Does Repeated Particle Interactions Lead to Underestimating Energy Loss?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the method of calculating energy loss in a particle after multiple interactions, specifically whether convolving the energy loss distribution for each interaction leads to an accurate representation of total energy loss. The scope includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning related to particle interactions and energy distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether convolving the energy loss distribution for two interactions is appropriate, suggesting that the distributions may not be the same due to changes in energy after the first interaction.
  • Another participant confirms that there are two random variables involved, each with its own distribution function, and raises the question of whether the same distribution can be assumed for both interactions.
  • A later reply expresses caution about using the same distribution, indicating that the energy loss distribution for the second interaction is likely to differ due to the reduced energy of the particle after the first interaction.
  • One participant suggests that the calculations may overestimate the energy loss, while another counters that energy loss for lower-energetic particles can be larger, implying a potential underestimation of energy loss in certain scenarios.
  • There is a mention of a mathematically sound approach involving integration over intermediate energies to determine the probability of final energy, suggesting that simplifications may not hold universally.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the same energy loss distribution can be applied to multiple interactions, indicating a lack of consensus on the method's validity and implications for energy loss estimation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on the initial energy of the particle and the potential changes in energy loss distributions after interactions, which may affect the accuracy of the convolution method. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the distributions and the conditions under which simplifications may or may not be valid.

Ado
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Hi !
I'm not sure to post my question in the right place so I'm sorry if I'm wrong...!
I have a particle associated with a certain spectrum in energy S (differential cross section).
When the particle interacts I use this distribution to have the energy lost.
Now, if my particle interacts 2 times, to have the distribution associated, I convolve 2 times my first distribution.
Am I wrong ?

Thanks in advance !
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: amina ltam
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two random variables involved, energy loss first interaction, energy loss second interaction. Each of these has a distribution function. To get the distribution of the total energy loss, you can use the convolution of these distribution functions. Your assumption is that they are the same - are they?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: amina ltam
I wanted to confirm that I could apply this method in this situation.
Thanks for your reply !
 
I would be careful about using the same distribution. After the first interaction, the particle has less energy, so I would expect the energy loss distribution for the second interaction to be different..
 
Yes, I expect these calculations to overestimate the reality !

Thx!
 
Overestimate in which way? Energy loss for lower-energetic particles can be larger, then you underestimate the energy loss.

For each final energy, you can integrate over the intermediate energy to get the probability of this final energy. That is the mathematically sound approach - simplifications might work depending on the situation.
 
Yes, in this sense, we underestimate the energy loss.
Thanks for all your answers!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K