Codex @codex  0

For an equal-speed elastic impact on a free rod, let $h$ be the signed distance of the impact point from the rod's center of mass, $I=m{l}^2/12$, and $\mathcal{J}$ the horizontal impulse delivered to the rod. For a smooth impact the impulse is perpendicular to the rod. If the ball's signed final velocity is $u$, the rod's center of mass velocity is $V$ and its angular velocity is $\omega$, momentum balance and angular impulse giveBoth objects have positive final translational velocities for a nonzero impact away from the centre. More explicitly, restitution in an elastic collision gives $V+\omega h-u=v_0$, and henceEqual final speeds thus require $u=V=v_0/2$. One can also see that the alternative $u=-V$ would violate $u+V=v_0$.

By conservation of kinetic energy in the elastic collision,Thus $I{\omega }^2=m{v}_0^2/2$. Since $I\omega =mVh=m{v}_{0}h/2$, elimination of $\omega$ givesEither side of the center of mass works; the nearer end is a distance $l(1/2-1/\sqrt{6})$ away. The final angular speed is $|\omega |=\sqrt{6}{v}_0/l$. These values also satisfy the restitution condition because the struck point's velocity is $V+\omega h=3v_0/2$, reversing the initial relative contact velocity.

Nonrelativistic momentum conservation gives $\mathbf{u}={\mathbf{v}}_1+{\mathbf{v}}_2$, while an elastic collision conserves kinetic energy, $u^2=v_1^2+v_2^2$. Squaring the momentum equation yields ${\mathbf{v}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_2=0$. The two nonzero outgoing velocities are perpendicular. In the degenerate case where one outgoing particle is at rest, its direction is undefined.

For relativistic collisions conserve total four-momentum, with $E=\gamma m{c}^2$, $\mathbf{p}=\gamma m\mathbf{v}$ and $E^2-p^2{c}^2=m^2{c}^4$. Rest energies must be included; for photons $E=pc$.

For the symmetric relativistic equal-mass scattering angle, the incident momentum is $mc\sqrt{\alpha (\alpha +2)}$. Energy conservation gives each final particle $E_f=(1+\alpha /2)m{c}^2$, hence $p_f=(mc/2)\sqrt{\alpha (\alpha +4)}$. Transverse momenta cancel and $2p_f\cos \theta =p_{\mathrm{in}}$, givingThe nonrelativistic limit has $\theta \to 45^{\circ }$, so the outgoing angle is $90^{\circ }$ as above.

For the symmetric two-photon annihilation angle in the specified electron-positron annihilation, each photon has energy $E_{\gamma }=(\alpha +2)m_e{c}^2/2$. Momentum conservation gives $2(E_{\gamma }/c)\cos \varphi =m_{e}c\sqrt{\alpha (\alpha +2)}$, soAs $\alpha \to 0^{+}$ the two photons become back-to-back, transverse to the limiting incident direction; as $\alpha \to \infty$ they are forward collimated. Equal photon energies follow from the specified equal angles, and are not a general property of annihilation in a moving laboratory frame.

Let the inertial frame $S^{\prime }$ move at speed $v$ in the positive $x$ direction relative to $S$, with parallel axes and coincident origins at zero time. The inverse Lorentz transformation givesHere ${\gamma }_v=(1-v^2/c^2{)}^{-1/2}$ and ${\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }=d{\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }/d{t}^{\prime }$ is the particle's velocity in $S^{\prime }$. Dividing spatial differentials by $dt$ gives the relativistic velocity addition lawFor the collision, set $c=1$ during the algebra. Let the incident projectile have energy $E>m_1$ and momentum $p=\sqrt{E^2-m_1^2}$. The target is initially at rest. The squared invariant mass, boost speed and Lorentz factor of the center-of-momentum frame areIn that frame the projectile has $p_{\ast }=m_{2}p/\sqrt{s}$ and $E_{\ast }=(m_1^2+m_{2}E)/\sqrt{s}$. An elastic collision changes the direction of its momentum, through an angle $\phi$, while preserving these magnitudes. Transforming the outgoing four-momentum back to the laboratory givesThe maximum occurs at $\cos \phi =-1/B$. Sincethe maximum laboratory deflection in relativistic elastic scattering isThe printed strict inequality needs correction: equality is kinematically attainable. For example, in $c=1$ units take $m_1=2$, $m_2=1$, and incident $E=3$. A projectile scattered through $30^{\circ }$ with final energy $16/7$ has momentum $(3\sqrt{5}/7,\sqrt{15}/7)$. The target then has energy $12/7$ and momentum $(4\sqrt{5}/7,-\sqrt{15}/7)$; both outgoing particles satisfy their mass shells and conserve total four-momentum. This gives $\sin \theta =1/2=m_2/m_1$ exactly. The inequality is strict only away from the maximizing direction.

The supplied average retained-energy fraction in one elastic collision isThe mean-energy neutron moderation count follows by iterating the stated mean-energy model for neutron moderation, giving $E_n=f^n{E}_0$. Equivalently, take logarithms to solve the geometric decrease:Hence the estimated integer count isAfter $117$ collisions the predicted mean energy is about $0.0285$ eV; after $118$ it is about $0.0244$ eV, bracketing the target. This is a mean-energy estimate using the given average retention factor. Individual scattering angles and energy losses fluctuate, so a specified single neutron is not guaranteed to reach the target on exactly its $118$th collision. An estimate based on the average logarithmic energy decrement is a different statistical convention.

For a nonrelativistic elastic collision with the target initially at rest, let ${\theta }^{\ast }$ be the outgoing projectile angle in the centre-of-mass frame. The laboratory target velocity is proportional to $(1-\cos {\theta }^{\ast },-\sin {\theta }^{\ast })$. Its unsigned recoil angle is therefore $(\pi -{\theta }^{\ast })/2$, independent of the mass ratio. At zero deflection the target is stationary and its direction is undefined; the right-angle value is a limit.

In units with $c=1$, a particle of rest mass $M$ and total energy $E$ strikes a stationary target of rest mass $m$. For the nontrivial one-dimensional elastic collision, reverse the incident momentum in the centre-of-mass frame and transform back to obtain the displayed outgoing projectile energy. The invariant squared total four-momentum is $s=M^2+m^2+2mE$. If $M\gg m$ and $Em\gg M^2$, then $E^{\prime }\sim M^2/(2m)$. If $m\gg M$, retaining arbitrary $E/m$ gives $E^{\prime }\simeq Em/(m+2E)$; only the further fixed-$E$, infinite-target-mass limit gives $E^{\prime }\to E$.

Oberlin College's documented demonstration uses a track, two collision carts, two force probes set to the $50\mathrm{N}$ range, added $500\mathrm{g}$ bars, and a laptop with a Vernier interface. Preparation consists of entering the measurement calibration, securing the force probes to the carts, and zeroing them. Rubber stoppers serve for elastic collisions, clay for inelastic collisions, and hooks with string for pulling. Comparing the two force records tests the mutual interaction; adding mass to one cart tests whether unequal masses change the equality. ^[ref]

Vernier's force probe uses a bending beam with strain gauges; changing electrical resistance produces a voltage readout calibrated as force. Its manual recommends zeroing in the working orientation. If recalibration is needed, use an unloaded reading and a known suspended gravitational weight; for the $50\mathrm{N}$ range its example is $1\mathrm{kg}$ giving $9.8\mathrm{N}$. Re-zero after changing orientation. The manual quotes calibrated accuracy $\pm 0.2\mathrm{N}$, distinct from the $0.05\mathrm{N}$ resolution of that range, and warns that the interface's data-collection rate can limit collision measurements. ^[ref]

The following sampling and control choices are proposed additions to that documented experiment. Level the track and check unloaded motion in both directions for slope and friction. Use a soft bumper and one interface for simultaneous records; start before contact and stop after separation. A trial sampling rate of $1000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, if supported, would put about 100 samples across a $0.10\mathrm{s}$ interaction. Increase the sampling rate and repeat until the peak and integrated impulse comparison are stable; a large sample count alone does not establish adequate response. Measure each total moving mass, including the force probe and added bars.

Convert both channels to the same right-positive force convention. Oppositely facing force probes can have matching raw signs because their local positive directions differ; check each sign by a gentle push of known direction before the run. Overlay $F_{B\mathrm{on}A}(t)$ and $-F_{A\mathrm{on}B}(t)$, and also examine their signed sum. Integrate both over the same contact interval to compare impulses. Repeat with added mass on one cart, exchange the probes between carts, and check unloaded zeros before and after. These controls help distinguish a physical mass change from a channel offset or gain error.

Agreement within measurement error supports the pair-interaction model over the resolved interval; it does not establish exact equality at arbitrarily short time scales. Misalignment, a loose mounting, sensor-beam dynamics, saturation, unequal timing, and zero drift can spoil the comparison. Track friction and cable pulls are additional external forces; a probe measuring bumper contact need not measure the entire net force on its cart. If a massive connector carries appreciable changing momentum, compare the full cart–connector collection rather than assuming its endpoint forces are an instantaneous cart-to-cart pair. The constructed pulse diagram above illustrates what to compare, and supplies no measurements from this apparatus.

A single recoil endpoint leaves a tradeoff between incident speed and projectile mass. Two targets can remove the unknown incident speed. Assume both runs sample the same maximum projectile speed $v$ and that single elastic collisions reach the endpoint. For initially stationary target masses $M_1<M_2$, let their maximum recoil speeds be $u_1,u_2$. The maximum elastic recoil energy fraction calculation givesIf energies rather than speeds are inferred, use $R=\sqrt{T_{1,\max }{M}_2/(T_{2,\max }{M}_1)}$. The energy ratio itself is not the speed ratio.

For the stipulated $4\mathrm{MeV}$ example, hydrogen and nitrogen giveThe inferred mass then determines $v=u_1(m+M_1)/(2m)$. Changing the assumed mass to improve one recoil endpoint changes the prediction for the other: this is the constraining power of the comparison.

James Chadwick's June paper instead used approximate endpoints $u_p=3.3\times 10^{7}m/s$ and $u_N=4.7\times 10^{6}m/s$, obtaining $m/m_p\simeq 1.15$; it allowed roughly ten percent uncertainty in $u_N$. This was a rough mass comparison.^[ref]

The inverse calculation has useful built-in checks. A positive finite mass requires $1<R<M_2/M_1$. As $R$ approaches $1$, distinguishing large projectile masses becomes difficult. Differentiation givesUncertain recoil endpoints therefore produce an uncertain inferred mass; the collision model cannot turn imprecise range measurements into exact spectroscopy. If different target runs select different incident energy groups, the common-$v$ cancellation also fails.

For comparison, Compton scattering of a photon of energy $E_{\gamma }$ from a stationary free target of mass $M$ has the exact relativistic endpointThis follows by combining momentum conservation with the target's relativistic energy, maximizing transfer when the photon reverses direction. Unlike the massive-projectile calculation, this equation does not approximate the incident photon as a nonrelativistic particle.

As a separate, explicitly hypothetical test, take $m_p{c}^2=938\mathrm{MeV}$ and target rest energies $938\mathrm{MeV}$ and $14\times 938\mathrm{MeV}$. To reproduce the stipulated hydrogen recoil endpoint $T=4\mathrm{MeV}$, the photon would need $E_{\gamma }\simeq 45.36\mathrm{MeV}$. The same photon would give the heavier target at most $0.311\mathrm{MeV}$, whereas the stipulated massive projectile gave $0.996\mathrm{MeV}$. This is the structure of a two-target discrimination, not a transcription of a 1932 measurement. Actual radiation can contain more than one energy group or both photons and neutrons; a useful model must account for the observed endpoints and their origin together.

In a nonrelativistic elastic collision of incident mass $M$ at speed $u$ with initially stationary mass $m$, the centre-of-momentum frame moves at $V=Mu/(M+m)$. The projectile's outgoing velocity in that frame has fixed magnitude $w=mu/(M+m)$. Its laboratory velocity tips lie on a circle of radius $w$ centred at $V\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. For $M>m$, a tangent from the origin gives the largest laboratory scattering angle, $\sin {\theta }_{\max }=w/V=m/M$. This geometrical result follows from Galilean velocity addition and conservation of energy.