How Is Neutron Density Distributed in a Monoenergetic Beam?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the neutron density distribution function for a monoenergetic neutron beam, expressed as n(x, ω) = n/π δ(μ - 1), where μ is the cosine of the angle between the neutron direction and the x-axis. Participants verify the integration of the density function over solid angles, confirming it yields the total neutron density. There is uncertainty regarding the inclusion of a factor of 1/2 in the integral, with some suggesting it may arise from the properties of the Dirac delta function. The conversation also touches on the implications of using the delta function in terms of angular dependence, noting that it indicates all power is concentrated at a specific angle. Overall, the thread explores both the mathematical rigor and physical interpretation of the neutron density distribution in the context of particle physics.
dRic2
Gold Member
Messages
887
Reaction score
225

Homework Statement


Show that the neutron density distribution function at any point in a monodirectional beam of monoenergetic neutrons moving along the x-axis is given by
$$n(x, \mathbf \omega) = \frac n {\pi} \delta( \mu -1)$$
where ##n## is the neutron density, ##\delta( \mu -1)## is the Dirac delta function, and ##\mu## is the cosine of the angle between ##\mathbf \omega## and the x-axis.

Homework Equations


##\int_{\Omega} n(x, \mathbf \omega) d \Omega = n##

The Attempt at a Solution


I simply checked that integrating over the solid angle gives the total neutron density:
$$\int_{\Omega} \frac n {\pi} \delta( cos \theta -1) sin \theta d \theta d \phi $$
## \mu = cos \theta \rightarrow d \mu = -sin\theta d \theta## and by the properties of Dirac's delta function the above integral reduces to
$$\frac n {\pi} \frac 1 2 2 \pi = n$$

I think this is a valid proof, but I'm not very sure how to "derive" the expression in the first place. For example: why the Dirac's delta function is expressed in terms of ##cos \theta## instead of just ## \theta## ?

Thanks
Ric
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Where did the ## \frac{1}{2} ## come from? Otherwise what you did looks correct. I would have though the original expression needs an extra factor of ## \frac{1}{2} ##. Perhaps I'm mistaken. ## \\ ## Evaluating=i.e. integrating a delta function to the endpoint of integration (where the argument goes to zero) as opposed to integrating through it looks to be somewhat problematic.## \\ ## Edit: Perhaps that is where the 1/2 comes from=I don't know how "sound" that is mathematically. I generally try to avoid that type of ambiguity. If it can be agreed upon that ## \int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} \delta(x) \, dx=\frac{1}{2} ##, then I guess you can say it works.
 
Last edited:
Charles Link said:
Edit: Perhaps that is where the 1/2 comes from=I don't know how "sound" that is mathematically. I generally try to avoid that type of ambiguity. If it can be agreed upon that +∞∫0δ(x)dx=12∫0+∞δ(x)dx=12 \int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} \delta(x) \, dx=\frac{1}{2} , then I guess you can say it works.

Yes, sorry for not specifying. I'm still not very familiar with Dirac's delta function so I do not know how to state it with the proper mathematical rigor.

BTW I do not like my "proof" because it doesn't really tell you where that expression comes from, do you have any suggestions about it ?
 
This one reminds me of the scattering that occurs from a cone that scatters the incident beam into a ring at angle ## \theta= \theta_o ##. ## \\ ## By inspection ## \frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega}= \frac{A_{base}}{2 \pi \sin{\theta}} \delta(\theta-\theta_o) ## in spherical coordinates, because integrating it over ## d \Omega ## must give ## \sigma_{total}= A_{base} ##. ## \\ ## The ## \frac{\delta(\theta-\theta_o)}{\sin{\theta}} ## can also be written as ## \delta(\cos{\theta}-\cos{\theta_o}) ##. ## \\ ## See this post where this delta function with an angle in its argument just came up the other day=(see post 2): https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...a-rutherfords-experiment.965947/#post-6131309 ## \\ ## Basically ## \delta(f(x)-f(a))=\frac{\delta(x-a)}{|f'(x)| } =\frac{\delta(x-a)}{|f'(a)|} ## if I'm not mistaken. (Calling it ## f'(a) ## in the very last step might be incorrect. If ## f'(a)=0 ##, it might need to remain as ## f'(x) ##).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dRic2
Sorry for the late replay. You gave me an excellent idea, but I still can't get the whole thing together. I have to think this through very carefully
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that with a delta function representation of the beam, you do not get any information on the ## \theta ## dependence other than that it is located at one angle ## \theta_o ##. The delta function can be represented by very narrow Gaussians or other shapes, but these shapes essentially have zero width. ## \\ ## Once again, there is no information on the ## \theta ## dependence other than that it all the power appears at one specific direction. ## \\ ## In this case, all the power is where ## cos{\theta_o}=1 ##. The form that the delta function takes on for ## n ##, (or intensity ## I ##), is such that ## P_{total}=\int I \, d \Omega ##. The form of the delta function for the intensity ## I=I(\theta, \phi) ## can normally be written down by simply looking at this integral ## P_{total}=\int I \, d \Omega=\iint I(\theta, \phi) \, \sin{\theta} \, d \theta \, d \phi ## result. ## \\ ## The case you have is complicated by the fact that the intensity is at angle ## \theta_o=0 ## so that the integration could not take place on both sides of the delta function peak. Delta functions are normally considered to be symmetric about ## x=0 ## and thereby this one could be considered to have a 1/2 factor, i.e. ## \frac{1}{2}=\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} \delta(x) \, dx ##, where ## 1=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta(x) \, dx ##.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I'm not replying but I have been busy with exams in these days. I have to figure out by my self so I do not know what to add to your post. Thanks a lot. (Sorry for the errors but I'm with my phone setted to an other language and it is correcting everything)
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K