Algebra, how to separate a term in the sum of two roots

In summary, the conversation discusses a person's struggle with a basic algebra problem involving rearranging an equation to find the subject P. Several methods are suggested, including using conservation of energy and momentum, and learning to use four-vectors. The solution given in a provided resource is considered unnecessarily complicated, and alternative approaches are suggested.
  • #1
rwooduk
762
59
My mind has gone blank and I've suddenly forgotten basic algebra, please could someone give me direction on how to make P the subject of this equation?

E = (P^2 C^2 + M^2 C^4)^1/2 + (P^2 C^2)^1/2

thanks for any help
 

Attachments

  • CodeCogsEqn.gif
    CodeCogsEqn.gif
    871 bytes · Views: 448
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
oh i can just square each term, time for a break!

mods please feel free to delete, sorry
 
  • #3
That image is terribly low quality, but what I could make of it is that it's

[tex]E=\sqrt{P^2C^2+M^2C^2}+\sqrt{P^2C^2}[/tex]

This equation seems similar to the energy-mass equivalence, but anyway, are there any restrictions on these variables? If [itex]P,C\geq 0[/itex] for example, then [itex]\sqrt{P^2C^2}=PC[/itex] and then you could move that to the other side and then square both sides to get rid of the square root.
 
  • #4
rwooduk said:
oh i can just square each term, time for a break!

mods please feel free to delete, sorry

Be careful!

[tex]\left(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}\right)^2\neq a+b[/tex]
 
  • #5
Mentallic said:
Be careful!

[tex]\left(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}\right)^2\neq a+b[/tex]

hmm, yes just realized this, no restrictions, just a basic algebra problem.

but if i take PC to the other side and square both sides i'll have:

(E-PC)^2 on the left hand side? which still leaves me questioning how to get P out?

if i multiply out (E-PC)^2 and simply i get

E^2 - 2EPC = 2P^2 C^2 + M^2 C^2

im not sure it should be this difficult
 
Last edited:
  • #6
rwooduk said:
hmm, yes just realized this, no restrictions, just a basic algebra problem.

but if i take PC to the other side and square both sides i'll have:

(E-PC)^2 on the left hand side? which still leaves me questioning how to get P out?

if i multiply out (E-PC)^2 and simply i get

E^2 - 2EPC = 2P^2 C^2 + M^2 C^2

I'm not sure it should be this difficult

That's a quadratic equation in P.

It might work out a bit more neatly if you divide through by C2 first.
 
  • #7
SammyS said:
That's a quadratic equation in P.

It might work out a bit more neatly if you divide through by C2 first.

yes thought that may be an option, still would complicate the question further. I am going to have to re-evaluate how to do the problem.

thanks for everyones input!

for those interested or if you are bored and have time here is the full solution that i am working through:

http://inside.mines.edu/~lwiencke/PH300/F13/homework/hw4_solutions.pdf

the bit I am struggling with is on page 4, where it says "2pn=pe=..." in the equations above it, it solves the 4th equation down for pe.

thanks again!
 
  • #8
rwooduk said:
yes thought that may be an option, still would complicate the question further. I am going to have to re-evaluate how to do the problem.

thanks for everyones input!

for those interested or if you are bored and have time here is the full solution that i am working through:

http://inside.mines.edu/~lwiencke/PH300/F13/homework/hw4_solutions.pdf

the bit I am struggling with is on page 4, where it says "2pn=pe=..." in the equations above it, it solves the 4th equation down for pe.

thanks again!
What does ##\displaystyle E_e = \left(p_e^2 c^2 + m_e^2 c^4 \right)^{1/2} ## have to do with the OP ?
 
  • #9
SammyS said:
What does ##\displaystyle E_e = \left(p_e^2 c^2 + m_e^2 c^4 \right)^{1/2} ## have to do with the OP ?

its the equation below it that he has rearranged, its very much complicated by the sudden change in notation (why oh why?) , so that how come i was trying to figure out the rearrangement of the eqn in the op.

ive circled it below, and indicated what it goes to.
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    33.2 KB · Views: 385
  • #10
The solution you're trying to work through is doing things the hard way. I imagine that whoever wrote it went around in circles with the algebra for a while and simply wrote down the end result. One of the tricks to doing relativity is figuring out how to avoid this unnecessary algebra in the first place. Try this approach instead:

Let ##p_e## be the magnitude of the electron's momentum. Conservation of energy gives you
$$E_\mu = E_e + E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Rewrite that as
$$E_\mu - E_e = E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Using conservation of momentum, you should be able to show the righthand side is equal to ##p_e c##. Now square both sides and use the fact that ##(m_ec^2)^2 = E_e^2 - (p_e c)^2##. You'll end up with an equation you can easily solve for ##E_e## in terms of the masses.

If you want to an even simpler method, learn how to use four-vectors.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
vela said:
The solution you're trying to work through is doing things the hard way. I imagine that whoever wrote it went around in circles with the algebra for a while and simply wrote down the end result. One of the tricks to doing relativity is figuring out how to avoid this unnecessary algebra in the first place. Try this approach instead:

Let ##p_e## be the magnitude of the electron's momentum. Conservation of energy gives you
$$E_\mu = E_e + E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Rewrite that as
$$E_\mu - E_e = E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Using conservation of momentum, you should be able to show the righthand side is equal to ##p_e c##. Now square both sides and use the fact that ##(m_ec^2)^2 = E_e^2 - (p_e c)^2##. You'll end up with an equation you can easily solve for ##E_e## in terms of the masses.

If you want to an even simpler method, learn how to use four-vectors.

Excellent, will try this thank you!

And I agree, I think the person writing the solution had similar difficulties and gave it to someone else who simply wrote down the end result, hence the change in notation lol

But you are right, it is only a 4 mark question and shouldn't be this complicated. thanks for everyones help!
 
  • #12
vela said:
The solution you're trying to work through is doing things the hard way. I imagine that whoever wrote it went around in circles with the algebra for a while and simply wrote down the end result. One of the tricks to doing relativity is figuring out how to avoid this unnecessary algebra in the first place. Try this approach instead:

Let ##p_e## be the magnitude of the electron's momentum. Conservation of energy gives you
$$E_\mu = E_e + E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Rewrite that as
$$E_\mu - E_e = E_\nu + E_\bar{\nu}.$$ Using conservation of momentum, you should be able to show the righthand side is equal to ##p_e c##. Now square both sides and use the fact that ##(m_ec^2)^2 = E_e^2 - (p_e c)^2##. You'll end up with an equation you can easily solve for ##E_e## in terms of the masses.

If you want to an even simpler method, learn how to use four-vectors.

hm spoke too soon, i get the first bit but then if i square both sides i.e. (E(u) - E(e))^2 i end up with E(u)^2 + E(e)^2 - 2E(u)E(e), see photo below.
 

Attachments

  • 2014-04-20 10.57.38.jpg
    2014-04-20 10.57.38.jpg
    8.9 KB · Views: 408
  • #13
That's right. Keep going. Eliminating ##(p_e c)^2## from both sides, you have
$$(m_\mu c^2)^2 + (m_e c^2)^2 - 2(m_\mu c^2)E_e = 0,$$ which you can solve for ##E_e## to get
$$E_e = \frac{(m_\mu c^2)^2 + (m_e c^2)^2}{2 m_\mu c^2}.$$ Now solve for ##(p_e c)^2## using ##(m_e c^2)^2 = E_e^2 - (p_e c)^2## and plugging in the expression for ##E_e##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #14
ahh i substituted for E(e) for some reason which complicated the problem, not sure why i did that since E(e) is what I'm trying to find :-/

but anyhow THANKS for all your help!
 

1. What is the definition of a root in algebra?

A root in algebra is a solution to an equation, where the value of the variable makes the equation true. This means that when the value of the variable is substituted into the equation, the equation will be balanced.

2. How do you separate a term in the sum of two roots?

To separate a term in the sum of two roots, you can use the distributive property. This means that you can multiply the term by each of the roots and then add the two resulting terms together. For example, if you have the sum of two roots, √a + √b, you can separate out the term a by multiplying it by each root: a√a + a√b. Then, you can combine the two terms to get the original sum of roots.

3. Can you separate a term in the sum of two roots if the term is a negative number?

Yes, you can still separate a term in the sum of two roots if the term is a negative number. The same steps apply as in question 2, but you will need to be careful with the signs when combining the terms. For example, if you have the sum of two roots, -√a + √b, you can separate out the term -a by multiplying it by each root: -a√a + -a√b. Then, you can combine the two terms to get the original sum of roots: -a(√a + √b).

4. Can you separate terms in the sum of two roots if they have different radicands?

Yes, you can separate terms in the sum of two roots if they have different radicands. The same steps apply as in question 2, but you will need to be careful when combining the terms. For example, if you have the sum of two roots, √a + √b, you can separate out the term √a by multiplying it by the first root: √a√a + √a√b. Then, you can combine the two terms to get the original sum of roots: √a^2 + √ab. However, if the two radicands are not like terms, the terms cannot be separated.

5. Why is it important to be able to separate terms in the sum of two roots in algebra?

Being able to separate terms in the sum of two roots is important because it allows us to simplify and solve equations more easily. It also helps us to better understand the relationship between different terms in an equation. Additionally, separating terms in the sum of two roots is a fundamental algebraic skill that is necessary for solving more complex equations and problems.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
947
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
770
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
593
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top