Space

 Time  and  the  Universe  

Instructor:  Suchetana  Cha0erjee  
Presidency  University  
PHYS01GE-­‐01B  
Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion
 Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
1. Planets move in elliptical orbits with the sun
at one of the foci

circ le
SUN

ellipse
 2. Law of Areas
Line from the sun to a planet sweeps with equal areas in
equal time. A planet will move through equal area
of space in an equal amount of time
Perihelion – closest to sun
Aphelion – farthest from sun
i.  When a planet is in perihelion its orbital
velocity increases
ii.  When a planet is in aphelion its orbital
velocity decreases
Farthest
from sun Closest
to sun

Slower
Velocity
Faster
Velocity

Greater
Gravitational
Pull

Closer to the sun, faster the velocity because of

the gravitational pull.
3. Law of Periods - The farther a planet is from
the focus, the longer the period of revolution.

Ex: Earth is closer to the sun than Jupiter, therefore the

Earth has a shorter period of revolution
Quantum Reality
The particle aspects are emphasized when their emission or
absorption is studied, and the wave aspects are emphasized when
their behaviour in moving through a system is studied.
Bohr’s principle of complementarity. The wave and particle models
are complementary to each other . Which model we use is
determined by the nature of the measurement.
A direct consequence of the wave nature of particles lies
in the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle.

Position and wavelength of a wave can not be well defined simultanouesly

 A lightening review of Newtonian Mechanics

Mathematically it is a second order differential equation. One can solve it

(regardless of how complicated it is) completely with the means of two initial
conditions. Once you know that you can completely predict the future evolution
of a particle. So the Newtonian world is deterministic and indeed it is. We can
land on the moon by doing precise calculation sitting on Earth, using
Newton’s law.
 Road to Quantum Mechanics
 
! The wave particle duality forces us to come up with a new
recipe to express the language of quantum mechanics. We now
need a new language to deal with entities that exhibit both wave
like and particle like nature. The language of classical
mechanics seem inadequate. So we invent a new language
known as wave mechanics to deal with the quantum world.
!  Not only that we need to change the language of solving
dynamical problems, we are also caught up with a new beast…
our inability to determine position and momentum
simultaneously. It breaks down our perception of the classical
world. We now have no way to predict the future beyond a
certain accuracy. How do we deal with it? How do we express
our notion of physical reality? Copenhagen interpretation
Classical Mechanics is an approximation of Quantum
Mechanics. We run into indeterminacy and
uncertainties in the simultaneous measurements of
position and momentum. But all these uncertainties
are negligibly small for macroscopic objects, and can
be ignored for all practical purposes.
 The concept of wavefunction
" In Newtonian Mechanics we denote the position an momentum of
a particle x(t) or P(t).
" That is no more possible when particles exhibit wave like nature.
" So we need to design a new machinery. Borrow ideas from
classical waves

Don’t just think of sinusoids. An equivalent

variable of position is conceived, which is
conceived as a wavefunction ψ(r,t) to
describe the dynamics of a microscopic
particle. Completely abstract concept. We
will later relate it to observables.
But what actually is the wavefunction?
 ! De Broglie hypothesis does tell us the associated matter wave for a particle
with momentum p.
! It does not tell us what will happen to the wave if the momentum of the
particle changes. So we need to find the equivalent of Newton’s law.
! How does the wavefunction evolve with time? What if there is a force to
change the momentum. What will be the dynamical evolution of the quantum
mechanical particle or the probability wave ? Erwin Schrodinger (1925)

Schrodinger Equation
Start with a wavefunction.
Use the De Broglie relationships.
end up with the dynamical equation.

“Where did we get that equation from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it
from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrodinger.”
….. Richard Feynman on the Schrodinger equation.
 But what is this wave or wave function?
We know of elastic or mechanical waves
We know of electromagnetic waves
It is a probability wave.
Our quantum world is indeterministic. We cannot determine
the precise position and momentum of particles. What we can
at best say is the probability of finding a particle at a given
time at a given position
Statistical Interpretation and interpreting Observables

! Max Born stated the modulus of the wavefunction tells us the probability of
finding the particle in the spatial interval x-x+dx and time t

That leads to the controversial “Copenhagen Interpretation”.

Collapse Hypothesis: The act of measurement collapses the

wavefunction to take a certain value. If we repeat the
experiment what would happen?
It will yield the same value or return a different value depending on how fast a
measurement we conduct.

The inherent statistical nature of Quantum Measurements

Famous Double Slit Experiment
The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly
taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. It holds that quantum
mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only
with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy
quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the
classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of
probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible
values. This feature of mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The
essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner
Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27. Wikipedia
Famous Bohr Einstein Debate
 Myths about what Bohr told Einstein about it
“Einstein stop telling God what He has to do”
“You can not dictate Him if He does so.” on the phrase “God does
not play dice”
Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive
source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects
radioactivity (i.e., a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered,
releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while,
the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in
the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and
dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum
superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or
the other.
Schrodinger’s Cat
EPR Paradox and Quantum Entanglement
Electromagnetism and Special Relativity
 Frame of Reference
This train platform serves as the “rest” frame for
Observers A and B, but it moves with a speed v towards
Observer C, who stands on the roadside.

A   B  
C  

v  
 Inertial & Non-Inertial Frames

•  Inertial Reference Frame:

#  Any frame in which Newton’s Laws are valid!
#  Any reference frame moving with uniform motion (non-
accelerated) with respect to an “absolute” frame “fixed” with
respect to the stars.

•  Non-Inertial Reference Frame:

#  Any frame in which Newton’s Laws are not valid!
#  Any reference frame moving with non-uniform motion
(accelerated) with respect to an “absolute” frame “fixed” with
respect to the stars.
 Galilean-Newtonian Relativity

$  According to the principle of Newtonian Relativity,

the laws of mechanics are the same in all inertial
frames of reference i.e. someone in a lab and
someone running see the same laws.
Galilean-Newtonian Relativity

Galilean  Transforma6ons  
 Galilean  Transforma6ons  
 
$  When  second  frame  is  moving  relaFve  to  first  along  posiFve  
direcFon  of  X-­‐axis.  
$  In  S  an  event  is  described  by  (x,y,z;t).  How  does  it  look  in  Sʹ′?  
z   S   zʹ′   v  
S’  
vt   xʹ′  
P(x,y,z.t)  
     (x’,y’z’.t’)  

t     tʹ′    

O   x   Oʹ′  
xʹ′  
Y  
Y’  
 Galilean  Transforma6ons  
$  We  will  assume  that  Fme  of  occurence  is  same  in  both  the  
frames  
                                                         t  =  tʹ′    
$  From  the  diagram,   x = x ' + ut

  ⇒ x' = x − ut
  v  

z   zʹ′  
$  And  there  is  no  relaFve    
vt   xʹ′  
   moFon  in  Y  &  Z-­‐direcFons    
y' = y
t     tʹ′    
z' = z
O   Oʹ′  
Y   Y’   x   xʹ′  
•  So  the  Galilean  transformaFons  are  
  x' = x − ut
  y' = y
  z' = z
  t' = t
 
•  Inverse  Galilean  transformaFons  are    
  x = x'+ut
y = y'
z = z'
t = t'
 Galilean  Transforma6ons  for  Velocity  
$  VelociFes  can  also  be  transformed.  
$  Using  the  previous  equaFons,  
 
dx ' d ( x − vt ) dx
 v' x = = = −v ⇒ v' x = v x − v
dt dt dt
dy ' dy
v' y = = = vy
dt dt addiFon  law  for  velociFes    
dz ' dz
v' z = = = vz
dt dt
Galilean  Transforma6ons  for  Accelera6on  
 
dv ' x d (v x − v) dv x dv
  a' x = = = −
  dt dt dt dt
  dv
since v is constant ⇒ =0
  dt
  dv x
∴ a'x = = ax
  dt
  & a' y = a y , a'z = az
  Hence acceleration remains invariant
$  Thus Force (F=ma) is same in all inertial frames.
! ElectromagneFc  radiaFon  can  be  described  by  oscillaFng  electric  and  magneFc  
fields  
James Clerk Maxwell (Theory of Electromagnetism)

Maxwell’s equations are not valid under Galliean Transformation

The Lorentz Transformation Equations

The Lorentz Velocity Transformations