Electron and positron annihilation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the collision of an electron and a positron, both moving at 0.9c, and the resulting photon from their annihilation. Two methods are presented to calculate the wave vector, k, using conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, but they yield different results. The discrepancy arises because energy conservation alone cannot determine the direction of the photon, only its magnitude. The correct approach requires both conservation laws to find the accurate magnitude and direction of the resulting wave vector. Clarification is sought on the terms "incoming" and "outgoing" waves, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of both momentum and energy conservation in this context.
Psi-String
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Problem:An electron flies toward +x direction with velocity of 0.9c, while a positron flies toward -y direction with the same velocity. Assuming their speed is so fast that they collide and annihilate at the origin, what will be the magnitude and the direction of the wave vector of the generated photon, k?

I have two kinds of solution. One is base on conservation of linear momentum, one is base on conservation of energy, but they don't have the same result! Where went wrong??

Method 1
By conservation of momentum,

P_i = \frac{m_e v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} \hat{i} - \frac{m_e v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} \hat{j}

since the magnitude is the same in the two direction, we have

P_{photon} \cos \frac{\pi}{4} = \frac{m_e v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}

p = \gamma m_ev \sqrt{2} = \frac{h}{\lambda}

so k = \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi m_e v}{h\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}

substitute v=0.9c

k = \frac{1.8\sqrt{2} \pi m_e c}{h \sqrt{1-(0.9)^2}}

Method 2
By conservation of energy

2 \times \gamma m c^2 = \frac{hc}{\lambda}

then

k = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} = \frac{4 m_e c \pi}{h\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} = \frac{4 m_e c \pi}{h \sqrt{1-0.9^2}}

why the two method turn out different result??

thanks for help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't find the direction using energy conservation. This will give you the magnitude of the resulting wave. The momentum of the outgoing wave will the opposite of the vector sum of the incoming photons.
 
I know I can't find the direction of the produced photon by only using conservation of energy, I also need conservation of momentum. But I don't see why the magnitude won't be the same by two different methods. I don't understand your last sentence. What do you mean of "outgoing" wave and "imcoming" wave, it seems to me that there is only "outgoing" wave in the situation.

Thanks for help!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top