Protons along a magnetic field line

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the time it takes for protons to travel along a magnetic field line measuring 70,000 km, given their energy of 1.6E-27 J. Participants highlight the importance of correctly applying the kinetic energy formula, E[kinetic] = 1/2mv^2, and emphasize the need for dimensional analysis to avoid nonsensical results. The conclusion drawn is that if the motion is purely parallel to the magnetic field line, the concept of a cycle may not apply, leading to the assertion that the travel time could be infinitely long.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinetic energy calculations using E[kinetic] = 1/2mv^2
  • Familiarity with the properties of protons and electrons, specifically their masses (M[Proton] = 1.677E-27 Kg, M[Electron] = 9.1E-31 Kg)
  • Knowledge of dimensional analysis in physics
  • Basic concepts of magnetic fields and their effects on charged particles
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of magnetic fields on particle motion
  • Study the principles of dimensional analysis in physics problems
  • Explore advanced kinetic energy applications in particle physics
  • Learn about the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields using simulations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism and particle dynamics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to kinetic energy and magnetic fields.

AndrewC1994
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
1. A Magnetic field line has a length of 70,000 [Km], for this example all particles have an energy of 1.6E-27 [J]. Assuming all motion is parallel to the magnetic field line how long would it take to complete this cycle.2. M[Proton] = 1.677E-27 [Kg] , M[Electron] = 9.1E-31 [Kg] , E[kinetic] = 1/2mv^2, Distance = d=vt , J = 1 kg*m^2/s^23. I'm stuck in the set up. I multiplied the energy given time the mass of the proton, then multiplied it by distance just still ended up with some obscene number with units m/s^2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Andy, welcome to PF :smile: !

Something pretty wrong here. Is this really the correct problem statement ?
(Because then there is no cycle, so the answer would be: infinitely long...)

And you aren't just stuck in the setup, but also in the dimensions.
Just chucking a lot of stuff in a bucket, heating it and then expecting to get gold is naive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
767
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K