Vanadium 50 said:
could --> should. H- means something very different than an antiproton.
If I fire an antiproton into a nucleus 10 times, I'll get 10 different outcomes. Sometimes a few pions, sometimes many, sometimes mostly charged, sometimes mostly neutral. So the concept of a "debris spectrum" isn't really relevant.
There is a small effect based on the target Z. For large Z the nuclear electric field is stronger than for small Z, so pi+''s will be more energetic on average (because they are being repelled by the nucleus) and pi-'s will be less energetic on average (because they are being attracted by the nucleus).
Yes, my furtive substitution of modals entails a moral indiscretion. Soon I'll be making spelling errors. William Safire will weigh in.
By 'collision' I should clarify this is at or below 10 Kelvin (to keep them slow, the slower the better).
Here is a lengthy description of my setup:
I have a small (evacuated) chamber with beryllium and the bottom and lead at the top. (I don't really have this, and my university probably wouldn't let me near their shop; I'm lying through my teeth). antihydrogen atoms (not protons) are introduced.
They are not fired (which suggests quite some velocity; I should have avoided the term collided), better to say: come in contact with either the top or bottom. The positron/antiproton interacts with either a high-mass atom (surface-lattice, to be precise) at the top, or with a low mass atom at the bottom.
From what you say about proton-antiproton differences, is it reasonable to think there will be a statistical difference in the distribution of debris-species spectra with respect to antihydrogen proper?
If I run my experiment long enough, I will see whether anti-H falls or rises without having to train separate detectors on the bottom and top of the vessel. Naturally, the thing must be shielded from stray radiation, confounding fields, and the like.
Over a long run I'm thinking there should/could be peaks in the spectrum of debris showing a bias for top or bottom.