Betatron, Electron accerating at a constant radius

AI Thread Summary
An electron in cyclotron motion can have its kinetic energy increased by an induced electric field resulting from a time-varying magnetic field, as magnetic fields do not perform work. To demonstrate that the cyclotron radius remains constant when the magnetic field at that radius is half the average across the orbit, one must show that the derivative of the radius with respect to time is zero. The discussion highlights the challenge of proving this relationship without fully detailing the mathematical derivation. Participants suggest exploring the relationship between the changing magnetic field and the electron's velocity to support the proof. The conversation emphasizes the interplay between electric and magnetic fields in particle acceleration.
forceface
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An electron with speed v, undergoing cyclotron motion in a transverse magnetic field B(r) at cyclotron radius r0, given r0 = mv/[eB(r0)], can be accelerated by ramping the B field in time.
(a) Since magnetic fields do no work,what is increasing thwe kinetic energy of the electron?
(b) Show that if the magnetic field at r0 is half of the average across the orbit,
B(r0,t)= 1/(2πr02)∫B(r,t) da
then the radius r0 of the orbit must be constant in time. Assume nonrelativistic speeds

1. The attempt at a solution
(a) This is the easy part, since the magnetic field is changing in time an electric field is induced and that is what is increasing the kinetic energy of the electron.
(b) I have worked out why the given equation is true but I would rather not write the whole thing out. So given this equation how do I prove that the radius is constant in time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't tried working this out, but I'll suggest you could try to show that ##dr_0/dt = 0##.
 
When I try your suggestions I come up with B dv/dt = dB/dt v. But I am still not sure how this along with the intergral identity helps show what I want.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top