Central Potential Repulsive Scattering

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem related to central potential repulsive scattering, focusing on the energy equations and frame of reference in a two-particle system. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the application of energy conservation and the concept of reduced mass in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile energy expressions in different frames, questioning the implications of equating total energy in the center of mass frame versus an observer's frame. Other participants raise points about the validity of energy conservation across different inertial frames and the role of reduced mass.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations of energy conservation and frame switching. Some guidance has been offered regarding the necessity of considering the center of mass frame, but no consensus has been reached on the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the assumptions regarding the behavior of kinetic energy in different inertial frames and the implications of using reduced mass in their calculations. There is a mention of the conservation of energy not being invariant across frames, which adds complexity to the discussion.

ispivack
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Consider two particles interacting via a repulsive central potential U(r) = k/r with k > 0. Find the minimal distance between particles, when one of them (with mass m1) is coming from infinity with initial velocity v0, and approaching an initially resting particle (with mass m2) with impact parameter ρ.
Relevant Equations
U(r) = k/r
I have one problem with this question that I've been struggling with. Initially, the total energy should be given by E =m1* v0^2/2 (as U goes to zero, and m2 is at rest). However, if we write r = r1 - r2, we get E = mu*rdot^2/2 + U_eff(r), U_eff(r) also goes to 0, where mu is the reduced mass. However, rdot^2 is exactly v0^2 when r is infinity, as rdot = r1dot - r2dot = r1dot, since m2 is at rest. This seems to imply that m1 = mu, which makes no sense. What am I missing? If I assume that the first energy I stated is incorrect, I have no trouble with the rest of the problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simply because you have switched frames and illegally equated them. One frame is the 3rd observer,observing collision. In this frame,both particles are moving once they are sufficiently close to each other. Another frame is the frame of particle in which it is at rest and observing another particle coming towards him. These 2 frames coincide if the particle which was at rest, is too much heavy in which m=##\mu##.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2019-10-21-08-19-45.png
    Screenshot_2019-10-21-08-19-45.png
    16.4 KB · Views: 227
  • Screenshot_2019-10-21-08-19-30.png
    Screenshot_2019-10-21-08-19-30.png
    19.4 KB · Views: 216
When the particle m1 is infinitely far away, neither particle will have a force acting on it. So, both equations hold for the frame of the third observor, no?
 
Why do you think this is true? If I only have a single particle is its KE the same for observers in various inertial frames? Manifestly not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abhishek11235
ispivack said:
When the particle m1 is infinitely far away, neither particle will have a force acting on it. So, both equations hold for the frame of the third observor, no?
Succintly,If you follow derivation of energy term using reduced mass(c.f. Goldstein), you see,you have to go into the frame of centre of mass. Now,conservation of energy is "Conservation" law not invariant law. It need not be same in every frame!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K