Nonrelativistic Lab-frame Velocity as a function of kinetic energy per unit mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of lab-frame relative velocity for colliding particles based on their kinetic energy per unit mass. The equation s = 2m^2 + 2E_1E_2 - 2p_1p_2cosθ is identified as the center of mass energy. It is clarified that the relationship ε = (s - 4m^2)/4m^2 is only valid when one particle is initially at rest, due to the inclusion of cosθ in s. The lab velocity equation v_lab = (2ε^(1/2)(1+ε)^(1/2))/(1+2ε) also applies under the same condition. The calculations discussed are fully relativistic in nature.
fliptomato
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone--I'm a bit stuck trying to follow a calculation in an article (Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) p. 145-179) regarding the lab-frame relative velocity of two colliding particles as a function of the kinetic energy per unit mass. (I'll include references to equations in the article, but the article is not required for this particular question.)

Suppose we have two particles of mass m colliding with one another with energies E_1, E_2 and 3-momenta \mathbf{p_1}, \mathbf{p_2}. Define p_1 = |\mathbf{p_1}|, p_2 = |\mathbf{p_2}|

Define (eq. 3.3)
s = 2m^2 + 2E_1E_2 - 2p_1p_2\cos\theta

Which, I believe is the same as the center of mass energy (p_1^\mu+p_2^\mu)^2.

Now define the kinetic energy per unit mass in the lab frame, (3.20)
\epsilon = \frac{(E_{1,\mathrm{lab}}-m)+(E_{2,\mathrm{lab}}-m)}{2m}

First question: Why can we write
\epsilon=\frac{s-4m^2}{4m^2}

Second question: Why is is true that the lab velocity is given by
v_\mathrm{lab} = \frac{2\epsilon^{1/2}(1+\epsilon)^{1/2}}{1+2\epsilon}


Thanks very much for any assistance!

Flip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since s includes cos\theta in the general case, and \epsilon does not, the equation
\epsilon=(s-4m^2)/4m^2 cannot be true in general. It only holds for the special case of one particle being initialy at rest. That is the meaning of the subscript _lab.
The equation is easy to derive in this case.
The equation for v_lab is also for one particle initially at rest.
If you start with v=p/E, the equation is easily derived.
The calculation is fully relativistic.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top