Annoying detail in derivation of Compton scattering

In summary, Compton's 1923 paper discusses X-ray scattering from light elements and presents a diagram showing the momentum of the incident and scattered photons, as well as the recoiled electron. He uses this to demonstrate conservation of momentum, expressed through a formula involving the cosine rule. There is some confusion about the plus sign in the cosine term, but this has been addressed by previous research.
  • #1
crossword.bob
11
4
TL;DR Summary
Looking for an explanation of one term in the Compton's original derivation of X-ray scattering
In Compton's 1923 paper on X-rays scattering from light elements, he presents the following diagram:
Compton.jpg

Here, ## h\nu_0/c ## is the momentum of the incident photon, ## h\nu_\theta/c ## is that of the scattered photon and ## mv/(1-\beta^2)^{1/2} ## is that of the recoiled electron. He uses this to express conservation of momentum as $$\left(\frac{m\beta c}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}\right)^2 = \left(\frac{h\nu_0}{c}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{h\nu_\theta}{c}\right)^2 + 2 \frac{h\nu_0}{c}\cdot\frac{h\nu_\theta}{c}\cos\theta.$$

I probably shouldn't obsess over details here, but the plus sign on the ##\cos## term is annoying me. Is this not just a simple invocation of the cosine rule? Is one of the terms taken to be negative?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sorry, I’ve now seen that this is a known thing. I’ll work on my search-fu.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

FAQ: Annoying detail in derivation of Compton scattering

What is Compton scattering?

Compton scattering is a phenomenon in which a photon (particle of light) collides with a charged particle, such as an electron, and transfers some of its energy to the particle. This results in a change in the wavelength of the photon, known as the Compton effect.

What is the annoying detail in the derivation of Compton scattering?

The annoying detail in the derivation of Compton scattering is the assumption that the electron is free and at rest before the collision with the photon. This assumption does not accurately reflect the real-life scenario, as electrons are constantly in motion and may be bound to other particles.

How does this assumption affect the accuracy of the derivation?

This assumption leads to a simplified equation for the change in wavelength of the scattered photon, which may not accurately reflect the actual change in wavelength in a real-world scenario. It also ignores the effects of other particles and forces that may be present during the collision.

Are there any alternative derivations of Compton scattering that do not rely on this assumption?

Yes, there are alternative derivations that take into account the motion and binding of the electron before the collision. These derivations are more complex and involve incorporating the effects of other particles and forces, but they provide a more accurate representation of the phenomenon.

Why is it important to consider this annoying detail in the derivation of Compton scattering?

Considering this detail is important because it allows for a more accurate understanding and prediction of the behavior of photons and electrons in a collision. It also helps to improve our overall understanding of the fundamental principles of physics and how they apply to real-world scenarios.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
940
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Back
Top