Reversal of velocity in center of mass.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of particle velocities during elastic collisions in the context of relativity, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the velocity of a particle reverses in the center of mass frame. Participants explore the implications of elastic collisions in one-dimensional versus multi-dimensional scenarios and seek to establish a proof for the relativistic case.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that in one-dimensional elastic collisions, the velocity of a particle reverses, while in multi-dimensional collisions, the speed remains the same but the direction can vary.
  • Others argue that the conservation of kinetic energy does not imply that individual speeds must be the same before and after the collision, suggesting that speed can be distributed differently among particles.
  • It is noted that the reversal of velocity is only guaranteed in specific scenarios, such as when one particle collides with a very massive object or in the center of momentum frame for two particles.
  • Participants discuss the conservation laws applicable in relativity, including energy and momentum conservation, and how these relate to the invariant mass of particles during elastic collisions.
  • Some participants express difficulty in deriving the necessary equations in relativity, indicating that the algebra becomes complex when applying conservation laws.
  • A later reply presents a method to simplify the algebra by using specific definitions of energy, momentum, and mass, leading to a conclusion about the relationship between momenta before and after the collision.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof of velocity reversal in relativistic elastic collisions. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the conditions and implications of elastic collisions, particularly in different dimensional contexts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of algebraic manipulations in relativistic contexts and the dependence on specific assumptions about the collision frame and particle masses.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi. Just like in classical mechanics, I've read that in relativity, the velocity v of a particle just reverses after an elastic collision in the center of mass. I.e, if v is the velocity before the collison and v' is the velocity after, then v = -v'.

I wondered how one goes about showing this result in relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is only true if the collision is 1D, i.e. the particle is constrained to go forward or backward only. If the collision is 2D or 3D then the speed is the same, but the direction can be any direction.

They way that you can prove it is simply by the definition of "elastic". An elastic collision is defined as a collision in which KE is the same before and after, so the speed must be the same before and after.
 
DaleSpam said:
They way that you can prove it is simply by the definition of "elastic". An elastic collision is defined as a collision in which KE is the same before and after, so the speed must be the same before and after.

It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is a proof. Since it is the total kinetic energy which is the same before and after, speed can distribute itself among the two particles in such a way that the total kinetic energy remains the same, but that the individual speeds does not.
 
Even in classical collisions that isn't true in general for two particles of similar masses. It is only true for one particle colliding with a very large (immovable) object so that all of the KE is due to the one particle.

The only other time that it is true (in both classical mechanics and in relativity) is in the center of momentum frame, perhaps that is what you mean by the phrase "in the center of mass".
 
DaleSpam said:
Even in classical collisions that isn't true in general for two particles of similar masses.
What is not true? That total kinetic energy is conserved in elastic collisions?

I don't know if you understood me correctly. In classical mechanics, it is easy to show trough the equations

conservation of momentum before and after + center of mass
[tex]\vec p_1 + \vec p_2 = \vec p_1´+ \vec p_2´ = 0[/tex]

and conservation of total kinetic energy
[tex]\frac{p_1^2}{2m_1} + \frac{p_2^2}{2m_2} = \frac{p_1'^2}{2m_1} + \frac{p_2'^2}{2m_2}[/tex]

that
[tex]p_1 = - p_1´ \Rightarrow v_1 = - v_1´[/tex]
is a solution to the equations. I wondered how to show the same result for relativity.
 
center o bass said:
What is not true? That total kinetic energy is conserved in elastic collisions?
Sorry I wasn't clear. It is only true [itex]v_i = -v_f[/itex] in an elastic collision for a collision in the rest frame of a very massive object (immovable) or in the center of momentum frame for two particles.

center o bass said:
conservation of momentum before and after + center of mass
[tex]\vec p_1 + \vec p_2 = \vec p_1´+ \vec p_2´ = 0[/tex]
Yes, this is the center of momentum frame condition.

The approach in relativity is pretty much the same. You use the center of momentum condition, the conservation of energy and momentum, and the elastic collision condition maps to a conservation of the invariant mass of the individual particles condition.
 
DaleSpam said:
The approach in relativity is pretty much the same. You use the center of momentum condition, the conservation of energy and momentum, and the elastic collision condition maps to a conservation of the invariant mass of the individual particles condition.

I must be blind. I can't seem to find a way of showing this. Conservation of invariant mass for the individual particles leads to an equation of the type

[tex]\frac{E_1 E_2}{c^2} + p_1 p_2 = \frac{E_1' E_2'}{c^2} + p'_1 p'_2[/tex]

and I know from the center of mass condition that [tex]p_1 = p_2, p_1' = p_2'[/tex], but the equations just seem to get algebraicly horrible if i try to massage them some more.
 
No, you are not blind, the algebra gets messy. To make it somewhat less messy I will use units where c=1 and drop c from the equations.

We have the relativistic definitions of energy, momentum, and mass
[itex]\gamma = (1-v^2)^{-1/2}[/itex]
[itex]E=\gamma m[/itex]
[itex]p=\gamma m v[/itex]
[itex]m^2 = E^2 - p^2[/itex]

And the conditions:
[itex]p_1+p_2=0[/itex] center of momentum frame
[itex]p_1'+p_2'=0[/itex] conservation of momentum
[itex]E_1+E_2=E_1'+E_2'[/itex] conservation of energy
[itex]m_1=m_1'[/itex] elastic collision
[itex]m_2=m_2'[/itex] elastic collision

I will have to show the algebra later.
 
Picking up from Dalespam's set up, and aiming to bypass the messiest algebra, I come up with the following:

Noting E^2=p^2+m^2, and that p1=-p2, and p1' = -p2', and the other facts laid out, it is easy to arrive at:sqrt(m1^2 + p1^2) + sqrt(m2^2 + p1^2) = sqrt(m1^2 + p1'^2)
+ sqrt(m2^2 + p1'^2)

We assume collinearity as per the OP (implicitly). Given p1, we have an equation for p1'. The function of p1' on the right is a strictly increasing function of abs(p1'). Therefore the equation can have only one solution for abs(p1'). abs(p1')=abs(p1) is obviously a solution. It is, thus, the only solution. So then we have either p1'=p1 or p1'=-p1. The former represents the objects passing through each other, leaving p1'=-p1 as required for inelastic collision.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
PAllen said:
Picking up from Dalespam's set up, and aiming to bypass the messiest algebra, I come up with the following:

Noting E^2=p^2+m^2, and that p1=-p2, and p1' = -p2', and the other facts laid out, it is easy to arrive at:sqrt(m1^2 + p1^2) + sqrt(m2^2 + p1^2) = sqrt(m1^2 + p1'^2)
+ sqrt(m2^2 + p1'^2)

We assume collinearity as per the OP (implicitly). Given p1, we have an equation for p1'. The function of p1' on the right is a strictly increasing function of abs(p1'). Therefore the equation can have only one solution for abs(p1'). abs(p1')=abs(p1) is obviously a solution. It is, thus, the only solution. So then we have either p1'=p1 or p1'=-p1. The former represents the objects passing through each other, leaving p1'=-p1 as required for inelastic collision.

obviously, last line meant elastic collision, not inelastic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K