φm (x) ≥ cm .
So it's only 1 inequality? Can it be more?
φm (x) ≥ cm .
So it's only 1 inequality? Can it be more?
em
What is em? is it an arbitrary m dimensional vector?
It follows that on thehypersurface M the Rn -valued n − 1-form ∗dx is equal to the product of n and ascalar n − 1-form ν: ∗dx nν.
How does that follow?
µM (e1, . . . , eN−1)
seems tp rely on the normalization assumption?
) (−1)N+1FN .
i is summed over. How does that follow?
form satisfies µM,x (e1 , . . . , eN−1) 1.
Assumes the vectors are normalized?
f (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ; 1) is a negatively oriented frame
Defined based on the standard basis?
volume form µM depends on the embedding of M into RN . I
How are we to think about this in the coordinate independent way?
If this frame is positively,resp. negatively, oriented
Positively or negatively oriented with respect to what? The standard basis? This question comes into play because you cannot compare to the original frame if V and W are different vector spaces.
This defines an n-form ω on M and we must show that ω µM
What's different about this definition? It seems like the burden is not to show that they are equal, but rather that it is indeed an n-form?
he support of α is defined as the set of all points x in M with theproperty that for every open ball B around x there is a y ∈ B ∩ M such that αy , 0
Why do we have to play such tricks?
We define an orientationon M by requiring ψ to be orientation-preserving.
How do you require this after the fact?
orientation induced
how is this induced?
µM depends on the embedding of M into RN . It changes if we dilateor shrink or otherwise deform M
is this surprising?
volume forms are seldom exact!
why not exact? And why do the old fashioned notations make them seem exact?
det(Dφ(u) du1 du2 · · · dun
why does the determinant factor through?
µi ψ∗i (µ) √det(Dψi (t)T Dψi (t)) dt1 dt2 · · · dtn
Why?
Gauss map of M
not one to one.
N+1
should technically be N-1, but it's equivalent.
[n, e1, e2, . . . , eN−1; 1) [e1, e2, . . . , eN ; 1].
weird to talk about orientations of different dimensions. The change of basis matrix A is no longer invertible, no longer square, and no longer has a determinant.
How does this work out?
Proof
How do we know that this unit normal field defines a well defined frame over the entire manifold?
Choose ε ±1 such that (n(x), b1, b2, . . . , bn ; ε) is a positively orientedframe of RN .
positively oriented with respect to the standard basis?
Mach–Zehnder intensity modulator is used to generate psoptical pulses of SLED
What's that?
We use a 1550 nm laser diode(SFL1550S, Thorlabs) and a super luminescent light emitting diode(SLED; DL-CS5169A, Denslight) for the generation of ps opticalpulses.
Interesting. So they tried both sources.
in the pulsed Sagnac interfer-ometer, lasers with long coherence lengths perform well
They mean that it would have been long coherence, had it not been pulsed?
oblique-incidence designenables a study for longitudinal and transverse Kerr effects
How does that work?
all-fiber design simplifies optical alignment;17
still a a pain. Do they have a better approach?
s low noise and drift-free measurement
Ours drifts?
, limited by thephotodetector noise
How do they know that? Is that true for us?
superconducting states can be broken even with smalloptical powers.
interesting.
ejects all the reciprocal effects, such as linear birefringence andoptical activity unlike conventional MOKE microscopy
Oh?? Why does conventional MOKE see these?
100 nrad/√Hz sensitivityusing only a 10 μW optical power without the magnetic field modu-lation.
How do we compare with this?
ime-reversal symmetry breaking (TRSB) in condensed mat-ter systems generally results in magnetism
Wait what. Is that a causation?
1 μrad/√Hz sensitivityat a 3 μW
How does this compare with ours? And I presume the 3 uW is at the detector?
s the favorable properties of a Sagnac interferometer, such as rejection of all the reciprocal effects, a
Where is the proof of this?
onceptual symmetries of resistor, capacitor, inductor, and memristor
Why is dphi/dt = V?
Continuous” means that for every x ∈ M there exists a localparametrization ψ : U → RN of M at x with the property that Dψ(t) : Rn → Tψ(t) Mpreserves the orientation for all t ∈ U.
Mobius strip would satisfy this. However, it breaks down globally.
bj ∑ni1 a′i, j b′
Why do the subscripts of a appear backwards?
consisting of a frame(b1, b2, . . . , bn ) together with a sign ε ±1.
isn't this redundant. Just require that one pick a frame that's positive.
uniqueness is proved by verifying that the formula holds,
why does that prove uniqueness? (but not existence?)
are orthogonalvectors.
requires an inner product space.
gJ (x) ∑I φ∗ ( fI )(x) det(DφI,J (x)).
Unclear to me what this means exactly.
For ak-form α ∈ Ωk (V) define the pullback φ∗ (α) ∈ Ωk (U) by
Is this really a deffinition, or should it be derived? Because a pullback should change between coordinates in a meaningful way. Like we shouldn't have the freedom to define this, because it must be consistent in some way with natural law.
all k-multilinear functions of the formdxI dxi1 dxi2 · · · dxik
makes me think about tensor product vs wedge
β(bI )
Why is this true?
increasing multi-indices of degree k
Ah, here it must be increasing. (to answer the previous question)
multi-indices I and J l
Increasing or not?
There is a nice way to construct a basis of the vector space Ak (V) starting froma basis {b1, . . . , bn } of V
Seems like this is the answer to your previous question on whether it spans.
alternating k-multilinear functions is denoted by Ak (V)
Is this different from \(\Omega^k(V)\), the space of k-forms on V?
useful trick for producing alternating k-multilinear functions startingfrom k covectors µ1, µ2, . . . , µk ∈ V∗
Is the space of "alternating k-multilinear functions" spanned by the wedge product, or just that the wedge product maps into this space?
µ1µ2 · · · µk (v1 , v2 , . . . , vk ) det(µi (vj ))1≤i, j≤
What is the meaning of this definition?
which is simply the Jacobi matrix D g of g! (This is the reason that many authorsuse the notation dg for the Jacobi matrix.
For it to be a jacobi matrix, Dg would have to work for g multi dimensional.
Using this formalism we can write for any smooth function g on U
I get that that's true, but I don't see how this follows.
codimension
What is the difference between dimension and co-dimension?
I is not a regularvalue!
Why is that?
{β1, β2 , . . . , βn } of V∗ is said to be dual to the basis {b1, b2, . . . , bn } ofV
I remember there being something about dual spaces not having a unique basis, but the dual of the dual does have a natural basis. Can't remember why though.
φ∗ d dφ∗
why isn't it phi'?
J ∑I(ψ−1i ◦ ψj )∗ ( fI det(D(ψ−1i ◦ ψj )I,J )).
Need to look back at Theorem 3.13 for this determinant equation.
ψ−1i
Aside, how is the pullback of an inverse related to the forward function?
ψi (Ui )
A little wierd notation because ψi (Ui ) is partially outside the domain of ψj inverse.
A×B=A⊕BA×B=A⊕BA\times B=A\oplus B, but in the case of the product/sum of infinitely many vector spaces they are distinct: ∏iAi≠⨁iAi∏iAi≠⨁iAi\prod_i A_i\neq \bigoplus_i A_i. This wouldn't be something covered in introductory classes. The deep distinction between the two is that one is a category theory product and one is a category theory coproduct
Wild. I'd like to know what this means.
e.g. product vs coproduct and Cartesian product vs direct sum.
such as having an odd number of electrons per unit cell.
Why does that make it a conductor?
Edelstein effect
?
chirality represented by a pair of oppositely polarized spins
What does that mean?
applications in the chiral spintronics2 field.
What are these?
that when electrochem-ical water splitting occurs with an anode that accepts prefer-entially one spin owing to CISS, the process is enhanced andthe formation of hydrogen peroxide is diminished. [4
Why is that? Hydrogen peroxide isn't chiral is it?
Two recent examples area spin filter[39] and the emergence of a Hall voltage owing tospin accumulation. [24,34]
Look at thsese ones.
Figure 2.
why does positive voltage and negative voltage have the same effect? Considering that these systems are not symmetric to that flip, because the magnetic tip is only on one side of the sample.
Also, why does graph c which is supposedly non chiral show a splitting effect still? Is that jsut assumed to be noise?
chiralmaterials. [8,19,28–31]
weren't the previously mentioned items also chiral? like isn't this redundant?
CISS is repeatedly found tocorrelate with optical activity [28,33,3
What counts as optical activity.
Third, as in CISS in transmission, alsohere the sign of the preferred spin depends on the direction ofthe molecular dipole,
Is this what breaks the symmetry that allows you to select spin?
with medium length
Why?
reak-junction.
What's that?
ferromagnetic substrate
spin transfer torque?
Energy distribution
Why does the signal spike arround 0?
b) Photoelectronpolarization
Why so noisy? As in you cant tell whether its 70% or 50% polarized from any given run. Also, why is it a negative percentage for all of them?
This conjec-ture, while reasonable, took another 12 years to verify
What needed verification. didn't their experiment already prove this?
organized
Does it need to be organized?
it is easy to show that “current through a coil” arguments yieldan effect that is lower by many orders of magnitude.
Where can I find this?
Mott polarimeter
What's that?
Based on the well-known connectionbetween the direction (cw or ccw) of circularly polarized lightand the spin polarization (up or down) of the excited electrons,
How was that well known?
ink was finally found in the form of magneto-chiraldichroism, that is, a difference in the magnetic optical activity ofthe two enantiomers of a chiral medium.
What's different between this and the "magnetically induced optical activity in crystals"?
t-handed configuration. However, when these crystals were separated manually, he found that they exhibited right and left asymmetry
how do you separate the crystals manually?
Louis Pasteur was the first to recognize that optical activity arises from the dissymmetric arrangement of atoms in the crystalline structures or in individual molecules of certain compounds.
How did he know that?
One common metric, a minimal-energy metric for a fixed focal-point intensity [18,104], isequivalent to a focal-point maximization metric under con-straints of fixed energy, as can be shown by comparing theLagrangian functions of each
That's what we want.
y extent [45]. To define kloc , one could use agradient-based expression such as −i∇, yet the resul
Where does this guess come from?
−i∇, yet the resultingoperator would not be Hermitian, li
Why does it need to be hermitian?
C. The average field valuearound the contour is given by 1/|C| ∫C |ψ(x)|2 dx =ξ † [(1/|C|) ∫C †] ξ ,
not obvious to me. Shouldn't it be an area integral?
the local wave number(as measured by the spatial variations in the field),
is that kx, ky components of k=[kx, ky, kz]
ld to go to zero anywhereand that enforce “concentration” through other charac-teristics of an optical beam. The two properties that weconsider are the full width at half maximum (FWHM)
Ok. For trapped ions we don't care about that.
G = 0.21 exhibits to our knowledgethe smallest spot size of any theoretical proposal to date
question is does this apply to imaging? Can you use that meta lens to get 0.21 lambda resolution?
We take the electric field polarized outof the plane, such that ψ can be simplified to a scalarfield solution of the Helmholtz equation
not WLOG
f 1.9λ and widths (diameters)ranging from 10λ to 23λ, equiv
very random.
sub-diffraction-limited solutionswhose input powers scale only polynomially with the spotsize.
I thought they would normalize this based on input power.
diffraction limit (G = 1)
Here's finally the definition of G.
s is a weak-scattering assumption
Wouldn't a strong scattering assumption be the one that's difficult to achieve.
In each case the far-zone bound islarger than that of the near zone or the mid zone, suggest-ing that the far-zone bounds of Eqs. (13) and (14) may beglobal bounds at any distance
Isn't this logic backwards. Unless the individual aperture types curves in 4a were numerically calculated from the exact equation.
Eq. (14) is physically achievable,
How does it follow from symetric under rotations that it's physically achievable?
G 1
How was G defined?
ttern: instead, divide themaximal intensity, Eq. (9), by the intensity of an uncon-strained focused beam (without the zero-field condition),which is simply ψ†1 ψ1 (which conforms to the usual Airydefinition for a circular aperture)
That's exactly what we want. Seems like the best beam given a circular aperture is an airy pattern???
to e−ikz/z fo
would be "/r" rather than "/z" if not paraxial.
ocusing-aperture distancemuch larger than the aperture radius
sounds like paraxial to me.
the six electric and magnetic polarizations decouple
What do they mean by that? isn't there only 2 polarization's of light?
asis, such as Fourier modes on a circularcontour or spherical harmoni
By other Fourier modes on a circular contour, I presume they mean a mode around the countour.
e.g. if the contour is a circle parametrized by theta, the fourier modes are sin(theta) etc.
Not sure if that's what they mean. Also not sure how that plays into making that constraint.
f light independent of the exit surface, simplyenforcing the condition that the light field comprises prop-agating waves.
I thought this was already independent?
it will be the lowest-order mode, polarizedalong the μ direction, that is most important in constrain-ing the field.
What do they mean by that?
aximal intensity of an unconstrained beam wouldsimply focus as much of the effective-current radiation tothe origin, as dictated by the term 0†0 ,
seems like without the spotsize constraint it would just be the gamma gamma* term.
ding the total intensity
Typo? looks like they forgot the xi. Should it be xi gamma0* gamma0 xi ?
and numerical evaluation of Eq. (6)within seconds on a laptop computer.
Hmm, wonder if supplemental info has this code.
collocation [100]
Why colocation? What do they mean by this?
generalized eigenproblem
How is that not just an eigenproblem?
ayleigh-quotient
What is this?
subject to ν†Pν ≤ 1
Where did this second line come from?
6 × 6N matrix, where N is the number of degrees offreedom of the effective currents, †00 is a matrix withrank at most 6,
Dimensionality isn't obvious to me.
projecting it along an arbitrary polarization
How does this choice come out? Is this a parameter, or a WLOG?
1: ξ †ξ = 1.
integral of squared current density. Makes sense for charge current, not obvious to me for magnetic currents.
is positive semidefinite (which is nonconvexunder maximization [96]
Not obvious to me. Will have to look at ref.
field along some spot-size contour C
Not something we care about for trapped ions.
power P not exceeding an input value of P0
should be locked equal to p0, rather than bounded.
= ξ ††ξ .
Feels like the wrong contraction. previosly we had g[x,x'] xi[x'], which is like a matrix contraction.
However now we have xi[x''] g[x,x''] g[x,x'] xi[x'] , which is a different argument arrangment, not in the typical contraction form.
the currents comprise the degrees of freedom deter-mining the beam shape.
A bit odd, because magnetic currents carry the same information as an electric charge distribution. However magnetic currents seem like they have more degrees of freedom. The resolution is probably that you can't have any arbitrary magnetic current distribution. That means that there aren't really 6 degrees of freedom.
and currents at a single temporalfrequency ω (e−iωt time evolution)
Yup. Monochromatic.
tangential values
I presume assuming monochromatic light?
Refs. [54,55] (and recently in Ref. [56],
Check these out.
e possibility of sub-diffraction-limited spot sizes without near-field effects was recog-nized in 1952 by Toraldo di Francia [41]; stimulated byresults for highly directive antennas
Interesting.
t the ideal field profiles forall these metrics are nearly identical in the far zone,
Ions are in the near zone.
yet be orthogonal to the fields emanat-ing from a current loop at the spot-size radius.
Why the second constraint?
decrease proportional to G4 ,
Hmm, why decrease?
izes G,
radius or area?
a ring at the
Why ring and not disk?
analytical upper bounds in the farzone
Does the far zone apply to our system?
“Strehl ratio”
Look this up later.
quadratic program
What's that?
For floaters, the team used various spherical 1.2-tesla magnets
Permanent magnets with fields of 1.2 Tesla??
It has the unit volt
Wild
As the electron passes through the electric field of the nucleus, a magnetic field is produced in the reference frame of the electron.
I should be able to calculate this effect in any reference frame. How would I explain this without changing to the electron reference frame?
c
Why does this follow a different trend from b?
G
What's this?
polarization P.
What polarization?
/H-TaS 2 CMIS (c) and a S-MBA/H-TaS 2 CMIS (d) m
If you layer these on top of each other, do the curves line up?
c,d
What breaks the symmetry here
Magnetic-field-dependent
which direction was the magnetic field pointing in these images?
, Magnetic-field-dependent tunnelling current m
why does magnetic field cause a switching behavior?
ceeding 60%,
seems redundant with the factor of three.
a robust tunnellingmagnetoresistance >300%
do they mean left vs right is a factor of three?
unique vdW gaps,
spatial gaps or electronic band gaps?
Therecently emerged 2DAC
How did these emerge?
mCP-AFM
What's that?
low spin selectivity or limited stability, andhave difficulties in forming robust spintronic devices5–8.
Why is a single block of chiral material bad? (like a block of sugar?)
d or exchange interaction with magnetic atoms,thus preserving the time-reversal symmetry
isn't a spin based effect inherently time reversal symmetry breaking?
relative to the square root of frequency and its value is usually on the order of nV/√Hz
Why is it relative to square root of frequency?
When working with lock-in amplifiers, the input bandwidth is usually small, so the shot noise does not affect the measurements as much.
as much as what? I presume they mean the previous section, on thermal noise. However that noise also varies proportional to \( \sqrt{\Delta f} \)
Superachromatic Wave Plates
temperature dependence: "expected to be small within room temperature based on the materials but no data on it" - Tech Support.
each consists of three quartz and three magnesium fluoride (MgF2) plates that are optically cemented to maximize transmission and carefully aligned to minimize the wavelength dependence of the retardance.
Is a combination of wave plates necessarily a wave plate?
We do not recommend disturbing this retaining ring, as it is likely to affect the optical alignment of the fast axis of the wave plate.
It wouldn't affect the relative alignment of the 6 internal plates would it?
Zero-Order Achromatic Wave Plates
I thought zero order was in contrast to achromatic
Mounted Achromatic
Is it bad to un mount them?
LCP zero-order wave plates produce a smaller decrease in retardance at larger AOIs.
Why is that?
J = L + S is what is conserved, so the spin-orbit coupling should take the form L · S
Not obvious to me how that follows.
c is the specific heat of a quantum oscillator calculated earlier with naturalfrequency vsq,
presumably part B of problem 1.
vs
What is vs?
ΘD
What does D mean? and where died this equation come from?
this can be justified by considering that the lattice has acharacteristic length scale
Do they really mean that it's remapped to another part to the Brillouin zone?
all three acoustic modes
Longitudinal and 2 transverse?
singular value.
Same as from singular value decomposition?
fibre of φ
Where does the fibre terminology come from?
does notrefer to local parametrizations.
Well, in some sense it is a parametrization.
it turns outthat practically all abstract manifolds can be embedded into a vector space
Why can some not be embedded?
nverse of ψ, which is a map ψ−1 : ψ(U) → U, is continuous
How can the inverse map not be continuous?
(ii) Dψ(t) is one-to-one for all t ∈ U;
Is this language actually ambiguous, or is there a way to tell without knowing that they are talking about the matrix being a one to one matrix, rather than the transform from psi to Dpsi being one to one?
Changing the order of integration (see Remark 5.3
wouldn't this change the k-cube if we weren't using all [0,1] intervals?
α be a k − 1-
does this apply if k is not a k-1 form?
tj ,
typo: should be j+1
formal linear combination ∑pq1 aq {xq }, which represents a distribution of pointcharges, and the linear combination of vectors ∑pq1 aq xq,
This says something about what "formal" is.
guage of linear algebra, the k-chains form a vector space with a basisconsisting of the k-cubes
Seems to imply that overlaping k-cubes must be allowed.
formal linear combination
What is formal about it?
f (t1 , t2) dt2 dt1 − f (t1, t2) dt1 dt2. How can this besquared with formula (5.1)?
switching the order of integration works because differentials anti commute, but also integrals anti commute.
p∗ (h) det(Dp) ds1 ds2 · · · dsk
Where did this det(Dp) come from? Is this from normal multivariable, or is this from differential forms?
almost completelyunaffected
What does that mean?
Although the image c(R) may look very different from the blockR,
Do we always know that u can be smoothly covered by c(R)? It can't if it requires more than one chart in the atlas.
, k-forms can beintegrated over k-dimensional parametrized regions
What if you integrate over a wrong dimensional surface?
Thenwe know that α is exact.
Why is that?
orms this means that α dg,
Need to go back to look at this.
α F · dx,
How does the dx know what the path is, and what a tangent to the path is?
o by the substitution formula, Theorem B.9,we have ∫c◦p α ± ∫c α, where the + occurs if p′ > 0 and the − if p′ < 0
I don't quite follow.
g
This should be h?
Differentiationand integration are related
What's the comparative relation to interior vs exterior derivative? because " Integration is not the inverse function to
lmost completely
What do you mean by almost?
formula is seldom used to calculate pullbacks in practice
Isn't it used in all the integrations?
dφi1
typo
curl(F) · dx ∗dα.
Taking the hodge dual of both sides seems to imply that curl(F) dArea = d alpha.
Is that correct?
div(F) ∗d∗α.
intuition?
ector-valued 1-form
What does this really count as? Forms take in vectors and spit out numbers right?
exterior differentiation
What is exterior about it?
By convention, forms of negative degree are0
Hmmm. What could you do by making them not of negative degree?
exterior differential calculus
Is there an interior differential calculus? What is exterior about this?
c′(0) 0,which does not span a line.
I presume they don't mean that?
parametrizations to give a formal definition of the notion of amanifold in Chapter 6.
I wonder if that's how it's defined in a more abstract sense.
closed square is not a manifold, because the corners are not smooth.1
This is rather odd. Why is an open square a manifold then?
s a graded algebra.
Does the word graded here have anything to do with the "graded commutativity"/"alternating property" of differential forms?