COM vs Lab Total energy discrepency

physmurf
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I am reading from the book, "Nuclear Reactor Theory", by Lamarsh. I have run across an idea that I am struggling to understand:

It states that for a neutron that scatters elastically with a nucleus, the Energy in the Center of Mass (COM) frame of reference will always be slightly less than the total energy in the lab frame of reference.

For some reason I don't like this. Sure I can follow the mathematics and the explanation, but it doesn't seem right that the total energy would be the same. When I contacted my professor about this, he indicated that this is merely a classical idea. However, for some reason, this just doesn't jive with what I think should be going on.

Anybody have any conceptual explanations on why this is true?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Relativistic energy of any system in any reference frame is given by

E = \sqrt{M^2c^4 + \mathbf{P}^2c^2}...(1)

where \mathbf{P} is the total momentum and M is the rest mass, which is independent on the reference frame. In the center-of-mass frame the total momentum is zero, so the energy is E = Mc^2, which is lower than in any other reference frame (where the total momentum is non-zero).

So, the reason for the excess energy in the lab frame is the fact that the system (neutron + nucleus) has a non-zero momentum.

Eugene.
 
physmurf said:
It states that for a neutron that scatters elastically with a nucleus, the Energy in the Center of Mass (COM) frame of reference will always be slightly less than the total energy in the lab frame of reference.
...
For some reason I don't like this. Sure I can follow the mathematics and the explanation, but it doesn't seem right that the total energy would be the same.
I guess I don't get what's bugging you. The total energy will always be less in the COM frame.

(Looks like Eugene already answered.)
 
Doc Al said:
...

I guess I don't get what's bugging you. The total energy will always be less in the COM frame.

(Looks like Eugene already answered.)

Intuitively I would think that the total energy of the system should be the same no matter what frame of reference you are in... However, that is where my misconception lies...Energy is not always going to be the same in every reference frame!

I apologize for the stupid question. I appreciate your responses.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top