square173205

Generally the function having zero points or poles with non-integer order such as f(z) = (z-a)^(1.5+i0.3) must be dealt with on appropriate Riemann surface. I tried to extend the argument principle for such functions on a single sheet of Riemann surface and got a formula similar to that of ordinary argument principle. Using that formula the winding number of f(z) = (z-a)^(1.5+i0.3) around the origin is expressed as 1.5+i0.3. For details, visit:

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/argument/argument.htm

Newton's gravitational potential is a very accurate approximation of that derived from general relativity when the gravity is not extremely strong. Therefore the quantization of Newton's gravitational potential might give efficient approximation for that of actual gravitational field under appropriate conditions. I tried to describe the gauge field derived from Newton's gravitational potential and its quantization in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/gravity/gravity.htm

Usually a periodic force is used for the forced vibration. However when the potential is not harmonic, we often get insufficient amplification by the periodic force. In that case the aperiodic pulse excitation might be effective. I tried to simulate how the non-linear oscillator is excited by pulsed external force in the follwoing site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/forced/forced.htm

The ultraviolet divergence in QED is an old problem. The renormalisation removes almost every divergence appeared in the perturbation calculations, however the divergent integral before renormalisation should be finite if the physical model is correct. This might imply it is necessary to quantise special relativity itself, for as long as concerning point-like particle in Lorentz space the above problem seems not to be mended. I tried to quantise Lorentz space in order to deal with the ultraviolet divergence in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/relativity/relativity3.htm

Gauss's law describes the electric field created by the point charge. This law is applied when the point charge is isotropic only. Do you think it's a trivial matter? I don't think so. I tried to extend Gauss's law to the case when the point charge is not isotropic in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/gauss/gauss.htm

The complex field is regarded as the extension of real field adding the root of the equation: x^2+1 = 0. Then does the extension of rational field adding some irrational square root represent the space having Lorentz metric? I tried to construct such space in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/complex/complex.htm

Of course I do! I'm not talking about solving equations, I am talking about the inverse function! You, in your first post, referred to "the inverse function of quintic polynomial" You are aware, are you not, that f(x)= x^2, because it is not a one-to-one function, does NOT HAVE an inverse function.

Surely, but even in the case of quadratic polynomial there exists a pair of domain and region where the mapping is one-to-one.

I too have not read the link, but it is absolutely possible, in general, to use p only, pd only, or pi only (though God help you with instability on this one). Modified proportional is simple and often used, for example, in box heaters for electronic instruments where a few degrees of steady state error is no big deal compared to the cost of a real pid controller.

 

A couple years ago, I built a two axis surgery table using hydraulic servos. Although I used pid, I put an off switch on the i so that, during the painstaking part of the surgery, the table would absolutely stay still wherever it was.

 

So, yes.

Isn't it a regulator?

In general solving the eigenvalue problem of three-dimensional Schroedinger equation is difficult unless the shape of potential is particularly simple. I tried to develop a generic method to solve that problem:

In general solving Schroedinger equation is much harder than modeling quantum phenomenon with that. For example, the movement of electron around proton is quantised with the following Schroedinger equation.

(ih/(2p))¶f/¶t = -{h2/((2p)22m)}Df-e2f/r

To solve it as eigenvalue problem it is necessary to express the solution with the spherical function and Laguerre function. Apart from Laguerre function, calculating practically spherical function is laboured task. Are there any easier methods for solving the Schroedinger equation especially on the eigenvalue problem?

One simple way is to specify the coordinates of electron on y- and z-axis. Then the Schroedinger equation becomes one-dimensional as,

(ih/(2p))¶f(x,y0,z0)/¶t = -{h2/((2p)22m)}¶2f(x,y0,z0)/¶x2-e2f/r(x,y0,z0)

As the eigenvalue problem, it is rewritten as,

-{h2/((2p)22m)}¶2f(x,y0,z0)/¶x2-e2f/r(x,y0,z0) = W(y0,z0)f

This is just ordinary differential equation. So we can solve it relatively easily (approximately in some cases, though.) However since the potential is the function of not only x but also y and z generally, the "eigenvalue" W depends on the coordinates of electron on y- and z-axis, i.e,

W(y0,z0) ¹ W(y0',z0') where (y0,z0) ¹ (y0',z0')

Is it impossible to obtain the three dimensional solution which has specific eigenvalue from one dimensional solution mentioned above?

Let's go back to classical dynamics. The movement of point mass x = (x1(t),x2(t),x3(t)) under the potential U is described as,

(1/2)m|dx/dt|2+U(x) = E

In this case the total energy E doesn't change through time as you know. Now we describe the components x1, x2 and x3 of x with virtually independent three parameters as,

x = (x1(t1),x2(t2),x3(t3))

Then the velocity vector v of x is,

v = (dx1/dt1,dx2/dt2,dx3/dt3)

It should be t1 = t2 = t3 = t in order to coincide v with ordinary velocity. The partial derivative of kinetic energy for tj is,

(¶/¶tj)(1/2)m|dx/dt|2 = (¶/¶tj)(1/2)m(dxj/dtj)2 = m(d2xj/dtj2)(dxj/dtj) (j = 1,2,3)

while the partial derivative of potential U for tj is,

¶U/¶tj = Sk(¶U/¶xk)(dxk/dtj) = (¶U/¶xj)(dxj/dtj)

On the other hand, Newton's equation is expressed with the parameter tj as,

m(d2xj/dtj2) = -¶U/¶xj

Hence,

(¶/¶tj){(1/2)m(dxj/dtj)2+U}

= m(d2xj/dtj2)(dxj/dtj)+(¶U/¶xj)(dxj/dtj)

= {m(d2xj/dtj2)+¶U/¶xj}(dxj/dtj)

= 0

Namely when let Ej the j-component of kinetic energy of mass point, i.e.

Ej = (1/2)m(dxj/dtj)2 (caution: not take the sum regarding the index j)

then the above equation indicates that ((Ej + potential energy)) doesn't change through the time tj. Although the time tj is imaginary parameter, the preservation of that sum is not meaningless physically. For example, say j = 1, it can be rewritten with ordinary time t as,

(d/dt){(1/2)m(dx/dt)2+U(x(t),y(t0),z(t0))} = 0

where the coordinate y and z of mass point are fixed as y(t0) and z(t0).

The above preservation of the j-component kinetic energy plus potential energy is quantised as,

(ih/(2p))¶fj/¶tj = -{h2/((2p)22m)}¶2fj/¶xj2+Ufj

This is nothing other than ordinary one-dimensional Schroedinger equation. Therefore the eigenvalue problem on three-dimensional Schroedinger equation is decomposed into one-dimensional eigenvalue problem as,

-{h2/((2p)22m)}¶2fj/¶xj2+Ufj = wjfj

where wj corresponds to the j-component kinetic energy plus potential energy in the case of classical dynamics mentioned above. The solution fj is regarded as the function of coordinate xj and eigenvalue wj as,

fj = fj(wj,xj)

However as I mentioned previously, "eigenvalue" wj of one-dimensional Schroedinger equation depends on the other coordinates. Therefore we must take the convolution of wj for getting eigenfunction f(W,x,y,z) of Schroedinger equation on the three-dimensional space as,

f(W,x,y,z) = òdw2dw3f1(W-w2-w3,x)f2(w2,y)f3(w3,z)

where W is the eigenvalue of three-dimensional Schroedinger equation. Actually W is obtained from solving one-dimensional eigenvalue problem on Schroedinger equation for each component.

Is it possible to control servo system without integral action? Here is the method to control it with modified proportional action only;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/digital3/ftsc3.htm

If a phonon follows a certain gauge transform, it might have a mass following the spontaneous break of symmetry of the potential. I tried to interpret the high temperature superconductivity with the phonon having a mass in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/phonon/phonon.htm

Galois's theorem describes the relation between subfields and Galois groups on the field. I tried to apply Galois's theorem to the relation between subspaces and automorphisms on the topological space in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/topology/topology.htm

No, in general, a quintic polynomial function does NOT have an inverse function. Just as a quadratic polynomial does NOT have an inverse function.

(Since the quintic is of odd degree it, unlike a quadratic, MIGHT have an inverse. That why I said "in general".)

You don't allow using imaginary number, do you?

In general the reflecting optical telescope has a large-aperture concave mirror for gathering and focusing light from astronomical bodies. As you've known, larger the size of mirror becomes, more difficult making such mirror with sufficient accuracy. Here is an alternative method to avert such difficulty;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/telescope/reflect.htm

To expand on ajb's answer, as an example, the Lagrangian for QED is:

 

[math] {\cal L} = -\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu} + \bar \psi \left( i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu +m \right) \psi [/math]

 

In principle, everything you need for QED is in that formula (once you define the notation) - it completely specifies the theory (which is quite neat I think).

 

Edit: the link works fine for me.

QWT, too:eyebrow:

??? The general quintic does NOT have an inverse function.

Just not solvable with using radicals:cool:

Galois's theorem describes the relation between subfields and Galois groups. I tired to apply Galois's theorem to partially ordered set such as directed graph in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/poset/poset.htm

Although the expressions of Lagrangian for quarks and leptons in the standard-model are very sophisticated, the mixture of indices for Lorentz space and inner space sometimes makes difficult to develop equations. To get better perspective, I tried to rewrite the Lagrangian with the differential form in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/lagrangian/gauge4.htm

Galois's theorem describes the relation between subfields and Galois groups on the field. I tried to extend it to the relation between subgroups and automorphisms on the group in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/group/galois.htm

If a material reflects neutrons perfectly without absorbing them, we could make the reactor much smaller with using such material as reflector. But we haven't had such ideal material so far. Here is an idea for reflecting neutrons more effectively than using usual reflectors.

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/rotative/reactor2.htm

It is well known that in general the quintic algebraic equation is not solved algebraically. It means that the inverse function of quintic polynomial is not expressed algebraically. However we also know some functions which are not elementally functions are expressed with nonlinear differential equations. Then is it possible to express the inverse function of quintic polynomial with any nonlinear differential equation? I tried to induce such nonlinear differential equation in the following site;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/stbruno/stbruno.htm

Our world is composed of four dimensions. However if each component of space has individual "time", what would happen especially on the electromagnetic phenomena? Of course those times must be almost equal with each other since we haven't yet observed any break of isometry of time in the space. I tried to introduce those virtual three times into Maxwell's equations as;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/maxwell/maxwell.htm

Is the definition of 2 not that it is always 1+1?

Yes, it's a definition. But it might be necessary to verify that definition is well-defined. Otherwise we could define 1+1=3 (it's obviously not well-defined, though.)

Is 1+1 always 2? I tried to prove that 1+1 is not always 2 with applying Goedel's incompleteness theorem as;

http://hecoaustralia.fortunecity.com/incompleteness/incomplete.htm

which i imagine would be rather inefficient due the vacuum of space and the tendency of positive charges to repel.

As indicated in my webpage, the electrons emitted from the rods have the role to neutralize the cation plasma and suppress the repulsive interaction among cations.