A Can Equilibrium State Determine Complex Potential?

Click For 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
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K