Codex @codex  0

Now $m$ denotes the instantaneous rest mass of the rocket, including its fuel and stored internal energy, and $v$ is measured in a fixed inertial frame. Assume the exhaust is expelled backwards with speed $0<u<c$ in the rocket's instantaneous rest frame. By the relativistic velocity-addition formula, material emitted at time $\tau$ has inertial velocityIt coasts at this velocity after emission.

The crucial change is that the expelled material's rest mass is not simply $-dm$: some of the rocket's rest energy becomes exhaust motion. Instead, use conservation of relativistic energy. Put $q(t)=m(t)\gamma (t)$, so the rocket's energy is $c^{2}q(t)$. The exhaust emitted during $d\tau$ carries energy $-c^2{q}^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$. For material moving at velocity $w$, the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives momentum $wE/c^2$, since $E={\gamma }_{\mathrm{ex}}\mu c^2$ and $p={\gamma }_{\mathrm{ex}}\mu w$. Hence the modified total momentum isMeanwhile the total relativistic energy is $c^2[q(t)-{\int }_0^t{q}^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau ]=c^{2}q(0)$. These expressions consistently account for both energy and momentum of the expelled material.

Differentiate the momentum formula. The momentum conservation law givesTo simplify it, useMultiplying by ${\gamma }^2(1-uv/c^2)$, the equation becomesThe two terms containing $uv/c^2$ cancel. Dividing by $\gamma >0$ proves the relativistic rocket equation

For fixed finite velocities, the nonrelativistic limit $c\to \infty$ gives ${\gamma }^2=(1-v^2/c^2{)}^{-1}\to 1$. Hence the relativistic rocket equation reduces towhich is the nonrelativistic rocket equation.

The conserved quantities called energy in the two calculations include different contributions. The nonrelativistic calculation considered only kinetic energy, which increases as fuel releases internal energy; total energy including that internal reservoir is still conserved. Relativistic energy includes rest energy, and therefore includes the fuel's stored internal energy through the rocket's rest mass. That rest mass decreases as energy is transferred into the exhaust. Thus conservation of relativistic energy and the nonconservation of kinetic energy express the same physical conversion.

Use momentum conservation and conservation of energy in the laboratory inertial frame. The photon has momentum magnitude $E/c$, while the outgoing electron satisfies the relativistic energy-momentum relation. Its total energy and momentum obeySubstitute these into $E_e^2=m^2{c}^4+c^2|{\mathbf{p}}_e{|}^2$. Cancelling $m^2{c}^4$ and $(E_1-E_2{)}^2$ gives $m{c}^2(E_1-E_2)=E_1{E}_2(1-\cos \theta )$. Both photon energies are positive, so division yieldsThis is Compton scattering. The energies include the electron's rest energy; using only its kinetic energy in the mass-shell equation would give the wrong result. The outgoing photon has unchanged energy at $\theta =0$ and smaller energy for a nonzero scattering angle.

The four-momentum isThusMultiplication by $c$ identifies the first two terms as the rest energy $m{c}^2$ and the Newtonian kinetic energy $m|\mathbf{u}{|}^2/2$.

For the fixed-target reaction, the initial invariant isAt threshold the four final particles are at rest in their centre-of-momentum frame, giving invariant $(4mc{)}^2$. Hence $\gamma =7$ and the least laboratory speed is

Use the Minkowski metric ${\eta }_{mn}=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1,\dots ,1)$ and units with speed of light one. The contractions are $P^2={\eta }^{mn}{P}_m{P}_n$ and $(T{X}^{\prime }{)}^2=T^2{\eta }_{mn}(X^m{)}^{\prime }(X^n{)}^{\prime }$; $(X^m{)}^{\prime }{P}_m$ and ${\dot{X}}^m{P}_m$ pair a vector with a covector without another metric. The Lagrange multipliers impose the two first-class constraintsThey generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms, so the phase space contains both constrained directions and gauge redundancy. Two first-class constraints remove two canonical pairs, leaving $D-2$ physical degrees of freedom per point.

In Monge gauge, $X^0=t$ and $X^1=\sigma$. Write the transverse canonical variables as $\mathbf{X}=(X^2,\dots ,X^{D-1})$ and $\mathbf{P}=(P_2,\dots ,P_{D-1})$. Solving the first-class constraints givesThe negative root selects positive energy. Substitution into the phase-space action gives the Hamiltonian reductionFor a static segment, $\mathbf{P}=0$, its proper length element is $d\ell =\sqrt{1+|{\mathbf{X}}^{\prime }{|}^2}d\sigma$, and $\mathcal{E}d\sigma =Td\ell$. Thus the string tension is the rest energy per unit proper length. In particular a straight resting segment has $\mathcal{E}=T$. Monge gauge is a local choice on a string embedding map for which $X^1$ is a valid coordinate; it need not cover folded strings or all endpoint configurations.

The observed dominant two-body transition is $\boxed{{\Sigma }^0\to {\Lambda }^0\gamma }$. Both baryons have valence quarks $uds$ and the same strangeness; an electromagnetic interaction transition is therefore possible. Their mass difference is only about $77\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, below the lightest pion mass, so no additional on-shell strongly interacting particle fits. A photon is neutral and massless, and can carry the required angular momentum through a magnetic dipole transition between the two positive-parity spin-$1/2$ states. A single neutrino would violate lepton number and would not give the required fermion parity.

At rest, four-momentum conservation gives $p_{\Lambda }=p_{\Sigma }-k$ and $k^2=0$. ThusThe result is slightly below $(M_{\Sigma }-M_{\Lambda })c^2$ because the Lambda baryon recoils; rounded masses give about $74.5\mathrm{MeV}$.

The channels $n{\pi }^0$ and $p{\pi }^{-}$ are actually kinematically open: their total rest energies are about $1075$ and $1078\mathrm{MeV}$, below $M_{\Sigma }{c}^2\simeq 1193\mathrm{MeV}$. Their suppression is therefore not a decay threshold prohibition. Each changes strangeness from $-1$ to zero and so requires a weak interaction. The much faster allowed electromagnetic transition makes such weak branching fractions extremely small. “Not observed” should be understood as overwhelming electromagnetic competition, not an exact ban in the Standard Model. The photon identification likewise uses the known low-energy spectrum and dominant transition mechanism, not neutrality alone.

The nuclear binding energy is the separated-nucleon rest energy minus the bound-state rest energy. Consistent nuclear masses avoid atomic-electron bookkeeping:It is positive because the bound deuteron has lower total energy.

Smooth-model fission energy. Use natural units $c=1$, so the quoted nuclear masses are expressed as rest energies. Conservation of mass number and atomic number fixes the second fragment to $(A_2,Z_2)=((1-y)A,(1-y)Z)$. First omit nuclear pairing to compare a continuous range of $y$. Pairing can subsequently add ${\delta }_1+{\delta }_2-{\delta }_{\mathrm{parent}}$ for integer fragments; it has no smooth parity assignment for arbitrary real $y$.

In the parent-minus-daughters mass difference, the nucleon rest energy and volume terms cancel. The nuclear symmetry energy also cancels because both fragments have the same $Z/A$:The remaining liquid-drop fission energy isSplitting increases the surface energy cost, but reduces nuclear Coulomb energy. Both contributions are symmetric under $y\leftrightarrow 1-y$, so the symmetric split is stationary. Symmetry alone would not establish a maximum, since the two contributions compete.

For a full check, put $S=a_S{A}^{2/3}$, $x=a_C{Z}^2/(a_{S}A)$ and $t=y^{1/3}+(1-y{)}^{1/3}$. On $0\le y\le 1/2$, $t$ increases from $1$ to $2^{2/3}$. Expressing the two fractional-power sums through $t$ givesThe derivative can change sign only from negative to positive, so any interior stationary point in $t$ is a minimum. The largest value is therefore either the no-split endpoint $Q=0$ or the symmetric split. Thus symmetric fission maximizes the positive liquid-drop energy release: whenever this smooth model permits an exothermic split, its largest release occurs at $y=1/2$.

There is a qualification to the paper's unqualified wording. For arbitrary low $Z^2/A$, the symmetric split need not maximize $Q$; indeed it is a local minimum when $Z^2/A<(2/5)a_S/a_C=10$. The symmetric-maximum conclusion is valid in the heavy, fission-favorable regime relevant here, rather than a universal property of the formula.

At $y=1/2$,Requiring $Q_{\mathrm{sym}}>0$ gives

Barrier and fragment yields. Positive final-state Q value does not remove the fission barrier along a deformation path. Surface energy initially rises as the nucleus deforms; spontaneous fission then requires collective quantum tunnelling unless enough excitation is present. Its rate is exponentially sensitive to barrier height, width and collective inertia. Thus nuclei close to the exothermicity threshold can have immeasurably long spontaneous-fission mean lifetimes, while sufficiently heavier nuclei have smaller effective fission barriers or larger quantum tunnelling probabilities.

The fission-fragment mass distribution of low-excitation actinide fission is usually double peaked: complementary fragments have mass fractions roughly $0.4$ and $0.6$ rather than both exactly $1/2$. Nuclear shell model effects and the fission dynamics help favor asymmetric fragments. Maximizing the final smooth-model energy release is not a calculation of the fragment yield. The following yield curve is schematic, with no measured counts implied:

Capture excitation energies. Capturing a negligible-energy neutron forms a compound nucleus with the rest energy of the target plus the free neutron. Relative to the compound ground state, the neutron-capture excitation energy is thereforewhere $B$ is positive nuclear binding energy and $S_n$ the compound nucleus's neutron separation energy. The free neutron rest energy cancels in the binding-energy difference. With the supplied semi-empirical mass formula,At $Z=92$, uranium-235 has odd $A$, while uranium-236 is even-even. The pairing contribution is $+33.5(236{)}^{-3/4}=+0.55637\mathrm{MeV}$. By contrast uranium-238 is even-even and uranium-239 has odd $A$, giving $-33.5(238{)}^{-3/4}=-0.55286\mathrm{MeV}$. The individual contributions areThus the model predictsOf the $1.48305\mathrm{MeV}$ predicted difference, $1.10922\mathrm{MeV}$ comes from the change in nuclear pairing. It is the primary reason the even-even capture product is more strongly excited; the smooth terms account for the remaining $0.37383\mathrm{MeV}$.

Thermal versus fast-neutron fission. The last comparison uses the supplied observed capture excitations, $6.5$ and $4.8\mathrm{MeV}$, rather than replacing them by the preceding smooth-model estimates. Interpreting the quoted $6.2$ and $6.6\mathrm{MeV}$ activation energies as the barriers in the respective capture channels givesA simple neutron-induced fission threshold estimate for the second channel requires about $6.6-4.8=1.8\mathrm{MeV}$ additional centre-of-mass kinetic energy. Sub-barrier tunnelling is possible, but it does not give the large thermal-neutron fission probability of the first channel.

The barrier labels in the original PDF need care: it assigns them to ${}^{235}\mathrm{U}$ and ${}^{238}\mathrm{U}$, whereas the states formed after capture are ${}^{236}{\mathrm{U}}^{\ast }$ and ${}^{239}{\mathrm{U}}^{\ast }$. The comparison above uses the intended capture-channel interpretation. If the quoted numbers are literally barriers of the uncaptured target nuclei, the compound-nucleus barriers are missing and this numerical comparison does not follow from those data alone.

In a thermal reactor, neutron moderation slows fission neutrons so the large low-energy fission cross section of uranium-235 can support a nuclear chain reaction. Fuel composition, moderator choice and geometry must balance production against capture and leakage; capture resonances of uranium-238 during slowing are important losses from that neutron population. The reaction rate per target nucleus depends on the spectrum through $\int \varphi (E){\sigma }_f(E)dE$, where $\varphi (E)$ is differential neutron flux per unit energy. A fast spectrum can access the uranium-238 fission channel and changes this balance. Also, uranium-238 is a fertile material: capture followed by two beta-minus decays can produce plutonium-239, a fissile material, so capture can contribute to breeding even when it causes no immediate fission.

Dating principle. Atmospheric cosmic rays produce secondary neutrons, which can generate carbon-14 through ${}^{14}\mathrm{N}(n,p){}^{14}\mathrm{C}$. Carbon then enters atmospheric carbon dioxide and living organisms. While an organism exchanges carbon with its environment, its carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio approximately tracks that reservoir. After exchange stops, surviving carbon-14 undergoes beta-minus decay, whereas the stable carbon remains. On the closed-sample, constant-initial-ratio model, radioactive decay givesThus radiocarbon dating infers elapsed time from the loss of an isotope ratio or of radioactive activity per fixed carbon mass. It dates cessation of carbon exchange, which need not equal the date an object was manufactured or buried. Actual calendar dating also requires radiocarbon calibration and control of contamination and reservoir differences.

Mean lifetime. For exponential decay, the half-life obeys $e^{-\lambda T_{1/2}}=1/2$, while the mean lifetime is $\tau =1/\lambda$. HenceUsing $1\mathrm{yr}=365.25\times 86400\mathrm{s}$ gives $\lambda =3.83325\times 10^{-12}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $\tau =2.60875\times 10^{11}\mathrm{s}$.

The mass minimum and beta stability. Treat the supplied masses as nuclear rest energies in $\mathrm{MeV}$, and omit nuclear pairing as instructed. At fixed mass number $A$, the volume and surface terms of the semi-empirical mass formula are constant. Expanding the remaining terms gives a convex nuclear mass parabola,The continuous minimum in atomic number is thereforeAt $A=14$, the quadratic coefficient is $7.01302\mathrm{MeV}$ and $Z_{\ast }=6.79450$. The nearest integer is $Z=7$; the nuclear isobar of minimum mass is nitrogen-14. Maximizing nuclear binding energy alone would omit the neutron-proton rest-mass difference; its continuous optimum is slightly different, but also selects integer $Z=7$ here.

The values most useful for checking neighboring decay thresholds areConsequently carbon-14 can lower its nuclear mass by changing a neutron into a proton:For bare nuclear masses, the Q value must include the emitted electron mass. Taking $m_e{c}^2=0.511\mathrm{MeV}$,The opposite proton-to-neutron conversion would lead to $Z=5$, whose nuclear mass is $18.1567\mathrm{MeV}$ higher than that of carbon-14. Neither beta-plus decay nor electron capture can bridge that gap by supplying an electron-mass correction. For the nitrogen-14 daughter, both neighboring nuclear masses are higher: $Z=6$ by $4.13070\mathrm{MeV}$ and $Z=8$ by $9.89535\mathrm{MeV}$. Even electron capture to $Z=6$ has $Q=0.511-4.13070<0$. Thus the daughter has no further energetically allowed single beta decay in this model; physical nitrogen-14 is stable.

These threshold numbers belong to the supplied smooth semi-empirical mass formula, not to an accurate prediction of the carbon-14 electron spectrum or its long half-life. Semi-empirical mass errors can change beta-decay thresholds. Also, the instruction to omit nuclear pairing is a model simplification: even $A=14$ does not make physical pairing vanish, and even-even carbon and odd-odd nitrogen need not have the same pairing correction. No omitted pairing coefficient is guessed here.

Activity of modern carbon. Neglect the small contribution of other stable carbon isotopes when counting atoms in a gram. The Avogadro constant givesThe expected radioactive activity of that one gram isor approximately $15.0$ decays per minute per gram of carbon. A becquerel is one decay per second; the normalization is per gram of carbon, rather than per gram of the entire organic sample.

Artefact age. Its remaining activity fraction is $0.13/0.25008=0.51983$. Inverting the exponential decay law,This is the radiocarbon age on the supplied constant-initial-activity, $5730$-year half-life model. It is not a calibrated calendar date; the sample's historical initial ratio and any later carbon exchange are not supplied.

Choose the positive $z$ direction along the incident electron. With the neglected lepton masses and the paper's natural units, the initial four-momenta areThe squared centre-of-mass energy is the Lorentz invariantProducing the Upsilon meson as the sole final resonance requires $s=M_{{\rm Y}}^2$. The threshold positron energy is thereforeAt that beam setting, four-momentum conservation gives $E_{{\rm Y}}=E_{-}+E_{+}=12.10934\mathrm{GeV}$ and $p_{{\rm Y},z}=E_{-}-E_{+}=5.89066\mathrm{GeV}$. HenceThe resonance moves in the incident-electron direction, with velocity approximately $0.486c$. The laboratory sum of beam energies exceeds the resonance rest energy because the asymmetric beams also give it laboratory kinetic energy.

Thomas Kuhn's account is a useful corrective to a history in which scientists simply accumulate observations and replace theories whenever a contrary observation appears. It is less convincing as an exceptionless sequence governing every science. Its compatibility with scientific progress depends on what progress means.

In normal science, a community shares a scientific paradigm: exemplary achievements, accepted instruments and standards for choosing tractable problems. An unexpected result can initially be treated as a problem in the calculation or apparatus. This need not be irrational. A framework that succeeds elsewhere gives investigators reasons to check an instrument before abandoning the framework. Revolutionary theory change reorganizes some of those commitments instead of merely adding another measurement.^[ref]

The important contrast is between a descriptive account of how research is organized and a justification of every community's decision. Shared training can explain persistence without making persistence correct. A contrary experiment can expose a failed auxiliary hypothesis, but it can also expose a central error. The Duhem problem rules out an automatic inference from one anomalous reading to one uniquely false theory; it does not authorize indefinitely protecting a theory from independently calibrated tests.

Nor does incommensurability require complete inability to compare. Theories can change the meanings of such quantities as mass while still being compared through specified apparatus readings, limiting calculations and predictions. For instance, the relativistic energy of a free massive particle has the expansionAt $p\ll mc$, subtracting the rest energy leaves the familiar leading kinetic energy. This is an explicit connection between domains, not an assertion that every concept remained unchanged. It gives a concrete way to retain successful calculations while recognizing the earlier theory's limitations.

Progress measured as closer approach to a single final ontology is therefore not guaranteed by the historical pattern alone. Progress measured through more accurate prediction, solving independently specified problems and understanding why older models work in restricted domains is compatible with substantial conceptual change. These criteria must not be defined merely as whatever a victorious community happens to prefer.

Finally, different specializations can develop competing frameworks simultaneously. A research community need not occupy one uniform stage, and a chronological label alone does not demonstrate a crisis or revolution. The strongest use of Thomas Kuhn's account is consequently comparative: identify what changed in examples, standards and practice, then ask which changes improved scientific capacities. It explains important features of research without supplying a universal historical law or implying that all theory choices are equally good.

With $M\gg m$ and $Em\gg M^2$, one also has $E\gg M^2/m\gg M$. The denominator in a is then dominated by $2Em$, and the numerator by $E{M}^2$:This residual total energy is still much larger than the incident particle's rest energy $M$, but is a small fraction of its incident energy $E$. The target acquires most of the available energy in this high-energy, heavy-projectile limit.

The external work equals the change in relativistic kinetic energy, $W=m_e{c}^2({\gamma }_f-{\gamma }_i)$. With $m_e{c}^2=511\mathrm{keV}$,The rest energy cancels between endpoints. At these speeds, the nonrelativistic estimate $\frac{1}{2}{m}_e{c}^2(0.11^2-0.10^2)=0.53655\mathrm{keV}$ is close but slightly smaller.

Let $p$ be the incident momentum and $q_1,q_2$ the outgoing magnitudes in the laboratory frame. Transverse conservation of momentum gives $(q_1-q_2)\sin \theta =0$. For the nondegenerate symmetric scattering, $q_1=q_2=q$, and the two outgoing energies are equal, $ϵ=(E+E_0)/2$. ThenCombining these mass shell relations yieldsHere $E$ includes the incident electron's rest energy. As $E\downarrow E_0$ the limiting angle is $45^{\circ }$, consistent with the nonrelativistic equal-mass elastic collision; at large $E/E_0$ the outgoing tracks become forward directed.

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.

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 $m{c}^2$.

In the pion rest frame, momentum conservation makes the muon and neutrino momenta opposite, with common magnitude $p$. For a massless neutrino, $E_{\nu }=pc$; energy conservation and the relativistic energy-momentum relation giveSubstitute $pc=m_{\pi }{c}^2-E_{\mu }$ into the second equation. The $E_{\mu }^2$ terms cancel, leavingFor completeness, the complementary relativistic two-body decay energy is $E_{\nu }=(m_{\pi }^2-m_{\mu }^2)c^2/(2m_{\pi })$. The result is a total energy, including the muon rest energy, rather than its kinetic energy.

Interpret the quoted muon energy as total relativistic energy, and neglect energy loss in the atmosphere. The Lorentz factor, speed and Earth-frame travel time areThe muon decay law is exponential in proper time. Equivalently, time dilation makes the Earth-frame mean lifetime $\gamma {\tau }_0$. The exponential survival probability over the flight isWith $h=15000\mathrm{m}$ and ${\tau }_0=2.2\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{s}$, the elapsed proper time is $8.841\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{s}$. ThereforeThis uses the stated single incident energy and vertical trajectories. If the number were a kinetic energy, one would instead use $\gamma =1+T/(m{c}^2)$; the distinction is not silently absorbed into the rest energy.

A Lorentz invariant has the same value when the same physical system is described in any inertial frame. The components of its energy-momentum four-vector change, but their Minkowski norm does not. In particular the relativistic energy-momentum relation iswhere $M$ is the rest mass. Individual total energy and momentum are frame-dependent; the combination on the left is invariant.

For the fixed-target annihilation, the initial total laboratory energy is $E+M{c}^2$ and its total momentum is the incident particle's $\mathbf{p}$, with $c^2{p}^2=E^2-M^2{c}^4$. The centre-of-mass energy available for new-particle creation is thereforeIn the centre-of-mass frame the total momentum vanishes, so $W$ can supply the new particles' total rest energy at threshold. One does not subtract the annihilated particles' original rest energy. The excess laboratory energy beyond $W$ is associated with motion of the whole final system in the laboratory frame.

For the subsequent elastic collision, the equal and opposite transverse components of final momentum imply equal final momentum magnitudes, and hence equal final energies, for the two identical particles. By conservation of relativistic energy, each hasTheir final momentum magnitude $p_f$ and the incident momentum magnitude $p_i$ obeyLongitudinal momentum conservation gives $p_i=2p_f\cos \theta$. It follows that the equal-angle relativistic elastic scattering relation isThis derivation assumes nonzero incident kinetic energy and the stated symmetric outgoing paths. The angle between those paths is $2\theta$, which is evaluated in the two following parts.