What is the distribution of energy for beta-minus decay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sniffer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Spectrum
sniffer
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
i read a book and it mentioned energy spectrum of "typical" beta-minus decay. Look at the attachment.
is this correct/sensible? i thought it should look more like a normal distributed curve.

tell me if the book is wrong.

thanks.
 

Attachments

  • betaminus-energyspectrum.GIF
    betaminus-energyspectrum.GIF
    4.3 KB · Views: 694
Physics news on Phys.org
halo guys.

can somebody help me with this simple question please ... :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
sniffer said:
halo guys.

can somebody help me with this simple question please ... :cry: :cry: :cry:

Ok.

See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/beta.html#c5. It was this form of the energy spectrum that has required the physicists to introduce the neutrino in the beta decay reactions.

Seratend.
 
I don't quite get this, either.

If the question is about why is distribution symmetrical or not, answer is given here :

"It accounts for the nuclear coulomb interaction which shifts this distribution toward lower energies because of the coulomb attraction between the daughter nucleus and the emitted electron. (It shifts the distribution upward for positrons.)"

If you were wondering why is there finite "cutoff" at 0 kinetic energy and not finite (in the sense it's zero) at 0 momentum, I don't know. This doesn't make sense...

And if the parent nucleus has zero momentum in CM frame, how come there is a finite number of electrons with zero kinetic energy ? That should mean that in that case, neutrinos are also having zero kinetic energy (conservation of momentum). Now if there comes up electron with nonzero kin. energy, then neutrino should also have nonzero kin. energy, and sum of energies in this case and in the case where they are both just "standing" is different. :confused:
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top