Codex @codex  0

Work in the parent's rest frame, with $M_A>0$. Four-momentum conservation givesso both daughter momenta have magnitude $p$. Their relativistic energy-momentum relations give $E_B^2-p^2{c}^2=M_B^2{c}^4$ and $E_C^2-p^2{c}^2=M_C^2{c}^4$. Subtracting these two relations and using the total energy yieldsSubstitution back gives the relativistic two-body decay momentum:The unit vector $\mathbf{n}$ is not fixed by four-momentum conservation alone. The expression under the square root is the Källén function $\kappa (M_A^2,M_B^2,M_C^2)$. The physical two-body decay threshold is $M_A\ge M_B+M_C$; for massive daughters equality gives zero outgoing momentum. For two massless daughters, each has energy $M_A{c}^2/2$ and momentum magnitude $M_{A}c/2$.

The lines of centres from either lower cylinder to the upper cylinder make $60^{\circ }$ with the horizontal. Let $N_L,N_R$ be the upward normal forces on the top cylinder from the left and right cylinders, and let $Q$ be the lower cylinders' mutual normal force. While all three contacts remain closed, the triangular configuration translates horizontally with common acceleration $a$; frictionless normals exert no torques about the cylinder centres.

For the top cylinder, Newton's second law givesThus $N_L=m(g/\sqrt{3}+a)$ and $N_R=m(g/\sqrt{3}-a)$. The right lower cylinder has horizontal equation $N_R/2+Q=ma$, soA contact may push but cannot pull: $N_L,N_R,Q\ge 0$. The limiting inequalities are thereforeAt the lower bound, $Q=0$ and the lower pair are just losing compression; at the upper bound, $N_R=0$ and the upper-right contact is just losing compression. All three pairwise normal forces are strictly positive only inside the open interval. The ground normal forces are positive throughout this range. The applied horizontal force on the left cylinder is $F=3ma$, as follows from the whole system's horizontal momentum balance.

Energy–momentum transformations and invariant. Let the primed inertial frame move at signed velocity $u$ along the unprimed $x$ axis. With $\Gamma =(1-u^2/c^2{)}^{-1/2}$, a Lorentz transformation of four-momentum givesUse $p^2=p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2$. The longitudinal terms satisfyThe transverse momenta are unchanged, soFor one electron, the relativistic energy-momentum relation identifies this Lorentz invariant as $E_0^2=m_e^2{c}^4$.

Symmetric electron scattering. Assume an isolated elastic collision of the two electrons, with no emitted radiation. The incident electron has total energy $E$ and momentum magnitude $p$, so $p^2{c}^2=E^2-E_0^2$; the target electron initially contributes rest energy $E_0$ and zero momentum. In the nondegenerate configuration with final track angles $+\theta$ and $-\theta$, transverse momentum conservation givesBecause both final particles have the same rest mass, they also have equal total energies. Conservation of energy givesLongitudinal momentum conservation is $p=2p_f\cos \theta$. Combining these expressions, with $E>E_0$, proves the symmetric relativistic equal-mass scattering angle relation:The low-kinetic energy limit has $\theta \to 45^{\circ }$, recovering the familiar right angle between the outgoing tracks in nonrelativistic equal-mass scattering. Relativistic incident energies give $\theta <45^{\circ }$, approaching zero at very high energy.

Accelerating potential. For $\theta =30^{\circ }$, ${\tan }^2\theta =1/3=2E_0/(E+E_0)$, so $E=5E_0$. The acceleration from rest supplies kinetic energy, not total energy. If $e>0$ is the elementary charge, the required accelerating electric potential difference has magnitudeusing electron rest energy $E_0\simeq 0.511\mathrm{MeV}$. The electric potential difference is oriented to accelerate the negative electron; the result above specifies its magnitude.

There is no external horizontal force, so momentum conservation keeps the student–punt centre of mass fixed if the system starts at rest. Let the student's walking direction be positive. If the punt's displacement relative to the water is $X$, the student advances $X+L$, where $L=3\mathrm{m}$ is measured relative to the punt. Constancy of the centre of mass givesThe punt moves $1.04\mathrm{m}$ opposite to the student's walking direction; the student's net displacement relative to the water is $3+X\simeq 1.96\mathrm{m}$. These displacements are relative to the initial state, not distances travelled relative to the punt.

Under the same ideal assumptions, merely changing the walking speed or walking back more slowly cannot produce unlimited travel. Returning the student to the original place on the punt restores the original internal mass distribution and hence the punt's original position. A finite punt bounds the displacement available through internal rearrangement. Propulsion over large distances requires an external horizontal impulse, for example a push against the bed or momentum transferred to the water. Such an interaction changes the isolated, frictionless model rather than evading centre of mass conservation.

The centre-of-momentum frame is an inertial frame in which the system's total momentum is zero. For nonrelativistic particles with total mass $M_T$ and total momentum $\mathbf{P}$, it moves with velocity $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{P}/M_T$ relative to the original frame.

Under a Galilean boost by a constant velocity $\mathbf{U}$, the total kinetic energy transforms asFor an isolated collision, momentum conservation gives $\Delta \mathbf{P}=0$, and nonrelativistic mass conservation gives $\Delta M_T=0$. ThereforeAn elastic collision with $\Delta K=0$ in one inertial frame has $\Delta K^{\prime }=0$ in every inertial frame. Individual particles' kinetic energies change under the boost, but the total energy difference between the final and initial states does not. This is the Galilean invariance of collision elasticity.

Let $\theta$ describe the direction towards the star, measured from the Earth's positive direction of motion. The arriving photon propagates in the opposite direction, so in the stellar frame its four-momentum hasA Lorentz transformation into the Earth's frame, moving at $\beta c$ along $x$, givesThe observed stellar bearing is opposite to the transformed photon momentum. Since a photon satisfies $|{\mathbf{p}}^{\prime }|=E_{\gamma }^{\prime }/c$,This is relativistic aberration. For small $\beta$, ${\theta }^{\prime }=\theta -\beta \sin \theta +O({\beta }^2)$: stellar directions shift towards the direction of the observer's motion. Keeping the distinction between stellar bearing and photon propagation direction explains the plus signs.

Put $V=v_{\max }$ and let $u_c=\sqrt{GM/r_0}$ be the circular orbit speed. Take the captured half to move in the original tangential direction, the minimum-energy choice. Conservation of momentum during the short explosion gives the other half speed $2V-u_c$. The gravitational potential energy is unchanged at the instant of separation, so the necessary generated energy is the increase in kinetic energy:The captured half has zero radial velocity and exactly the required tangential speed, so it can enter the stable Newtonian circular orbit at this radius. Internal self-binding and any mass lost to radiation are neglected.

The familiar right-angle result requires an elastic collision with conserved horizontal momentum and the appropriate treatment of rotational kinetic energy. In the ideal smooth-sphere model the spins do not change during the collision, so the translational kinetic energy is separately conserved. For equal masses, with initial velocity $\mathbf{u}$ and outgoing velocities ${\mathbf{v}}_1,{\mathbf{v}}_2$,Squaring the first equality and using the second givesThus the two nonzero outgoing directions are perpendicular. In the head-on limiting case one sphere stops, so an angle for its zero velocity is undefined. An ideal elastic model that enforces rolling without slipping at both ends gives the same energy equation: each solid sphere has total kinetic energy $7m{v}^2/10$, and the common factor cancels.

Elasticity is not stated explicitly in the question. It cannot be omitted from the argument: for a smooth equal-mass collision with normal incoming component $u_n$ and coefficient of restitution $e<1$, the outgoing scalar product is $(1-e^2)u_n^2/4>0$. Moreover, after a smooth impact the spheres need not still be rolling; subsequent frictional relaxation can change their directions. The right-angle statement therefore concerns the specified ideal elastic collision, not arbitrary later rolling trajectories.

The initial total momentum is zero, so the outgoing neutron recoils with momentum magnitude $E_{\gamma }/c$. Put $W=(m_p+m_{\pi })c^2$. Conservation of relativistic energy givesFor example the rest energies $938.2721$, $139.5704$ and $939.5654\mathrm{MeV}$ for the proton, charged pion and neutron give this value.^[ref] The result is smaller than the initial-to-final rest-energy difference of about $138.3\mathrm{MeV}$, because some released energy becomes neutron recoil kinetic energy. Atomic binding of a captured pion is neglected in the stated stationary-particle model.

Let $\lambda =1{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ be the launch rate and $\mu =\lambda m$. Treat many small impacts as a continuous momentum flux, justified by $m\ll M$. Write $x(t)$ for truck displacement from its initial position and $U=\dot{x}$, with $t=0$ at the first impact. First neglect vertical motion, so every projectile has horizontal velocity $v$.

A fixed launch rate is different from a fixed impact rate on a receding truck. Projectiles reaching the truck at time $t$ were launched at retarded time $s=t-x(t)/v$, after an irrelevant constant initial-flight offset. The moving-target interception rate is thereforeFor an elastic collision with a much heavier truck, each ball transfers momentum approximately $2m(v-U)$. The elastic-ball truck keeps mass $M$, soSolving from rest and integrating once more givesThe rebound reverses the ball's motion relative to the truck; its laboratory velocity $2U-v$ can still be forwards once $U>v/2$. The truck approaches $v$ asymptotically, while its decreasing impact rate prevents exponential approach in laboratory time. The approximation omits the velocity jumps of individual finite-mass impacts.

For sticking snowballs, let $A(t)$ be the instantaneous truck-plus-snow mass, with $A(0)=M$. The variable-mass system obeysIntegrating the second equation gives $AU=v(A-M)$. Therefore $A\dot{A}=\mu M$, and with $z=\sqrt{1+2\mu t/M}$,Retaining the accumulated mass is necessary even though each individual snowball is small.

For the range calculation, take the intended idealization of horizontal launch from height $h$, no air resistance, and interception possible until the projectile reaches the ground. Its flight time is $\tau =\sqrt{2h/g}$ and horizontal range is $D=v\tau$. If the initial truck distance from the boy is $X_0<D$, substitute $x=D-X_0$ in the last expression. The speed at the range limit isFor an initially nearby truck, $X_0=0$ in this point-target model and $a=\sqrt{2\mu \tau /M}$. A different launch angle or finite interception height changes the available range and must be specified separately.

If instead one idealizes one impact each second, regardless of the truck's changing position, the answers are different: elastic balls give $U=v(1-e^{-2\mu t/M})$ and $x=v[t-M(1-e^{-2\mu t/M})/(2\mu )]$; sticking balls give $U=v\mu t/(M+\mu t)$ and $x=vt-(Mv/\mu )\ln (1+\mu t/M)$. Those expressions assume controlled arrival times, whereas the boxed results respect the stated fixed launch rate.

Model the cart as a particle on a fixed plane curve, remaining constrained to the track. Its vertical velocity is $\dot{y}=y^{\prime }(x)\dot{x}$, so its kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy and Lagrangian areConsequently the canonical momentum conjugate to the horizontal coordinate isIt is not simply the horizontal component $m\dot{x}$ of the mechanical momentum, because a change in $x$ also moves the cart vertically. Differentiate carefully in the Euler-Lagrange equation:Subtracting yieldsThe term involving $y^{\prime \prime }$ accounts for the changing track geometry. An independent check is conservation of energy:

Choose particle 1's incoming velocity positive and particle 2's negative. The final particle is stationary, so four-momentum conservation requires zero total incoming momentum:It follows that ${\gamma }_1{\beta }_1=1/\sqrt{2}$. Squaring gives ${\beta }_1^2/(1-{\beta }_1^2)=1/2$, henceThe initial total energy becomes the final rest energy. ThereforeThe extra invariant mass is the incoming kinetic energy retained as internal energy of the merged particle: $(M-3m)c^2$. It does not violate conservation of energy or four-momentum conservation; the sum of the separate rest masses is not a conserved quantity in an inelastic collision.

For a massive free particle with rest mass $m$ and velocity $\mathbf{v}$,The relativistic energy-momentum relation follows directly:This is the squared Minkowski norm of the four-momentum multiplied by $c^2$. The Lorentz transformation preserves that norm, so it has the same value in every inertial frame. In the particle's rest frame, the momentum is zero and the total energy is its rest energy $m{c}^2$.

Let $S^{\prime }$ move at $+v$ along $x$ relative to $S$. The Lorentz transformation of energy and momentum, from primed to unprimed components, isThe inverse equations have $v$ replaced by $-v$ and the primes interchanged. A photon making angle ${\theta }^{\prime }$ with $+x$ in $S^{\prime }$ has $p_x^{\prime }=(E^{\prime }/c)\cos {\theta }^{\prime }$. Thus its general Doppler factor isThe requested blueshifted expression assumes propagation parallel to the boost, ${\theta }^{\prime }=0$:The propagation-direction assumption matters: for an oppositely travelling photon, $D=\gamma (1-\beta )$, the reciprocal of the displayed factor. Relative frame speed alone does not select the longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect.

At the threshold found in i, both products are stationary in the centre-of-momentum frame, so they have the same velocity in the laboratory frame. Take the energetic incident photon along $+x$. The total energy is $E+\epsilon$ and total momentum is $(E-\epsilon )/c$, so the centre-of-momentum frame moves atFor the numerical threshold,This is extremely close to, but strictly below, the speed of light. Each product has energy $(E+\epsilon )/2$ in the laboratory frame. Above threshold the same ratio of total momentum to total energy determines the motion of the pair's centre-of-momentum frame, but the individual electron and Positron need not have a common velocity.

Let the incident photon energies be $E$ and $\epsilon$, meeting at angle $\psi$ in the laboratory frame. Add their four-momenta; because each is null, the squared total invariant energy isFor photon-photon pair production, its threshold value is $(2m_e{c}^2{)}^2$: the electron and Positron have zero relative momentum in their centre-of-momentum frame. The minimum possible $E$ occurs for a head-on collision, $\psi =\pi$, soWith $m_e{c}^2\simeq 0.511\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\epsilon =10^{-3}\mathrm{eV}$,The quoted background photon energy is used directly, without substituting a different characteristic value of the cosmic microwave background. A less opposed collision has a higher threshold; parallel photons cannot produce this massive pair.

For two particles, let $M=m_1+m_2$ and ${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}=(m_1{\mathbf{v}}_1+m_2{\mathbf{v}}_2)/M$. The centre-of-mass frame velocities are ${\mathbf{v}}_i^{\ast }={\mathbf{v}}_i-{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}$, so $m_1{\mathbf{v}}_1^{\ast }+m_2{\mathbf{v}}_2^{\ast }=0$. Thus before and after an isolated collision the two momentum vectors are equal and opposite. For an elastic collision their common magnitude is also unchanged: only their direction rotates.

The kinetic energy decomposition about the center of mass separates unchanged bulk translation from relative motion:The reduced mass $\mu$ reduces the calculation to one relative velocity. After solving the geometry in the centre-of-mass frame, add ${\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cm}}$ to each velocity to return to the laboratory. The four panels below illustrate this for the subsequent example.

For equal masses $m$, the reduced mass is $m/2$. The kinetic energy of their centre of mass cannot be removed by an isolated collision, since total momentum is fixed. Therefore the maximum energy available for conversion to internal forms is the initial relative kinetic energy,It is attained by a perfectly inelastic collision in which the final relative velocity is zero. This concerns the convertible initial kinetic energy, not an arbitrary pre-existing internal energy reservoir.

Take the rocket exhaust speed $u$ relative to the hovering ship, with exhaust directed vertically downward. If $\alpha =-\dot{M}>0$ is the mass flow rate, the upward rocket thrust is $u\alpha$. For example, over a short interval $dt$, the expelled mass $\alpha dt$ acquires downward momentum $-u\alpha dt$, giving the opposite recoil to the ship. Balancing its weight requiresSolving this differential equation with $M(0)=M_0$ yields the hovering rocket mass flowThe required mass flow rate decreases because the mass to support decreases. These expressions apply while fuel is available and $g,u$ remain constant. If the rocket dry mass is $M_d>0$, hovering ends at $t=(u/g)\log (M_0/M_d)$; the mathematical limit $M\to 0$ is not a model of an indefinitely fuelled physical ship.

Choose the initial incident velocity as $u_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. The centre-of-mass velocity in the laboratory frame isIn the centre-of-mass frame, the initial velocities are ${\mathbf{u}}_1^{\ast }=m_2{u}_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}/(m_1+m_2)$ and ${\mathbf{u}}_2^{\ast }=-m_1{u}_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}/(m_1+m_2)$. Conservation of momentum and kinetic energy in an elastic collision preserves these two speed magnitudes. Let ${\theta }^{\ast }$ be the outgoing angle of particle 1 in that frame, measured from the initial positive $x$ direction. ThenAdding $\mathbf{V}$ to transform back to the laboratory frame givesThe nonnegative laboratory recoil angle ${\theta }_2$ is measured below the incident axis in this choice of scattering plane. Hence the recoil angle in a two-body elastic collision obeysThe source identity therefore uses ${\theta }^{\ast }$ for the projectile's outgoing direction in the centre-of-mass frame. If instead it denotes particle 2's outgoing direction, the corresponding expression has $1+\cos {\theta }^{\ast }$ in the denominator. A signed laboratory angle for the drawn target trajectory would carry a minus sign. At zero deflection the target remains at rest, so its direction is undefined; ${\theta }_2\to \pi /2$ is a limit.