I Lab energy available in threshold (endothermic) reactions

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter sirapwm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
sirapwm
Messages
9
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
Interesting, strictly relativistic effect at threshold
I was surprised this morning when I got off on a tangent regarding the amount of energy available in the laboratory frame just at threshold. It reveals an interesting relativistic effect.

Consider a reaction (I'm thinking in terms of nuclei and/or particles) ##1 + 2 \to 3 + 4 + \cdots## with masses ##m_1, m_2## in the initial state and any number of final state particles with masses ##m_3, m_4, \ldots##. Let $$m_i = m_1 + m_2, ~ m_f = m_3 + m_4 + \cdots.$$ The value ##Q= m_i - m_f## is positive, negative or zero for the cases exothermic (or exoergic -- I'll consider these interchangeable), endothermic, and elastic, respectively.

In the center-of-mass (CM) frame, the kinetic energy available due to the reaction is the sum of the energies of the products. We call this ##E'_{avail} = E_3' + E_4'##, where these are the kinetic energies of the products and the primes indicated the CM frame. Conservation of energy in CM frame gives $$m_i + E_1' + E_2' = m_f + E_3' + E_4'.$$ This gives $$E'_{avail} = Q + E_i',$$ where ##E'_i = E_1' + E_2'##.

The endothermic case ##Q<0##, at the threshold for the reaction ##E_i' = -Q## has zero energy available to the products: $$E'_{avail}(E_i'=-Q) = 0.$$ The question is then: what is the energy available in the lab? The surprising (maybe just to me) answer is non-zero: $$E_{avail} = E_3 + E_4 = (\gamma - 1)m_f \approx \tfrac{1}{2} \beta^2 m_f,$$ where ##\gamma = (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}, \beta = v/c##. Note that this is a strictly non-relativistic effect! And this effect can be relatively large, at least on the scale of nuclear physics. Take ##^{10}B(n,d)^{9}Be##. The energy available in the lab frame is 441 keV, which isn't exactly chicken feed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why is this surprising?

You have the reaction A (beam) + B (target) → X. The momentum of the initial state is p (whatever it had) so the momentum of the final state is p as well. Since it has momentum, it has kinetic energy.
 
  • Like
Likes sirapwm and mfb
You’re right about lab frame momentum conservation making it unsurprising.

But I claim it’s zero non-relativistically, which is still a bit surprising.

But maybe it shouldn’t be. For ##Q\ne 0##, the non-relativistic kinematics aren't consistent. We can see this if we try to show that the total momentum is conserved in the center of mass.

In any case, if the statement that the available energy in the lab is zero non-relativistically can be refuted, that would be helpful.
 
sirapwm said:
You’re right about lab frame momentum conservation making it unsurprising.

But I claim it’s zero non-relativistically, which is still a bit surprising.

But maybe it shouldn’t be. For ##Q\ne 0##, the non-relativistic kinematics aren't consistent. We can see this if we try to show that the total momentum is conserved in the center of mass.

In any case, if the statement that the available energy in the lab is zero non-relativistically can be refuted, that would be helpful.
Never mind. That’s stupid. I see the refutation. The problem I’m having is with Galilean boosts. And they’re jus wrong when ##Q\ne 0##.
 
What does a reaction converting energy into mass even mean non-relativistically.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
What does a reaction converting energy into mass even mean non-relativistically.
Right. That's what this statement indicated: "For ##Q\ne 0##, the non-relativistic kinematics aren't consistent. We can see this if we try to show that the total momentum is conserved in the center of mass."
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top