I Could one preserve polarized neutrons from decaying with a high B-field?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter francois lamarche
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of preserving polarized neutrons from decaying by using a high magnetic field. It suggests that achieving the necessary field strength could require thousands of Teslas, with some speculation that weaker fields might show effects. The differing gyromagnetic ratios of neutrons and protons lead to distinct energy shifts in magnetic fields, complicating the preservation of neutrons. Concerns are raised about electron spin states being affected by strong fields, which could favor beta decay in one direction. Ultimately, the consensus is that the required magnetic fields would be impractically high, and the physics involved presents significant challenges to blocking neutron decay.
francois lamarche
Messages
2
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Since the magnetic dipoles of neutrons and protons are different, they have different energy shifts in a strong magnetic field. How strong of a magnetic field would you need to affect the rate of decay of neutrons into protons?
I have to yet done the order-of-magnitude calculation yet, but I suspect it will be thousands of Testlas... But maybe one could already see some effect with a weaker field?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
francois lamarche said:
TL;DR Summary: Since the magnetic dipoles of neutrons and protons are different, they have different energy shifts in a strong magnetic field. How strong of a magnetic field would you need to affect the rate of decay of neutrons into protons?

I have to yet done the order-of-magnitude calculation yet, but I suspect it will be thousands of Testlas... But maybe one could already see some effect with a weaker field?
I suspect it is not possible.
It would be many more orders of magnitude, but not even that would work.

p has NMR frequency of 1 GHz at 23,5 T.
n´s gyromagnetic ratio is a bit under 70% that of proton
Note that this under 700 MHz is the split both ways from the energy level in absence of field. The shift in n-p energy spread would be just a but over 15 % of the full resonance frequency of proton, or about 6,5 MHz/T

1 eV would correspond to 242 THz, or 1240 nm, in near infrared. Which seem to means that the NMR resonance frequencies of nuclei would go to a few eV - visible light - in MT range, and into MeV, the range of hard γ rays and nuclear reactions, in TT range.

But the problem with it is ESR. Electron also has gyromagnetic ratio (much bigger than that of nuclei). If the magnetic field shifts the energy levels of proton and neutron, it would also shift the energy level of the electron to form by beta decay... and it would shift the two electron spin states in opposite directions. Then applying a strong field would always favour beta decay to one of the electron spin direction. I don´t quite see how to block beta decay to favourite electron spin, but maybe someone else knows restrictions there.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes francois lamarche and berkeman
Magnetic fields do no work.
 
snorkack said:
I suspect it is not possible.
It would be many more orders of magnitude, but not even that would work.

p has NMR frequency of 1 GHz at 23,5 T.
n´s gyromagnetic ratio is a bit under 70% that of proton
Note that this under 700 MHz is the split both ways from the energy level in absence of field. The shift in n-p energy spread would be just a but over 15 % of the full resonance frequency of proton, or about 6,5 MHz/T

1 eV would correspond to 242 THz, or 1240 nm, in near infrared. Which seem to means that the NMR resonance frequencies of nuclei would go to a few eV - visible light - in MT range, and into MeV, the range of hard γ rays and nuclear reactions, in TT range.

But the problem with it is ESR. Electron also has gyromagnetic ratio (much bigger than that of nuclei). If the magnetic field shifts the energy levels of proton and neutron, it would also shift the energy level of the electron to form by beta decay... and it would shift the two electron spin states in opposite directions. Then applying a strong field would always favour beta decay to one of the electron spin direction. I don´t quite see how to block beta decay to favourite electron spin, but maybe someone else knows restrictions there.
Thanks... I realized it would take PetaTeslas... and then I realized I had not thought about how the electron split played into it - very good answer.
 
Here's why this won't work.

Magnetic fields do no work. So you will not be in a position for any blocking due to the electron's motion. If you want to have this a consequence of the electron's spin, you have two problems. One is that the mass difference is greater than 2m(e), so if you tried to create a field this strong, you would simply pop e+ e- pairs out of the vacuum (a process called "vacuum sparking".) The other problem is that you can always flip the spin of an electron through the emission of a photon.

With electric and color fields you can do this, but not with free neutrons. if you have a neutron in a nucleus, you can energetically block all the possible decay channels. This is why a neutron in a deuterium nucleus is stable: if it becomes a proton, it is sitting right next to another proton, and this is energetically impossible.
 
Thread 'Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms'
My question is about the following graph: I keep on reading that fusing atoms up until Fe-56 doesn’t cost energy and only releases binding energy. However, I understood that fusing atoms also require energy to overcome the positive charges of the protons. Where does that energy go after fusion? Does it go into the mass of the newly fused atom, escape as heat or is the released binding energy shown in the graph actually the net energy after subtracting the required fusion energy? I...
Hello everyone, I am trying to calculate the energy loss and straggling of alpha particles with same energy, I used LISE++ to obtain the energy loss in every layer of the materials using Spectrometer Design of LISE++, but I can only calculate the energy-loss straggling layer by layer. Does anyone know the way to obtain the energy-loss straggling caused by every layer? Any help would be appreciated. J.