I Do Fields Affect 4-Momentum Conservation?

SiennaTheGr8
Messages
508
Reaction score
199
When we encounter particle-collision problems that call for invoking the conservation of four-momentum, are we tacitly assuming a field-free idealization (or at least negligible potential energy)?

For example, say particles 1 and 2 collide elastically. Then the conservation of four-momentum says:
$$\mathbf{P}_{1,i} + \mathbf{P}_{2,i} = \mathbf{P}_{1,f}+ \mathbf{P}_{2,f}$$ (where ##i## means initial and ##f## means final).

But in reality, there's potential energy associated with the (changing) relative positions of the particles, isn't there? So to express the full picture, would we add ##\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{field},i}## to the left side and ##\mathbf{P}_{\textrm{field},f}## to the right side?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We do something similar in nonrelativistic physics.
 
SiennaTheGr8 said:
But in reality, there's potential energy associated with the (changing) relative positions of the particles, isn't there?
Well, you'd better ask yourself what would happen if you consider the momentum of the particles 1,2,3,4 pretty "far-away" , that is final corresponding to t \rightarrow \infty and initial to t \rightarrow - \infty (or you can see infinity as 'very large').
As long as no new particles as asymptotic states are produced by the interaction of 1,2 to 3,4 the momenta of initial and final should be equal by conservation of energy/momentum... no matter what happened inbetween, since anything that happens inbetween is going to conserve the momentum..
 
You do need to include the energy+momentum of the fields. A bound positron and electron (positronium) has less energy than a free positron and electron. That extra energy has to come from somewhere!
 
Khashishi said:
You do need to include the energy+momentum of the fields. A bound positron and electron (positronium) has less energy than a free positron and electron. That extra energy has to come from somewhere!
the bound state of electron and positron [positronium] is again giving you some photons... and the result is again to take: Let's say you have this process:
e^- e^+ \rightarrow P(^1S_0) \rightarrow \gamma \gamma
again you can use p_{e-} + p_{e+} = p_{\gamma} + p_{\gamma}... as if you forget what happened at the intermediate step.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top