I probably did something wrong when i tried to find the dimensions and yes i think you are right that c = 1 is implied. I got the equation from an old article called "Deuteron and triton production with high energy sulphur and lead beams". It's from 2001, so you might not be able to find it on...
Of course, i didn't even consider that. Okay, so i guess the coalescence factor has dimensions of:
\frac{ev^{2}s}{m}
I'm still not sure exactly sure about what the coalescence factor is though.
I am reading an article on experimental nuclear physics. The article is about deuteron and triton production in Pb + Pb collisions. In the article they mention the coalescence factor which is given by:
B_{A}=A\frac{2s_{A}+1}{2^{A}}R^{N}_{np}\left(\frac{h^{3}}{m_{p}\gamma V}\right)^{A-1}...
I think you're right. But i think the SPS was upgraded from 400 Gev to 450 Gev when it was to be used as a pre-accelerator for the LHC. The experiment from my article was done way back in 2000, when the SPS was probably still operating at 400 Gev.
Ah, well that certainly explains it. Beautiful how the max energy of the sps works out to be exactly the energy mentioned in the article. Thank you for your help Bill!
I have an exam in introductory nuclear physics coming up in 2 days. I am supposed to present an article which i have already drawn. The article is about heavy ion collisions in the SPS accelerator at CERN. They keep mentioning that the experiment uses Pb + Pb collisions at 158 A*Gev/c beam...
Looking at Linear Ion Trap: "or as an actual trap by creating a potential well for the ions along the axis of the electrodes." So it seems that it is possible to create an electromagnetic potential well after all.
Well yes, in that article it certainly seems like they are able to make an electrostatic potential well. So it seems to be possible. I wonder why Paul traps are so complicated then.
I was having a discussion with my friend the other day. He had just attended a lecture about Paul traps. He told me that the Paul trap potential has a stationary point in the middle, which is a saddle point, and that the 2 pairs of opposite poles are oscillating between being positive and...
Thank your for your answer. I didn't know the equation you wrote in the first paragraph (equality between bases), very enlightening. I had the picture of the vector having a direction and magnitude regardless of base, however i was unable to imagine how you could talk about direction without...
When reading in Griffiths and on Wikipedia about the vector space formulation of wavefunctions, i am constantly faced with the statement that a vector can be expressed in different bases, but that it's still the same vector. However, I'm having a hard time imagining what it is about a vector...
Nevermind i solved it!
After reading my last post over, i realized that i should use Faradays law of induction as the more general law, rather than IR=vBl which is a solution to Faradays law in a particular situation. I then obtained the same answer as in the solutions sheet.
Maybe i should add that RI=vBr is derived from Faradays law of induction, stating that the induced EMF is equal to the closed path integral of E+v X B with respect to l (path of the circuit), and Ohm's law stating that the EMF is equal to RI when looking at the entire circuit. I only integrate...
Homework Statement
A light bulb with resistance R is attached on a metal rod which is rotating around the point O on the figure. The metal rod is in contact with an electrical conductor which is a part of a circle with radius d. The metal rod and the circular electrical conductor is a closed...