The European Physical Journal H最新文献

1964–1965 was an early, crucial period in Martin Karplus’ research—a time when, rather unexpectedly, he approached the problem of reactive collisions using a quasiclassical approximation with the aid of computer technologies. This marked a substantial departure from the quantum-chemical studies of nuclear magnetic resonance that had, until then, dominated his work. The historical perspective outlined by George Schatz, as well Karplus’ own biography, partly frames the contours of this remarkable period in the history of theoretical chemistry. Yet, the available historical literature is not sufficiently complete to allow us to understand Karplus’ transition from nuclear magnetic resonance to reaction dynamics. In this article, we discuss the intellectual ground on which Karplus operated around 1964, further commenting on the relevance of his quantum and quasiclassical studies and pondering how Karplus’ approach eventually led to his interest in the simulation of complex biomolecules.

The history of the development of Monte Carlo methods to solve the many-body problem in quantum mechanics is presented. The relation starts with the early attempts on first available computers just after the war and extends until the years 80s with the celebrated calculation of the electron gas by Ceperley and Alder. Usage is made of an interview of David Ceperley by the author.

Several authors (including myself) have made claims, none of which has been convincingly rebutted, that the flatness problem, as formulated by Dicke and Peebles, is not really a problem but rather a misunderstanding. In particular, we all agree that no fine-tuning in the early Universe is needed in order to explain the fact that there is no strong departure from flatness, neither in the early Universe nor now. Nevertheless, the flatness problem is still widely perceived to be real, since it is still routinely mentioned as an outstanding (in both senses) problem in cosmology in papers and books. Most of the arguments against the idea of a flatness problem are based on the change with time of the density parameter (varOmega ) and normalized cosmological constant (lambda ) (often assumed to be zero before there was strong evidence that it has a non-negligible positive value) and, since the Hubble constant H is not considered, are independent of time scale. In addition, taking the time scale into account, it is sometimes claimed that fine-tuning is required in order to produce a Universe which neither collapsed after a short time nor expanded so quickly that no structure formation could take place. None of those claims is correct, whether or not the cosmological constant is assumed to be zero. I briefly review the literature disputing the existence of the flatness problem, which is not as well known as it should be, compare it with some similar persistent misunderstandings, and wonder about the source of confusion.

The Moore–Penrose inverse celebrated its 100th birthday in 2020, as the notion standing behind the term was first defined by Eliakim Hastings Moore in 1920 (Bull Am Math Soc 26:394–395, 1920). Its rediscovery by Sir Roger Penrose in 1955 (Proc Camb Philos Soc 51:406–413, 1955) can be considered as a caesura, after which the inverse attracted the attention it deserves and has henceforth been exploited in various research branches of applied origin. The paper contemplates the role, which the Moore–Penrose inverse plays in research within physics and related areas at present. An overview of the up-to-date literature leads to the conclusion that the inverse “grows” along with the development of physics and permanently (maybe even more demonstrably now than ever before) serves as a powerful and versatile tool to cope with the current research problems.

Determinism is generally regarded as one of the main characteristics of classical physics, that is, the physics of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. However, an inquiry into eighteenth and nineteenth century physics shows that the aim of accounting for all phenomena on the basis of deterministic equations of motion remained far out of reach. Famous statements of universal determinism, such as those of Laplace and Du Bois-Reymond, were made within a specific context and research program and did not represent a majority view. I argue that in this period, determinism was often an expectation rather than an established result, and that especially toward the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was often thought of as a presupposition of physics: physicists such as Mach, Poincaré and Boltzmann regarded determinism as a feature of scientific research, rather than as a claim about the world. It is only retrospectively that an image was created according to which classical physics was uniformly deterministic.

Academician A.?D.?Sakharov’s idea concerning the emission of atomic flux from hot plasma (1951) inspired scientists of A.?F.?Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute to create the first in the world instrument called Neutral Atom Analyzer in 1960 and then in 1961 to use it successfully on the Alpha device (USSR, 1958–1963). Now the analysis of fluxes of fast atoms referred to as Neutral Particle Analysis (NPA) is one of the main diagnostic methods for the ion component of plasma in tokamaks, stellarators, and other devices. NPA provides a unique opportunity for studying the ion distribution functions, ion temperatures and hydrogen isotope ratio in hot plasma. Neutral particle analyzers developed at the Ioffe Institute were widely used in the USSR until the late 1970s, and afterwards began to be employed worldwide. Since then, most of the information on the ion distribution functions and the behavior of fast ions in fusion plasma is obtained from NPA measurements on all leading magnetic confinement fusion systems worldwide. The specialized complex of atom analyzers currently being created at the Ioffe Institute is included in the primary list of ITER diagnostics. The integration of this complex on ITER is expected to begin in 2025.

In this paper, we describe the history of the LHCb experiment over the last three decades, and its remarkable successes and achievements. LHCb was conceived primarily as a ({b} )-physics experiment, dedicated to (CP) violation studies and measurements of very rare ({{b}} ) decays; however, the tremendous potential for ({c} )-physics was also clear. At first data taking, the versatility of the experiment as a general-purpose detector in the forward region also became evident, with measurements achievable such as electroweak physics, jets and new particle searches in open states. These were facilitated by the excellent capability of the detector to identify muons and to reconstruct decay vertices close to the primary ({{p}} {{p}} )?interaction region. By the end of the LHC Run 2 in 2018, before the accelerator paused for its second long shut down, LHCb had measured the CKM quark mixing matrix elements and (CP) violation parameters to world-leading precision in the heavy-quark systems. The experiment had also measured many rare decays of ({b} ) ?and ({c} ) ?quark mesons and baryons to below their Standard Model expectations, some down to branching ratios of order 10(^{-9}). In addition, world knowledge of ({{b}} ) and ({{c}} ) spectroscopy had improved significantly through discoveries of many new resonances already anticipated in the quark model, and also adding new exotic four and five quark states. The paper describes the evolution of the LHCb detector, from conception to its operation at the present time. The authors’ subjective summary of the experiment’s important contributions is then presented, demonstrating the wide domain of successful physics measurements that have been achieved over the years.

We present some historical and philosophical reflections on the paper “On the Relation Between the Expansion and the Mean Density of the Universe”, published by Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in 1932. In this famous work, Einstein and de Sitter considered a relativistic model of the expanding universe with both the cosmological constant and the curvature of space set to zero. Although the Einstein-deSitter model went on to serve as a standard model in ‘big bang’ cosmology for many years, we note that the authors do not explicitly consider the evolution of the cosmos in the paper. Indeed, the mathematics of the article are quite puzzling to modern eyes. We consider claims that the paper was neither original nor important; we find that, by providing the first specific analysis of the case of a dynamic cosmology without a cosmological constant or spatial curvature, the authors delivered a unique, simple model with a straightforward relation between cosmic expansion and the mean density of matter that set an important benchmark for both theorists and observers. We consider some philosophical aspects of the model and provide a brief review of its use as a standard ‘big bang’ model over much of the (20{mathrm {th}}) century.

In this admittedly personal account of the history of atomistic simulations of fluids (at the atomic or molecular level), I will focus on the competing efforts to reach the boundary between atoms and the continuum. The prevailing wisdom was that thermal fluctuations at the atomistic scale—both time (a few mean collision times) and space (a few atomic spacings)—would make the connection virtually impossible. This is just a part of the story about how molecular dynamics was able to connect to Navier–Stokes–Fourier hydrodynamics. Resistance in the theoretical physics community to computer simulations of equilibrium fluids at the atomistic scale was only exceeded by the even stiffer objections to non-equilibrium molecular-dynamics simulations: after the fifty years from Boltzmann to molecular dynamics, it took another quarter century to overcome the doubts.

Nikhilranjan Sen (1894–1963), popularly known as N.R. Sen, is known as the Father of Applied Mathematics and founder of the Calcutta School of Relativity Theory. He did Ph.D. in Berlin under the Nobel Laureate Max von Laue. In Berlin he came in contact with renowned physicists like Max Planck, Albert Einstein and their contemporaries. The present article, which is based on the primary sources, discusses the lesser known facts of his life, like the beginning of scientific career, background of his D.Sc. as well as Ph.D. theses, and detailed summary of his scientific works.