I Change of variables clarification

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Milsomonk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change Variables
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on clarifying the change of variables in the differential cross section for a Bremsstrahlung process that produces an axion, as detailed in the referenced paper. The variable change from ##\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a}## to ##\frac{d\sigma}{d x}##, where ##x = E_a/E_e##, raises questions about correctly reversing this transformation. The user proposes a substitution method to express the cross section in terms of axion energy, but encounters contradictions in their calculations. They seek confirmation on the correct approach to express the cross section as ##\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a}## while recognizing both ##E_a## and ##E_e## as variables. The paper in question is "Axion Bremsstrahlung by an electron beam" by Yung Su Tsai (1986).
Milsomonk
Messages
100
Reaction score
17
Hi all,
I am looking for clarification on what is probably a pretty basic change of variables between a few lines in the following paper:

https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1326

Equation (9) shows the differential cross section for a Bremsstrahlung process which creates an axion instead of a photon, the cross section is expressed as a differential in ##x## where ##x=E_a/E_e##, the ratio of the emitted axion energy to initial electron energy. Between Equation (8) and (9) a change of variables takes place such that ##\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} \rightarrow \frac{d\sigma}{d x}##. What is the correct process to reverse this change of variable so that I have the cross section expressed as differential in axion energy ##E_a##? I infer that the author must have done the following substitution (I express the particular algebraic form of the cross section as ##f## for brevity):

$$ \frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = f(E_a/E_e) = f(x)$$
$$\frac{d\sigma}{d x} = \frac{d\sigma}{d E_a}\cdot \frac{dE_a}{dx} = f(x)* E_e$$

If this is correct, then to reverse the change of variables we have:

$$\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = \frac{d\sigma}{d x}*\frac{dx}{dE_a}=f(E_a/E_e)\frac{1}{E_e}$$

Or have I missed something?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Milsomonk said:
Hi all,
I am looking for clarification on what is probably a pretty basic change of variables between a few lines in the following paper:

https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1326
I'm not able to access that paper.
Milsomonk said:
Equation (9) shows the differential cross section for a Bremsstrahlung process which creates an axion instead of a photon, the cross section is expressed as a differential in ##x## where ##x=E_a/E_e##, the ratio of the emitted axion energy to initial electron energy. Between Equation (8) and (9) a change of variables takes place such that ##\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} \rightarrow \frac{d\sigma}{d x}##. What is the correct process to reverse this change of variable so that I have the cross section expressed as differential in axion energy ##E_a##? I infer that the author must have done the following substitution (I express the particular algebraic form of the cross section as ##f## for brevity):

$$ \frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = f(E_a/E_e) = f(x)$$
$$\frac{d\sigma}{d x} = \frac{d\sigma}{d E_a}\cdot \frac{dE_a}{dx} = f(x)* E_e$$
Assuming ##E_e## is a constant, then that should be straightforward.
Milsomonk said:
If this is correct, then to reverse the change of variables we have:

$$\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = \frac{d\sigma}{d x}*\frac{dx}{dE_a}=f(E_a/E_e)\frac{1}{E_e}$$
This contradicts the previous equations. Instead:
$$\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = \frac{d\sigma}{d x}*\frac{dx}{dE_a}=f(E_a/E_e) E_e\frac{1}{E_e} = f(E_a/E_e)$$
 
I think that I have seen this question before, but I could not find my post. Could you at least cite the paper (Author, title, etc.)?
 
PeroK said:
I'm not able to access that paper.

Assuming ##E_e## is a constant, then that should be straightforward.

This contradicts the previous equations. Instead:
$$\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a} = \frac{d\sigma}{d x}*\frac{dx}{dE_a}=f(E_a/E_e) E_e\frac{1}{E_e} = f(E_a/E_e)$$

Thanks for your response, both ##E_e## and ##E_a## are variables, not constant.
 
fresh_42 said:
I think that I have seen this question before, but I could not find my post. Could you at least cite the paper (Author, title, etc.)?

The paper is "Axion Bremsstrahlung by an electron beam" - Yung Su Tsai (1986)
 
I have got a stage where I have a cross section of the form:

$$ \frac{d\sigma}{dx} = A\cdot x$$

Where ##x=\frac{E_a}{E_e}##, ##E_a## and ##E_e## are both variables, ##A## is a constant and I wish to express the cross section as ##\frac{d\sigma}{d E_a}##. But I am not sure how to do this change of variables correctly.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top