The use of cross section in a particle collision exercise.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a particle collision exercise involving a proton beam and a plate with specified particle density and thickness. The main equation used is W = ρlφσ, where W represents elastic collisions per second, φ is the incoming particle rate, and σ is the cross section. The confusion arises regarding the interpretation of the cross section, particularly whether it accounts for particles that continue moving after collisions. Clarifications confirm that the assumption about the cross section is correct, but also highlight that particles can retain significant velocity post-collision, contributing to the outgoing beam. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of particle interactions and encourages further exploration into elementary particle physics.
Coffee_
Messages
259
Reaction score
2
1. Situation: I have no specific exercise in mind but just the general form. ''A beam of protons is colliding with a plate of a given particle density ##\rho## and thickness ##l##. The cross section is ##\sigma##. What should the thickness of the plate be such that the intensity of the outgoing particles on the other side is 0.1 of the incoming intensity'' The exercises we made in class were literally worded like this with no more info.2. Equations: ##W=\rho l \phi \sigma## where ##W## is the amount of elastic collisions per second and ##\phi## the amount of incoming particles per second. 3. My general reasoning is something like this. If I look at a 1 second interval I have an amount ##\phi## of incoming particles, I'd like that the collision rate would be ##0.9 \phi## so that only 0.1 of the particles have not collided. In that case the relevant equation becomes ##0.9= \rho l \sigma##.

CONFUSION:

The point where I'm confused is the given cross section as I underlined. I make an implicit assumption here that this cross section is just the cross section of collision, and that after collision the particles ''dissapear'' so to speak or move very slow relative to the ingoing beam. If this isn't the case then there will be collisions after which particles will keep moving forward without losing all too much momentum and my reasoning would be wrong.

QUESTION:

Is my reasoning of a solution correct? If so, how can I lift my confusion about the meaning of the cross section in this situation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your assumption is completely correct. No confusion necessary in this simple case.

For scattering at small angles, there is no simple sigma and an angular dependence comes in.
 
BvU said:
Your assumption is completely correct. No confusion necessary in this simple case.

For scattering at small angles, there is no simple sigma and an angular dependence comes in.

Then what about the particles that keep on having a quite large velocity component in the direction after colliding? Those particles will still contribute to the outgoing beam of particles.
 
Absolutely. In fact for protons with a reasonable kinetic energy that is what normally happens: they lose energy mainly through collisions with bound electrons (which they ionize) through Coulomb interaction. Google Bethe Bloch, browse through http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/~coulon/Lectures/Detectors/Free_PDFs/Lecture2.pdf , or get it all here, but realize that you are by now way beyond the scope and level of the original exercise. Welcome to the wonderful world of elementary particle physics !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Coffee_
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top