Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Power-normalized scattering and passivity — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

A closed lossless one-port has unit reflection modulus

Physical scope

An algebraic consequence for a closed, lossless one-channel scattering model with no unlisted output. It gives the reflected-amplitude modulus and shows that power conservation alone leaves its phase undetermined; it does not assert an experimental result or the realization of an arbitrary frequency-dependent phase law.

Example

Assume ACω. Let I⊂(0,∞) be a set of admissible angular frequencies at which a closed lossless one-channel finite port model is defined, with no unlisted outgoing power. At each ω∈I, assume the solution satisfies all hypotheses of Passivity gives a contractive scattering matrix: the source-free macroscopic Maxwell equations with ρf=Jf=0, a smooth T-periodic real solution and material states on one of the stated homogeneous finite Lorentz or Drude branches, and the stated passive-wall and outgoing-power bookkeeping. Here T=2π/ω; material, wall, and unlisted-output losses vanish for every input. Write the scalar scattering matrix at each frequency as S(ω)=[r(ω)]. Then ∣r(ω)∣=1 for each such frequency. This fixes reflected power but leaves the phase unconstrained by power conservation: any unit-modulus scalar has the same power factor. For any real-valued function ϕ:I→R, rϕ(ω)=eiϕ(ω) has unit modulus; when this circle-valued function is nonconstant, its phase varies. If I contains two distinct frequencies, such a varying family exists: set ϕ equal to 0 and π at those two frequencies, respectively, and set ϕ=0 elsewhere. This is an algebraic freedom allowed by the power constraint, not a claim that every such phase law is realized by a Maxwell device.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ACω; one incoming and one outgoing channel; at each frequency the finite port solution satisfies the smooth periodic Maxwell and homogeneous Lorentz/Drude hypotheses of the contraction theorem with ρf=Jf=0; and material, wall, and unlisted-channel losses vanish.

[A1]

ACω is carried by the finite scattering theorem and its bounded-domain mathematical supplier. The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)

[F1]

For complex matrices, an overline is componentwise conjugation, a superscript T is ordinary transpose, A†:=A‾ T is the conjugate transpose, and I1=[1] is the identity. In this power-normalized one-channel model, S=[r] and the input and output powers are ∣a∣2 and ∣ra∣2. Under the stated smooth periodic Lorentz/Drude hypotheses, the contraction theorem gives S†S=I1 when material, wall, and unlisted-output losses vanish for every input. Finite propagating-port scattering map Passivity gives a contractive scattering matrix

Verification

1.1givenA1F1algebra

Choose any nonzero incoming amplitude a∈C. By [F1], ∣ra∣2=∣a∣2, so ∣r∣2∣a∣2=∣a∣2. Divide by ∣a∣2>0 to obtain ∣r∣2=1, hence ∣r∣=1.

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

For every ω∈I, ∣eiϕ(ω)∣2=eiϕ(ω)e−iϕ(ω)=1. If I contains distinct ω1,ω2, define ϕ(ω1)=0, ϕ(ω2)=π, and ϕ=0 elsewhere; then rϕ takes the distinct values 1 and −1, while both obey step 1.1. Thus the modulus condition leaves phase variation algebraically possible on a multi-frequency set.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

A visible subblock need not be unitary

Physical scope

A finite-dimensional matrix example showing the distinction between the full two-channel output and a one-channel observation. The swap matrix is stipulated as a unitary scattering-data example; no particular Maxwell device realization is asserted. The zero observed output is not material absorption.

Example

Assume ACω.

For z,w∈C2, use the Hermitian inner product ⟨z,w⟩=z‾1w1+z‾2w2 and norm ∥z∥22=⟨z,z⟩. For A∈C2×2, let A†=A‾ T, with componentwise conjugation and ordinary transpose; A is unitary when A†A=AA†=I2, where I2 is the identity on C2.

Consider the algebraic two-channel scattering matrix

S=(0110).

The displayed matrix is unitary. Let e1=(1,0)T and e2=(0,1)T. A one-channel observer retains only channel 1, represented by P=diag⁡(1,0), which satisfies P2=P=P† and is the orthogonal projection onto span⁡{e1}. Identify its range ran⁡P=span⁡{e1} with C using the basis vector e1. For incident vector a=Ae1, where ∣A∣2=1 W, the full output is Sa=Ae2, while the observed output is PSa=0. The observed operator Sobs:=PS∣ran⁡P:ran⁡P→ran⁡P is represented by the one-by-one matrix [0], so it is not unitary even though the full two-channel map conserves power. The omitted second output accounts for the power; there is no material absorption in this example. The matrix is a consistency example, not a claim that a specified waveguide device realizes it.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ACω, the displayed two-channel matrix, and the projection retaining channel 1.

[A1]

ACω is carried by the finite scattering theorem cited for the lossless full-channel interpretation. The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)

[F1]

For a physical finite port map satisfying the contraction theorem's exact hypotheses—a bounded C1 port domain, ACω, fixed ω>0, a unique solution map, smooth T-periodic real Maxwell fields with ρf=Jf=0, one stated homogeneous Lorentz or Drude branch, and the stated wall and outgoing-power bookkeeping—vanishing material, wall, and unlisted-output losses imply S†S=IN. The port model assigns power to the full amplitude vector. Finite propagating-port scattering map Passivity gives a contractive scattering matrix

Verification

1.1givenA1F1algebra

The matrix is real and symmetric, so S†=S. Direct multiplication gives S†S=S2=I2; for a=Ae1 we have Sa=Ae2 and ∥Ae2∥22=∣A∣2=1 W=∥Ae1∥22. Thus this stipulated full-channel matrix satisfies the algebraic unitary condition that [F1] gives for a physical lossless model under its separate smooth Lorentz/Drude hypotheses; no such physical realization is asserted.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Since Pe1=e1 and Pe2=0, the restriction Sobs=PS∣ran⁡P sends the basis vector e1 to PSe1=0; its one-dimensional matrix is [0]. Hence Sobs†Sobs=[0]≠I1, so the observed one-channel map is not unitary.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

For the chosen input, the omitted component is Ae2 and has squared norm ∣A∣2=1 W, equal to the incident power. The retained component vanishes, but the full lossless map sends all power to channel 2; therefore the vanishing observed output is not evidence of material absorption.

Sources