Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Constant magnetic slow-orbit error

Example

Let M=R4 with global length coordinates (x0,x1,x2,z), x0=ct, Minkowski metric η=diag⁡(−1,1,1,1), orientation dx0∧dx1∧dx2∧dz, and future direction ∂0. Use the SI convention of Smooth formal matter, EM tensors and observer quantities. Write ez:=(0,0,1) and use the Euclidean product u⋅v:=∑j=13ujvj, norm ∣u∣2:=u⋅u, and orthogonality convention u⊥v iff u⋅v=0. Let Ω=R3 and I=R, and write x=(x1,x2,z). Let q∈R be a charge parameter with units C and m>0 a mass parameter with units kg; set α:=q/m≠0, with units C kg−1. Let dimensionless b0∈R∖{0} and length L>0. For dimensionless 0<ϵ≤1, define smooth fields E,B:Ω×I→R3 by

E(x,t)=0,αB(x,t)=ϵ cLb0ez,0<ϵ≤1.

Here [E]=V m−1 and [B]=T; the corresponding smooth two-form on R4 is specified by F0i=−Ei/c and Fij=ϵijkBk.

Choose a dimensionless initial velocity W0⊥ez with ϵ∣W0∣22≤12, and put w0=ϵ cW0. Let the exact relativistic trajectory and the weak/slow comparison trajectory have the same initial position and velocity at S=0. On every finite interval 0≤S≤S∗, where S=ϵ ct/L and both trajectories are followed, their dimensionless velocities and positions satisfy

∣W(S)−WN(S)∣2≤∣b0∣ϵ∣W0∣23S,∣X(S)−XN(S)∣2≤12∣b0∣ϵ∣W0∣23S2.

Here X=x/L, W=w/(ϵc), a prime denotes d/dS, and the comparison equation is XN′=WN, WN′=b0WN×ez. For ϑ∈R, define Rz(ϑ):=(cos⁡ϑ−sin⁡ϑ0sin⁡ϑcos⁡ϑ0001). The uniform magnetic field is a prescribed test background: these orbit calculations do not assert an exact coupled Einstein–Maxwell solution on unchanged Minkowski space.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Minkowski geometry, the stated SI field convention, α≠0, b0≠0, 0<ϵ≤1, transverse initial velocity with ϵ∣W0∣22≤12, and matched initial position and velocity.

[F1]

Smooth formal matter, EM tensors and observer quantities and Controlled weak/slow charged test trajectory comparison give the field convention, the exact prescribed-background Lorentz equation, and the scaled Newton comparison equation.

[F2]

Smooth source/dust scaling and test-backreaction obstructions shows that a nonzero Maxwell field with positive observer energy does not satisfy the vacuum Einstein equation on unchanged Minkowski space.

[F5]

The mean value theorem, as the case g(x)=x of Cauchy's: for f continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with f(b)−f(a)=f′(c)(b−a) and [F3] give ∣sin⁡u∣≤∣u∣: for u≠0, the mean value theorem between 0 and u gives sin⁡u=ucos⁡ξ, and ∣cos⁡ξ∣≤1 follows from sin⁡2ξ+cos⁡2ξ=1.

[F7]

Lorentzian exterior calculus and Hodge star gives the oriented Lorentzian Hodge-star formula; for the positively oriented Minkowski coframe used here it gives ⋆(dx1∧dx2)=dx0∧dz.

[A1]

The field is the prescribed spatially uniform magnetic test field in the Example. No self-field, source construction, radiation reaction, or Einstein equation is imposed.

Verification

1.1givenA1F1F4algebra

In Minkowski coordinates U=(γc,γw), where γ=(1−∣w∣22/c2)−1/2>0. Since U0=dx0/dτ=c dt/dτ=γc, we have d/dτ=γ d/dt. With E=0, the time component of ∇UU=αF♯(U) gives γc dγ/dt=0, hence dγ/dt=0. The spatial component gives γ d(γw)/dt=αγ w×B; canceling γ>0 and then using constancy of γ yields dw/dt=(α/γ)w×B. The dot product with w is zero, so ∣w∣2 and γ stay constant. Initially, γ=γ0=(1−ϵ∣W0∣22)−1/2,γ0−1=1−ϵ∣W0∣22. The radicand is at least 1/2, so the positive root is defined.

2.1F1F3step 1.1algebra

Rescaling time and velocity in the exact equation gives W′=(b0/γ0)W×ez. Differentiating the planar rotation matrix with [F3] verifies the solution W(S)=Rz(−b0S/γ0)W0. The comparison equation in the Statement similarly has the solution WN(S)=Rz(−b0S)W0, with X′=W and XN′=WN. These rotations preserve speed, and ϵ∣W0∣22≤1/2 keeps the exact speed strictly below c. Integrate w(t)=ϵc W(S(t)) to define x(t) and set τ=t/γ0. The resulting curve is timelike for every finite t. Substitution gives ∇UU0=0=αF0νUν and ∇UUi=γ02 dwi/dt=αγ0(w×B)i=αFiνUν, so it is an exact worldline. The matrix Rz(θ) is orthogonal on the xy-plane by sin⁡2θ+cos⁡2θ=1, and the addition formulas in [F3] give Rz(θ1)Rz(θ2)=Rz(θ1+θ2).

3.1F3F4F5step 2.1algebra

Put Δθ=b0S(1−γ0−1). Orthogonality and the rotation addition law reduce the velocity difference to ∣Rz(Δθ)W0−W0∣2. Expanding its two planar components and cancelling the cross terms gives ∣Rz(Δθ)W0−W0∣22=2∣W0∣22(1−cos⁡Δθ)=4∣W0∣22sin⁡2(Δθ/2). By [F5], its square root is at most ∣W0∣2∣Δθ∣. Also 1−γ0−1=ϵ∣W0∣221+1−ϵ∣W0∣22≤ϵ∣W0∣22. This proves the stated velocity bound.

4.1F5F6step 3.1algebra

At S=0, the matched initial positions give ∣X(0)−XN(0)∣2=0, which is the claimed bound. Now let S>0. The position difference is the integral of W−WN. For any continuous vector function v on [0,S], Cauchy–Schwarz gives ∣u⋅v(s)∣≤∣u∣2∣v(s)∣2; taking u to be the unit vector in the direction of ∫0Sv shows ∣∫0Sv(s) ds∣2≤∫0S∣v(s)∣2 ds (the zero-integral case is immediate). Thus the velocity bound from step 3.1 gives ∣X(S)−XN(S)∣2≤∫0S∣b0∣ϵ∣W0∣23s ds. Since S>0, the function s↦s is continuous and integrable on the nondegenerate interval [0,S], and s2/2 is a primitive; [F6] therefore gives ∫0Ss ds=S2/2. This proves the claimed position bound. The estimates hold on every specified finite interval; no uniform-in-time bound is asserted.

5.1A1F1F2F7step 1.1algebra∎

Put Bz:=ϵcb0/(αL). By the SI convention of [F1], the prescribed two-form is F=Bz dx1∧dx2; [F7] gives ⋆F=Bz dx0∧dz. Both forms have constant coefficients in Minkowski coordinates, so dF=0, ∇aFab=∂aFab=0, and d(⋆F)=0. Also Bz≠0 because b0≠0 and α≠0. Thus the fixed Minkowski metric, Λ=0, and F0=F satisfy the source-free hypotheses of [F2]; taking δ=1 there gives positive observer energy and a nonzero residual. Hence the prescribed orbit background is not a fully coupled flat Einstein–Maxwell solution with unchanged Minkowski metric. The example establishes only the conditional trajectory calculation and its finite-time comparison.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources