Let $N_{\mathrm{inc}}$ be the number of projectiles actually incident on the foil during an exposure, $n_s$ its foil areal number density, and $\eta$ the probability of detecting an accepted particle. For a sufficiently small detector patch of area $A$ at distance $R$ from the scattering point, with its normal at angle $\psi$ to the line of sight,The product $n_s(d\sigma /d\Omega )\Delta \Omega$ is a dimensionless scattering probability in this approximation; $\mu$ is an expected value of counts, so it need not be an integer. The approximation requires a nearly constant differential scattering cross-section and efficiency across the patch and incident beam. For finite acceptance use $\mu =N_{\mathrm{inc}}{n}_s{\int }_{\mathrm{detector}}\eta (\Omega )(d\sigma /d\Omega )d\Omega$, including the incident beam's spread if appreciable. A screen facing the foil has $\psi =0$.

For an original numerical model, stipulate monoenergetic alpha particles with $z=2$, $E=5.00\mathrm{MeV}$, and a gold target with $Z=79$. Use the rounded model constant $e^2/(4\pi {\epsilon }_0)=1.440\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$, where $1\mathrm{MeV}=10^6$ electronvolts and $1\mathrm{fm}=10^{-15}\mathrm{m}$. Thus $\kappa =227.52\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$ and $a=22.752\mathrm{fm}$. Choose $N_{\mathrm{inc}}=10^{11}$, $n_s=10^{21}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, $\eta =1$, and $\Delta \Omega =10^{-3}\mathrm{sr}$. For example, $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ facing the foil at $R\simeq 31.6\mathrm{mm}$ gives this small-patch solid angle.

At $\theta =90^{\circ }$, $b=a$ and $d\sigma /d\Omega =a^2=517.654\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}=5.17654\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, using $1$ barn $=100\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2=10^{-28}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The expected signal is $\mu \simeq 51.8$ counts. At $60^{\circ }$ it is four times larger, about $207$ counts. Doubling foil areal number density or detector solid angle doubles these expected signals as long as the approximations continue to hold.

An observation also contains backgrounds. For a stable source and matched geometry, an estimator is $C_{\mathrm{net}}=C_{\mathrm{foil}}-(T_{\mathrm{foil}}/T_{\mathrm{blank}})C_{\mathrm{blank}}$, where $T$ denotes exposure duration. If source activity changes, normalize by incident exposure as well. Background subtraction removes an estimated background; it does not make finite counting fluctuations disappear.

For an incident beam uniform across its relevant impact parameters, an incident annulus has area $d\sigma =2\pi b|db|$. Rotational symmetry maps it to outgoing solid angle $d\Omega =2\pi \sin \theta d\theta$. The central-potential classical differential cross-section and the Rutherford impact-parameter relation therefore giveThis is a differential scattering cross-section, with units of area per steradian, conventionally ${\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, not a detector count and not an area per degree. It applies for $0<\theta <\pi$, with a finite limiting value at $\pi$. Doubling incident kinetic energy divides it by four at fixed angle; doubling either electric charge number multiplies it by four.

A useful independent check integrates over all azimuths between two positive angles. For $0<{\theta }_1<{\theta }_2\le \pi$,This equals the incident annulus area $\pi (b_1^2-b_2^2)$ directly. A detector covering only a small patch at one angle does not collect this full azimuthal band.

Let $\theta$ be the scattering angle between incoming and outgoing velocities, so forward scattering is $\theta =0$ and exact reversal is $\theta =\pi$. Define the length $a=\kappa /(2E)$. ThenFor $b>0$, this gives $0<\theta <\pi$; $b=0$ is the head-on limiting case $\theta =\pi$. Large deflections select small impact parameters, rather than requiring every incident alpha particle to reverse.

A short derivation uses conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy. Choose the polar angle $\varphi =0$ at closest approach, and write $u=1/r$. The Binet equation for the repulsive Coulomb potential givesThe last equality follows by substituting this orbit into $E=m{\dot{r}}^2/2+L^2/(2m{r}^2)+\kappa /r$. The hyperbola reaches infinity at $\varphi =\pm {\varphi }_{\infty }$, with $\cos {\varphi }_{\infty }=1/ϵ$. Its scattering angle is $\theta =\pi -2{\varphi }_{\infty }$, henceThis proves the relation without assuming that the deflection is small. The symbol $ϵ$ here is a dimensionless orbital parameter, distinct from ${\epsilon }_0$.

For a head-on repulsive Rutherford scattering encounter, relative kinetic energy becomes Coulomb potential energy at closest approach. With projectile charge $ze$ and target charge $Ze$, conservation of energy gives the displayed separation. If the Coulomb description remains valid down to that separation, it bounds the target's interaction radius from above, treating the projectile as pointlike. For a stationary target of mass $M$ and incident projectile mass $m$, use centre-of-mass energy $E_{\mathrm{cm}}=M{E}_{\mathrm{lab}}/(M+m)$; neglecting nuclear recoil amounts to $M\gg m$.

By Rüdiger Paschotta. No article date is established.

Online text: www.rp-photonics.com/faraday_effect.html

Article by Rüdiger Paschotta in RP Photonics Encyclopedia by Rüdiger Paschotta, hosted by RP Photonics. No article publication or revision date is established.

Online text: www.rp-photonics.com/refractive_index.html

Cited passages: What is a Refractive Index?; Wavelength Dependence and Other Dependencies; Anisotropic Media; Complex Refractive Index; Group Index and Effective Index; Measuring Refractive Indices.

A simple isolated particle resonance model starts with a survival amplitude proportional toIts survival probability is $|a(t){|}^2=e^{-\Gamma t/\hslash }$, giving mean rest-frame lifetime $\tau =\hslash /\Gamma$. The Fourier transform of this one-sided amplitude is proportional to $(\Gamma /2-i(E-E_0){)}^{-1}$; its squared modulus gives a Lorentzian line shape. Write its normalized density asAt $E-E_0=\pm \Gamma /2$ the density is half its peak, so its intrinsic full width at half maximum is $\Gamma$. This is a local isolated-line approximation, extending the offset coordinate over the real line; physical production thresholds, interference and energy-dependent decay widths can require a richer quantum scattering model.

Now stipulate a centered normal distribution for the measurement response, with standard deviation $\sigma$. A measured coordinate $x$ has densityThis convolution describes the smearing of an underlying line, with constant acceptance and no background. For a pair spectrometer the response summarizes invariant-mass resolution; for an idealized collider scan it summarizes incoming center-of-mass energy spread. These are different experimental sources of uncertainty even when the same mathematical response is useful.

Choose an arbitrary scale $E_{\ast }$, intrinsic decay width $\Gamma =0.20E_{\ast }$ and response standard deviations $0.40E_{\ast }$ and $1.20E_{\ast }$. Numerical integration gives apparent full width at half maximum values of approximately $1.05E_{\ast }$ and $2.93E_{\ast }$, respectively. The state and its rest-frame lifetime are identical in both cases. The normal distribution's width alone is $2\sqrt{2\ln 2}\sigma$; adding that width to $\Gamma$ in quadrature is not an exact rule for this convolution.

For a purely illustrative $E_{\ast }=1\mathrm{MeV}$, taking $\hslash \simeq 6.5821\times 10^{-22}\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{s}$ gives $\tau \simeq 3.2911\times 10^{-21}\mathrm{s}$. These are invented line parameters, not J/psi meson measurements. Substituting the larger apparent width into $\hslash /\Gamma$ would incorrectly shorten the inferred lifetime by nearly a factor of fifteen. An unresolved width can support an upper bound on intrinsic decay width, and consequently a lower bound on lifetime, only after the instrumental response and model assumptions have been assessed.

The discovery peak and its later interpretation answer different questions. The J/psi meson is understood as charmonium, a bound charm quark–charm antiquark system. Richter's 1976 lecture distinguishes the initial discovery from subsequent tests of competing explanations, including the related level structure and later evidence for particles carrying uncancelled charm. A narrow peak alone did not establish all these properties in 1974.^[ref]

For a reconstructed electron–Positron pair, four-momentum conservation givesNeglecting the electron mass compared with the daughter energies, and calling the opening angle $\theta$, this becomesAs an original example, choose $E_{+}=2\mathrm{GeV}$, $E_{-}=3\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\theta =60^{\circ }$. Then $M_{ee}{c}^2=\sqrt{6}\mathrm{GeV}\simeq 2.449\mathrm{GeV}$, although the pair's laboratory energy is $5\mathrm{GeV}$. The pair carries net momentum. Neither its laboratory energy nor the original proton beam energy is its invariant mass; unobserved products carry additional four-momentum.

For equal, oppositely directed incoming beams with equal total energy $E_b$, their total momentum vanishes. Thus the incoming center-of-mass energy isStipulated $1.50\mathrm{GeV}$ beams therefore provide $3.00\mathrm{GeV}$ of incoming center-of-mass energy. This identity is exact for the stated equal-beam geometry. Radiation before annihilation can reduce the energy forming the final state; the apparatus also has a distribution of beam energies. A nominal machine setting is therefore not an exact event-by-event final-state invariant mass.

At SPEAR, counterrotating electron and Positron beams collided inside a magnetic particle detector. Finer steps in stored-beam energy resolved a sharp production peak. A magnetometer and measured orbit positions monitored the energy settings; Bhabha scattering normalized the cross sections. The paper attributed the observed width to beam-energy spread and radiation effects, reporting an upper limit on intrinsic width. Its muon identification system was not functioning: the non-electron two-body excess was not conclusively a muon pair.^[ref]

A scan must compare normalized production rates, since more selected events can result from more beam encounters or different detection efficiency. A proposed diagnostic is to revisit energies on either side of the peak while monitoring the energy calibration and event selection. Such neighboring settings test the local production background; their event totals alone are not an independent measurement of the intrinsic decay width.