Inequalities and Rearranging equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter cooev769
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequalities
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of rearranging equations related to the impossibility of pair production during photon decay into two electrons. A colleague's suggested rearrangement of an equation involving constants and negative values is questioned for its validity. The incorrect manipulation of inequalities and the implications of multiplying by negative numbers are highlighted as critical errors. The original poster expresses dissatisfaction with the proof provided, emphasizing the need for accurate algebraic handling in complex physics calculations. The conversation underscores the importance of foundational mathematical skills in advanced scientific discussions.
cooev769
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
So i have an equation to calculate the impossibility of pair production during photon decay into two electrons and I'm having to do some momentum conservation, can't quite do it but a colleague of mine has suggested this which I don't particularly agree with some help would be appreciated.

So we have some numbers which are constants and one we know is < 0 because its a square negative. He suggests using something like the simple example below which clearly doesn't work if you could suggest why that would be great.

-100+3=-97<0

Rearrange to

3=3<0

He did the same thing but with energies, where k is a constant:

k -Ea^2/c^2 - Eb^2/c^2 - 2EaEb/c^2 = -Ei^2/c^2 < 0

Just rearranged to:

Ea^2/c^2 + Eb^2/c^2 + 2EaEb/c^2 -Ei^2/c^2 < 0

Ea^2/c^2 + Eb^2/c^2 + 2EaEb/c^2 < Ei^2/c^2

I'm not happy with this proof.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
cooev769 said:
So i have an equation to calculate the impossibility of pair production during photon decay into two electrons and I'm having to do some momentum conservation, can't quite do it but a colleague of mine has suggested this which I don't particularly agree with some help would be appreciated.

So we have some numbers which are constants and one we know is < 0 because its a square negative. He suggests using something like the simple example below which clearly doesn't work if you could suggest why that would be great.

-100+3=-97<0
Yes, -100+ 3 is equivalent to -97 which is negative.

Rearrange to

3=3<0
No. You don't say how you rearranged this but this incorrect. I suspect that you got "3= 3" by adding 100 to both sides of -100+ 3= -97 but the result is no longer "< 0". You would have to add 100 to each part to arrive at "3= 3< 100".

He did the same thing but with energies, where k is a constant:

k -Ea^2/c^2 - Eb^2/c^2 - 2EaEb/c^2 = -Ei^2/c^2 < 0

Just rearranged to:

Ea^2/c^2 + Eb^2/c^2 + 2EaEb/c^2 -Ei^2/c^2 < 0

Ea^2/c^2 + Eb^2/c^2 + 2EaEb/c^2 < Ei^2/c^2
"He" appears to have done two things to the first inequality:
First, multiply by -1. But multiplying by a negative number reverses the inequality:
-k+ Ea^2/c^3+ Eb^2/c^2+ 2EaEb/c^2= Ei^2/c^2> 0

then add k to each part:
Ea^2/c^3+ Eb^2/c^3+ 2EaEb/c^2= Ei^2/c^2+ k> k.

I'm not happy with this proof.
I don't mean to be harsh but shouldn't two people who are working with "pair production" and "photon decay" be able to do basic, elementary school algebra?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top