition SI unit Notes nucleon number, A 1 mass number proton number, Z 1 atomic number neutron number N N = A - Z 1 electron rest mass me kg (1) mass of atom, ma, m kg atomic mass 12 atomic mass constant mu mu = ma( C)/12 kg (1), (2) mass excess ∆ ∆ = ma - Amu kg elementary charge, e C proton charage Planck constant h J s Planck constant/2π h h = h/2π J s 2 2 Bohr radius a0 a0 = 4πε0 h /mee m -1 Rydberg constant R∞ R∞ = Eh/2hc m 2 fine structure constant α α = e /4πε0 h c 1 ionization energy Ei J electron affinity Eea J (1) Analogous symbols are used for other particles with subscripts: p for proton, n for neutron, a for atom, N for nucleus, etc. (2) mu is equal to the unified atomic mass unit, with symbol u, i.e. mu = 1 u. In biochemistry the name dalton, with symbol Da, is used for the unified atomic mass unit, although the name and symbols have not been accepted by CGPM. Chapter 1 - 1 Name Symbol Definition SI unit Notes electronegativity χ χ = ½(Ei +Eea) J (3) dissociation energy Ed, D J from the ground state D0 J (4) from the potential De J (4) minimum principal quantum n E = -hcR/n2 1 number (H atom) angular momentum see under Spectroscopy, section 3.5. quantum numbers -1 magnetic dipole m, µ Ep = -m⋅⋅⋅B J T (5) moment of a molecule magnetizability ξ m = ξB J T-2 of a molecule -1 Bohr magneton µB µB = eh/2me J T (3) The concept of electronegativity was intoduced by L.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1706.03391V2 [Astro-Ph.CO] 12 Sep 2017
    Insights into neutrino decoupling gleaned from considerations of the role of electron mass E. Grohs∗ Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA George M. Fuller Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA Abstract We present calculations showing how electron rest mass influences entropy flow, neutrino decoupling, and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) in the early universe. To elucidate this physics and especially the sensitivity of BBN and related epochs to electron mass, we consider a parameter space of rest mass values larger and smaller than the accepted vacuum value. Electromagnetic equilibrium, coupled with the high entropy of the early universe, guarantees that significant numbers of electron-positron pairs are present, and dominate over the number of ionization electrons to temperatures much lower than the vacuum electron rest mass. Scattering between the electrons-positrons and the neutrinos largely controls the flow of entropy from the plasma into the neu- trino seas. Moreover, the number density of electron-positron-pair targets can be exponentially sensitive to the effective in-medium electron mass. This en- tropy flow influences the phasing of scale factor and temperature, the charged current weak-interaction-determined neutron-to-proton ratio, and the spectral distortions in the relic neutrino energy spectra. Our calculations show the sen- sitivity of the physics of this epoch to three separate effects: finite electron mass, finite-temperature quantum electrodynamic (QED) effects on the plasma equation of state, and Boltzmann neutrino energy transport. The ratio of neu- trino to plasma-component energy scales manifests in Cosmic Microwave Back- ground (CMB) observables, namely the baryon density and the radiation energy density, along with the primordial helium and deuterium abundances.
    [Show full text]
  • Useful Constants
    Appendix A Useful Constants A.1 Physical Constants Table A.1 Physical constants in SI units Symbol Constant Value c Speed of light 2.997925 × 108 m/s −19 e Elementary charge 1.602191 × 10 C −12 2 2 3 ε0 Permittivity 8.854 × 10 C s / kgm −7 2 μ0 Permeability 4π × 10 kgm/C −27 mH Atomic mass unit 1.660531 × 10 kg −31 me Electron mass 9.109558 × 10 kg −27 mp Proton mass 1.672614 × 10 kg −27 mn Neutron mass 1.674920 × 10 kg h Planck constant 6.626196 × 10−34 Js h¯ Planck constant 1.054591 × 10−34 Js R Gas constant 8.314510 × 103 J/(kgK) −23 k Boltzmann constant 1.380622 × 10 J/K −8 2 4 σ Stefan–Boltzmann constant 5.66961 × 10 W/ m K G Gravitational constant 6.6732 × 10−11 m3/ kgs2 M. Benacquista, An Introduction to the Evolution of Single and Binary Stars, 223 Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-9991-7, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 224 A Useful Constants Table A.2 Useful combinations and alternate units Symbol Constant Value 2 mHc Atomic mass unit 931.50MeV 2 mec Electron rest mass energy 511.00keV 2 mpc Proton rest mass energy 938.28MeV 2 mnc Neutron rest mass energy 939.57MeV h Planck constant 4.136 × 10−15 eVs h¯ Planck constant 6.582 × 10−16 eVs k Boltzmann constant 8.617 × 10−5 eV/K hc 1,240eVnm hc¯ 197.3eVnm 2 e /(4πε0) 1.440eVnm A.2 Astronomical Constants Table A.3 Astronomical units Symbol Constant Value AU Astronomical unit 1.4959787066 × 1011 m ly Light year 9.460730472 × 1015 m pc Parsec 2.0624806 × 105 AU 3.2615638ly 3.0856776 × 1016 m d Sidereal day 23h 56m 04.0905309s 8.61640905309
    [Show full text]
  • General Quantization
    General quantization David Ritz Finkelstein∗ October 29, 2018 Abstract Segal’s hypothesis that physical theories drift toward simple groups follows from a general quantum principle and suggests a general quantization process. I general- quantize the scalar meson field in Minkowski space-time to illustrate the process. The result is a finite quantum field theory over a quantum space-time with higher symmetry than the singular theory. Multiple quantification connects the levels of the theory. 1 Quantization as regularization Quantum theory began with ad hoc regularization prescriptions of Planck and Bohr to fit the weird behavior of the electromagnetic field and the nuclear atom and to handle infinities that blocked earlier theories. In 1924 Heisenberg discovered that one small change in algebra did both naturally. In the early 1930’s he suggested extending his algebraic method to space-time, to regularize field theory, inspiring the pioneering quantum space-time of Snyder [43]. Dirac’s historic quantization program for gravity also eliminated absolute space-time points from the quantum theory of gravity, leading Bergmann too to say that the world point itself possesses no physical reality [5, 6]. arXiv:quant-ph/0601002v2 22 Jan 2006 For many the infinities that still haunt physics cry for further and deeper quanti- zation, but there has been little agreement on exactly what and how far to quantize. According to Segal canonical quantization continued a drift of physical theory toward simple groups that special relativization began. He proposed on Darwinian grounds that further quantization should lead to simple groups [32]. Vilela Mendes initiated the work in that direction [37].
    [Show full text]
  • International Centre for Theoretical Physics
    IC/95/253 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS LOCALIZED STRUCTURES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IN HOT ELECTRON-POSITRON PLASMA S. Kartal L.N. Tsintsadze and V.I. Berezhiani MIRAMARE-TRIESTE y s. - - INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY £ ,. AGENCY .v ^^ ^ UNITED NATIONS T " ; . EDUCATIONAL, i r' * SCI ENTI FIC- * -- AND CULTURAL j * - ORGANIZATION VOL 2 7 Ni 0 6 IC/95/253 International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS LOCALIZED STRUCTURES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IN HOT ELECTRON-POSITRON PLASMA ' S. K'urtaF, L.N. Tsiiitsacfzc'' ancf V./. fiercz/iiani International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. ABSTRACT The dynamics of relativistically strong electromagnetic (EM) wave propagation in hot electron-positron plasma is investigated. The possibility of finding localized stationary structures of EM waves is explored. It is shown that under certain conditions the EM wave forms a stable localized soliton-like structures where plasma is completely expelled from the region of EM field location. MIRAMARE TRIESTE August 1995 'Submitted to Physical Review E. 'Permanent address; University ofT ', inbul, Department of Physics, 34459, Vezneciler- Istanbul, Turkey. 3Present address: Faculty of Science, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739, Japan. Permanent address: Institute of Physics, The Georgian Academy of Science, Tbilisi 380077, Republic of Georgia. During the last few years a considerable amount of work has been de- voted to the analysis of nonlinear electromagnetic (EM) wave propagation in electron-positron (e-p) plasmas [I]. Electron- positron pairs are thought to be a major constituent of the plasma emanating both from the pulsars and from inner region of the accretion disks surrounding the central black holes in the active galactic nuclei (AGN) [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1809.04416V1 [Physics.Gen-Ph]
    Path integral and Sommerfeld quantization Mikoto Matsuda1, ∗ and Takehisa Fujita2, † 1Japan Health and Medical technological college, Tokyo, Japan 2College of Science and Technology, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan (Dated: September 13, 2018) The path integral formulation can reproduce the right energy spectrum of the harmonic oscillator potential, but it cannot resolve the Coulomb potential problem. This is because the path integral cannot properly take into account the boundary condition, which is due to the presence of the scattering states in the Coulomb potential system. On the other hand, the Sommerfeld quantization can reproduce the right energy spectrum of both harmonic oscillator and Coulomb potential cases since the boundary condition is effectively taken into account in this semiclassical treatment. The basic difference between the two schemes should be that no constraint is imposed on the wave function in the path integral while the Sommerfeld quantization rule is derived by requiring that the state vector should be a single-valued function. The limitation of the semiclassical method is also clarified in terms of the square well and δ(x) function potential models. PACS numbers: 25.85.-w,25.85.Ec I. INTRODUCTION Quantum field theory is the basis of modern theoretical physics and it is well established by now [1–4]. If the kinematics is non-relativistic, then one obtains the equation of quantum mechanics which is the Schr¨odinger equation. In this respect, if one solves the Schr¨odinger equation, then one can properly obtain the energy eigenvalue of the corresponding potential model . Historically, however, the energy eigenvalue is obtained without solving the Schr¨odinger equation, and the most interesting method is known as the Sommerfeld quantization rule which is the semiclassical method [5–8].
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Weighing and Preparation of Aqueous Solutions
    2 WEIGHING AND PREPARATION OF AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS Theory In chemistry, a solution is a homogeneous mixture composed of two or more substances. In such a mixture, a solute is dissolved in another substance, known as a solvent. An aqueous solution is a solution in which the solvent is water. Concentration is the measure of how much of a given substance (solute) there is mixed with another substance (solvent). This can apply to any sort of chemical mixture, but most frequently the concept is limited to homogeneous solutions, where it refers to the amount of solute in a solution. For scientific or technical applications, concentration is expressed in a quantitative way. There are a number of different ways to quantitatively express concentration; the most common are listed below. They are based on mass or volume or both. Depending on what they are based on it is not always trivial to convert one measure to the other, because knowledge of the density might be needed to do so. At times this information may not be available, particularly if the temperature varies. Mass can be determined at a precision of ~ 0.1 mg on a routine basis with an analytical balance. Both solids and liquids are easily quantified by weighing. Some units of concentration - particularly the most popular one (molarity) - require to express the mass of substance in the moles. The mol is the SI basic unit that measures an amount of substance. „One mole contains exactly 6.022 140 76 × 1023 elementary entities. This number is the −1 fixed numerical value of the Avogadro constant, NA, when expressed in the unit mol and is called the Avogadro number.“ The previous definition was based on the number of carbon atoms in 12 g of material and was the following; a mol is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram (or 12 g) of carbon-12 (12C), where the carbon – 12 atoms are unbound, at rest and in their ground state.
    [Show full text]