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
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
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