How does the motion of colliding billiard balls change under Special Relativity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of Special Relativity (SR) on the motion of colliding billiard balls, particularly focusing on elastic collisions involving equal and unequal masses. Participants explore how the classical predictions of collision angles and maximum deflection change under relativistic conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that classical physics predicts orthogonal motion after elastic collisions, questioning how this changes under SR.
  • There is a suggestion that the maximum angle of deflection, classically given by sin(x)=m/M, may be affected by relativistic effects.
  • One participant proposes using the center of mass (COM) frame to analyze the collision, noting that the resulting velocities transform differently in a relativistic context.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of SR and its implications for collision angles, indicating a belief that angular distortion occurs under SR.
  • There is a reference to a specific equation (Eqn 4.80) from a source discussing elastic collisions, with a focus on its application to the problem at hand.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of mass ratios and the conditions under which maximum angles of deflection are derived, with one participant noting that classical results hold for low velocities.
  • One participant questions the conclusion that the maximum recoil angle is 90 degrees, suggesting it may imply no forward scattering of one of the masses.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the derivation of angles and the role of the Lorentz factor (γ) in determining the outcomes of collisions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effects of SR on collision angles and maximum deflection. There are competing views on whether classical predictions hold under relativistic conditions, and some express uncertainty about the implications of their findings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of SR and the mathematical derivations involved. There is an acknowledgment that classical equations may still apply under certain conditions (v<

neilparker62
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
728
Assuming equal mass billiard balls and elastic collisions, classical physics shows that after any collision the motion of the colliding balls will be orthogonal. How does that situation change under SR ? More generally for an elastic collision between objects m and M with m<M, is maximum angle of deflection ( given classically by sin(x)=m/M ) affected ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
neilparker62 said:
Assuming equal mass billiard balls and elastic collisions, classical physics shows that after any collision the motion of the colliding balls will be orthogonal. How does that situation change under SR ? More generally for an elastic collision between objects m and M with m<M, is maximum angle of deflection ( given classically by sin(x)=m/M ) affected ?

I can give you a quick answer, as I'm just going offline for a while.

You can follow the same method by considering the COM frame. In that frame, the two particles have the same speed before and after the collision and move in opposite directions.

However, if one particle is at rest in your frame and the other is moving at a speed ##u##, then the COM frame is not moving at speed ##u/2##. Can you work out what speed it is moving at?

So, when you transform the resulting velocities back to your frame you get slightly different expressions and the angle is not a right angle.

Do you know enough SR to work this out yourself?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: neilparker62
PeroK said:
I can give you a quick answer, as I'm just going offline for a while.
So, when you transform the resulting velocities back to your frame you get slightly different expressions and the angle is not a right angle.

Do you know enough SR to work this out yourself?

Thanks for your response - unfortunately I don't. The query arises out of following discussion which I think has reached an incorrect conclusion - in light of what you are saying.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...vistic-elastic-collision.950954/#post-6056515

If I read you correctly we DO get angular 'distortion' when SR equations are applied to collision problems. And therefore maximum angle of deflection (elastic collision) is NOT the same as it would be when calculated using classical physics. Although as is usual with SR the classical equations will work fine for v<<c.
 
neilparker62 said:
Thanks for your response - unfortunately I don't. The query arises out of following discussion which I think has reached an incorrect conclusion - in light of what you are saying.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...vistic-elastic-collision.950954/#post-6056515

If I read you correctly we DO get angular 'distortion' when SR equations are applied to collision problems. And therefore maximum angle of deflection (elastic collision) is NOT the same as it would be when calculated using classical physics. Although as is usual with SR the classical equations will work fine for v<<c.

I haven't had time to digest that thread. It's mostly talking about the unequal mass collision. Let me check my working and get back to you. I may have time today.
 
I am looking at Section 4.4.1 (Elastic Collisions) from following reference. (not that I have much clue as to what's going on!)

https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~smithb/website/coursenotes/rel_A.pdf

See in particular Eqn 4.80 and following conclusion.
 
neilparker62 said:
I am looking at Section 4.4.1 (Elastic Collisions) from following reference. (not that I have much clue as to what's going on!)

https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~smithb/website/coursenotes/rel_A.pdf

See in particular Eqn 4.80 and following conclusion.

Yes, exactly. In the relativistic case, the angle is not ##\pi/2##.
 
Can we apply Eqn 4.80 to solve the problem on maximum angle of deflection for a relativistic collision as per original problem posed in that thread ? Would be interested to see if we can find where that √3 comes in.

I think I'm correct in saying that if mass M (>m) is incident on stationary mass m with collision angle = θ(max) the post collision trajectories are also orthogonal per classical theory.
 
neilparker62 said:
Can we apply Eqn 4.80 to solve the problem on maximum angle of deflection for a relativistic collision as per original problem posed in that thread ? Would be interested to see if we can find where that √3 comes in.
Equation 4.80 was derived using the assumption ##m=M##. The problem in the thread you're looking at considers a collision between unequal masses.

From the expression for ##\theta_1## right before 4.80, you can write
$$\tan \theta_1 = \frac{\sin\theta_0}{\gamma(\cos\theta_0+1)} = \frac{2\sin\frac{\theta_0}{2}\cos\frac{\theta_0}{2}}{\gamma(2\cos^2 \frac{\theta_0}{2})} = \frac 1\gamma \tan\frac{\theta_0}{2}.$$ For any value of ##\gamma##, you should be able to convince yourself that ##\theta_{1\text{max}}=\pi/2##.
 
vela said:
From the expression for ##\theta_1## right before 4.80, you can write
$$\tan \theta_1 = \frac{\sin\theta_0}{\gamma(\cos\theta_0+1)} = \frac{2\sin\frac{\theta_0}{2}\cos\frac{\theta_0}{2}}{\gamma(2\cos^2 \frac{\theta_0}{2})} = \frac 1\gamma \tan\frac{\theta_0}{2}.$$ For any value of ##\gamma##, you should be able to convince yourself that ##\theta_{1\text{max}}=\pi/2##.

I don't think there's any problem with this conclusion - it's showing maximum recoil angle = 90. Which is true for any collision between any mass m<=M. Doesn't it just mean there's no forward scattering of object m ?
 
  • #10
neilparker62 said:
I don't think there's any problem with this conclusion - it's showing maximum recoil angle = 90. Which is true for any collision between any mass m<=M. Doesn't it just mean there's no forward scattering of object m ?
I thought you were trying to figure out where the ##\sqrt 3## comes from when ##M \gg m##.
 
  • #11
Yes I was but I think I'm getting rapidly 'out of depth' here. Can't convince myself at all unless θο = π when the expression has a zero denominator. But then the other angle will be zero and yet we are saying they don't sum to π/2. If I sound confused , I am !

In the original problem, don't forget the stipulation that γ = M/m.

I am aware that the formulas in the Oxford reference deal with an elastic collision between equal masses but I was hoping to see what would change (under SR) in that instance and then try to adapt it for the problem in the other post. Under SR it seems that angles have some dependence on γ - hence on velocity. Whereas in classical physics both the π/2 (sum of angles) and maximum deflection sinθ = m/M results are independent of velocity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K