Conservation of four momentum question

vin300
Messages
602
Reaction score
4
The question goes like this: Prove that conservation of four momentum forbids a reaction in which an electron and positron annihilate and produce a single photon(gamma ray). Prove that the production of two photons is not forbidden.
The solution is to work in the centre of momentum frame. I understand that, the electron and positron will travel in opposite directions in this frame since they both have the same mass, and the annihilation will conserve momentum by sending out even numbered photons, each pair in opposite directions of the same frequency.
My question is, why can't we not work in the centre of momentum frame. In the frame of the positron, the total momentum before collision is not zero, but after collision, if only one photon is produced with the same momentum as the sum of the four momenta of the electron and positron, things will still look good.
If two photons of the same frequency are emitted as seen in the C.M. frame, for an observer traveling in the MCRF of the positron traveling from right to left, the left going photon will be redshifted and the right going photon will be blueshifted. The resultant of this momentum has to be equivalent to the resultant momentum before collision.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
if only one photon is produced with the same momentum as the sum of the four momenta of the electron and positron, things will still look good.
Why don't you try an example calculation? Remember, the norm of the photon four momentum ist zero.
 
Conservation of the zeroth component means conservation of energy. Does this mean all collisions in SR are elastic collisions?
 
vin300 said:
Conservation of the zeroth component means conservation of energy. Does this mean all collisions in SR are elastic collisions?

Elastic vs inelastic collisions apply for macroscopic objects. If you are dealing with particles, all collisions are elastic because you keep track all the energy.

A macroscopic collision might be inelastic because some energy goes into deforming the material, or sound, or light, but if you are dealing with individual particles, the energy has nowhere else to go.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top