SR problem, howd they get here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sr
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving an unstable particle at rest that decays into two fragments, focusing on the conservation of relativistic momentum and the concept of mass defect in the context of relativistic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the derivation of the momentum conservation equation and question the simplification of terms involving the speed of light. They also discuss the implications of mass conservation and the concept of mass defect, raising questions about the energy associated with the decay process.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning assumptions and clarifying mathematical expressions. Some have offered insights into the relationship between mass and energy, while others are still seeking to understand the implications of their findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion over the treatment of mass conservation in relativistic contexts and the calculation of energy associated with mass defect. There is also mention of using LaTeX for mathematical expressions.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
So the question is basically an unstable particle at rest breaks into 2 fragments.
m1 = 2.50 x 10 ^ -28
m2 = 1.67 x 10 ^ -27
v1= 0.893c

whats v2?

So it gets to a point where they ahve...

yxm2v2+ ((2.50x10^-28kg)/(sqr(1-0.893^2)))(0.893c)=0

Now why is that square root "1-0.893^2" instead of 1-(0.893^2/c^2) ?

Also... this isn't part of the equation but if you add the two masses up to find out what the original particle was, why wouldn't it be m1+m2? Does the extra mass turn into the energy used to send the particles on their way? And how would you calculate that energy used if that is the case.

And what program do you use to use the stupid equations :P
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So u imposed the conservation of relativistic momentum.I can't follow where did that equation come from and who's "y".As for the square root,i'm sure that "c" was simplified,since u had

[tex]\sqrt{1-\frac{(0.893c)^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\sqrt{1-0.893^{2}}[/tex]

Daniel.

P.S.U can't use that "m_{1}+m_{2}" is conserved,because it isn't.


EDIT:We use LaTex...
 
Oh crap, yx = y2. But hwo was that c simplified? is that possible?... ohh wait, damn it, now i understand... wait wait no. How can (0.893c)^2/c^2 turn into 1-(0.893)? If you square c, don't you have to square 0.893 too?

And i know that m1+m2 can't be conserved... but where would the extra mass from the initial particle go? Converted to energy?
 
Pengwuino said:
Oh crap, yx = y2. But hwo was that c simplified? is that possible?... ohh wait, damn it, now i understand... wait wait no. How can (0.893c)^2/c^2 turn into 1-(0.893)? If you square c, don't you have to square 0.893 too?

I did square 0.893.

Pengwuino said:
And i know that m1+m2 can't be conserved... but where would the extra mass from the initial particle go? Converted to energy?


Compute the "mass defect".


Daniel.
 
How does

[tex]\sqrt{1-\frac{(0.893c)^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\sqrt{1-0.893^{2}}[/tex]

Because wouldn't the c^2 make it different?

Wouldnt it be 0.797?
 
Why?It's simplified with the one in the denominator.Oh,and the tex tags are
[ tex ] ...[ /tex ] (without the spacings,of course)

Daniel.
 
Oh nevermind... i just realized the square sign was still there...

So what is this mass defect? How do you calculate it and what is it conceptually?
 
Well,the total energy is conserved and not the rest energy (which would correspond to rest masses).So by "mass defect" I'm referring to the variation in the rest mass.

Daniel.
 
what do you mean by variation in the rest mass
 
  • #10
[tex]m_{1}+m_{2}-m[/tex],

where "m" is the mass of the decaying particle...Anyway,i hope u got the point with c^{2}...

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K