Mass spectometer and relativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter evelyncanarvon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Relativity
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around designing a mass spectrometer capable of measuring the speed of electrons traveling at relativistic speeds (0.998c). Participants are exploring how special relativity impacts the design and functioning of the spectrometer, particularly in terms of mass, distance, and field setup.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss whether the design of the mass spectrometer remains fundamentally the same and how to account for relativistic effects such as mass increase and length contraction. Questions arise about the implications of the Lorentz factor on the measurements and the setup of magnetic and electric fields.

Discussion Status

There is an active exchange of ideas, with participants attempting to clarify the relationship between relativistic equations and the traditional mass spectrometer equations. Some guidance has been offered regarding the application of the Lorentz force and the need to consider relativistic momentum, but no consensus has been reached on specific adjustments needed for the design.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of relativistic physics, including how to adjust measurements and equations for the effects of traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. There is an acknowledgment of potential confusion regarding the application of the Lorentz factor in various contexts.

evelyncanarvon
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi, I had a homework question in my physics class that I'm not totally sure about. We're supposed to design (not actually build, just explain on paper) a mass spectrometer that can measure the speed of electrons going at .998c, so taking into account special relativity. Here are my questions:

Would it basically be the same as a normal spectrometer, same design?

How would you account for relativity? I think you would assume that the mass would get bigger in your reference frame, so you would have to divide by that lorentz factor to get the object's rest mass. Is this right? What about length contraction? Do you just multiply r by the lorentz factor?

Also, how would you actually set up the magnetic field and the electric field?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your mass spectrometer would basically still have the same design. I think the problem has to do with where the electrons will land after their partial orbit of the magnetic field so the only change necessary is in the equation of motion for the electron. So instead of "mass times acceleration" you will use
[tex]\frac{d\vec p}{dt}[/tex].

The Lorentz force (due to the magnetic field) should remain unchanged. You will also have to consider how large to make the device and what the magnetic field strength will be to accommodate that size.
 
Thanks for your prompt reply! So the distance they travel would change? Would it just be multiplied by the lorentz factor? I'm still a little confused.
 
evelyncanarvon said:
Thanks for your prompt reply! So the distance they travel would change? Would it just be multiplied by the lorentz factor? I'm still a little confused.

Remember

[tex]\vec p = \gamma m_0 \vec v[/tex]
 
Hmmm... I still don't totally understand. Here's what I have so far.

Not taking into account relativity, the mass of the electron measured by the spectrometer will equal

B^2*e*R/E

where B is the magnetic field, e is the charge of the electron, R is the radius of the circle it travels in (one-half the distance from the end of the velocity filter to the plate that catches the electrons at the end), and E is the electric field.

How do I adjust this for relativity?

There would be length contraction for the electron, so would I have to divide R by the lorentz factor? Or would I just assume that the M measured would be too large and divide the entire thing by the lorentz factor?

Sorry, but I don't understand what I can do with your previous statement.
 
Okay, Tide, I kinda get what you're saying.

dp/dt = qvB

p= mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

but how do you translate these to make them equal each other?

How do you transform the second equation to become a variation of mv^2/r ?

If you have to take its derivative, it'll get really ugly... unless you don't need to take the derivative of the lorentz part. Is that just a constant?
 
Last edited:
evelyncanarvon said:
Okay, Tide, I kinda get what you're saying.

dp/dt = qvB

p= mv/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

but how do you translate these to make them equal each other?

How do you transform the second equation to become a variation of mv^2/r ?

If you have to take its derivative, it'll get really ugly... unless you don't need to take the derivative of the lorentz part. Is that just a constant?

Make sure you recognize that the differential equation is a VECTOR equation! Namely,
[tex]\frac {d \vec p}{dt} = q \vec v \times \vec B[/tex]

You should have no trouble deducing that [itex]p^2[/itex] is a constant which means that [itex]v^2[/itex] is a constant and, therefore, so is [itex]\gamma[/itex].

You end up with (after a little rearranging)
[tex]\frac {d \vec v}{dt} = \frac {q}{\gamma m} \vec v \times \vec B[/tex]

Now, remember [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a constant so you can solve the differential equations it just like you did for the nonrelativistic case.
 
Thanks for your help! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K