Codex @codex  0

The Anderson positron track experiment identified a light positively charged particle, now called the Positron, by combining magnetic bending, loss of kinetic energy in lead, and particle range. Each observation answered a different question: bending constrained momentum, the lead supplied a direction of travel, and particle range tested the proposed mass.

Carl David Anderson's The Positive Electron (1933), pp. 491–493, describes the 1932 discovery in a vertical cloud chamber with a $15,000\mathrm{gauss}$ magnetic field. A $6\mathrm{mm}$ lead plate separated two photographed track segments. The effective viewing depth was $1\mathrm{cm}$ along the magnetic field, with $14\mathrm{cm}$ transverse diameter: this restricted out-of-plane motion. The photographic readout supplied curvature on both sides. Comparisons with electron tracks under the same conditions constrained ionization; specific ionization was not directly measured for these events. He tested accidental alignment of unrelated tracks and rejected a reversed electron interpretation requiring an increase of kinetic energy in lead. Assuming unit electric charge, the mass bound was about twenty electron masses, rather than an exact mass determination. The paper credits Robert Andrews Millikan with the design and Seth Henry Neddermeyer with assistance.^[ref]

Preparation used rapid piston expansion and a water–alcohol mixture in the cloud chamber; cooling permitted droplets to form along ionization trails. A camera photographed these droplets. Initially, expansions occurred at random, so many photographs contained no tracks. Later counter triggering improved the useful yield.^[ref]

In The Production and Properties of Positrons, his 1936 lecture, Carl David Anderson describes the chamber inside an electromagnet and explains why the lead plate was decisive: after losing kinetic energy, a particle bent more sharply. He describes a proton hypothesis predicting only $5\mathrm{mm}$ of particle range, against an observed path longer than $50\mathrm{mm}$. These are historical values from the lecture, not the stipulated example below. The point was the incompatibility of particle range with the momentum inferred from curvature, rather than positive electric charge alone.^[ref]

An antilepton is the antiparticle of a lepton, with opposite additive quantum numbers. A Positron is the charged antilepton corresponding to an electron.

BABAR used asymmetric electron-Positron collisions near the Upsilon meson $4S$ resonance to prepare neutral B meson pairs. It reconstructed one decay into charmonium plus a kaon, and used flavour tagging on the other B meson with charged leptons or kaons. Silicon tracking reconstructed decay vertices for the decay-time difference. Self-tagging decays calibrated mistags and time resolution; charged decays provided a control. The tagged time distributions established CP violation, limited by backgrounds, mistags and vertex alignment.^[ref]

The Lorentz boost converts vertex separation to $\Delta t\simeq \Delta z/({\beta }_{\mathrm{boost}}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{boost}}c)$ at leading order. Unequal beam energies thus make a time difference measurable as a distance.^[ref]

An electron or Positron emitted in beta decay.

Brookhaven's proton beam struck stationary beryllium. A two-arm magnetic pair spectrometer measured electron–Positron momenta and directions. Cherenkov detectors, tracking chambers and shower counters rejected the much larger hadron background. Calibration used an electron beam; timing and track matching rejected accidental coincidences. The pair invariant mass distribution showed a narrow excess. Reducing magnet currents left its reconstructed position unchanged; changing target thickness and reversing spectrometer polarity supplied further checks. The unresolved intrinsic width did not mean a zero decay width.^[ref]

The logic of the magnet-current check is especially useful. A real state should retain its reconstructed invariant mass when a calibrated change of magnetic field makes its daughters follow different accepted paths. A feature tied to one detector location or one setting need not do so. This checks a possible instrumental origin; it does not by itself determine the state's quark composition.

Charge conservation says that the total signed electric charge of an isolated collection stays constant. More generally, a collection closed to electric charge exchange has constant total electric charge, even if energy crosses its boundary. This is the charge bookkeeping relevant to a closed system or an isolated system; isolation from energy exchange is not required. Positive and negative electric charge count with opposite signs. Creating or removing an electron and a Positron together is compatible with charge conservation, because their combined electric charge is zero. ^[ref].

Imagine a fixed box initially containing electric charge $Q(0)=10\mu \mathrm{C}$. Stipulate incoming conventional current $I_{\mathrm{in}}=3\mu \mathrm{A}$ and outgoing conventional current $I_{\mathrm{out}}=1\mu \mathrm{A}$ throughout $0\le t\le 2\mathrm{s}$, with no other boundary transport. Since one ampere is one coulomb per second, the stored electric charge grows at $2\mu C/s$:If instead the outgoing electric current also equals $3\mu \mathrm{A}$, the stored electric charge remains $10\mu \mathrm{C}$ while electric charge passes through. These are stipulated transport examples; constant terminal electric currents alone do not guarantee a time-independent interior charge density.

Locally, charge conservation is the charge continuity equation, an instance of the general continuity equation:Here $\rho (\mathbf{r},t)$ is signed volume charge density and $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is current density. A positive divergence of current density means net outward transport from a small neighborhood, so its charge density decreases. For a fixed control volume $V$ with closed surface $\partial V$ and outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$, the equivalent integrated balance isThe surface integral is signed: incoming positive electric charge contributes negatively to outward electric current, and outgoing positive electric charge contributes positively. Integrate the charge continuity equation over fixed $V$ and apply the divergence theorem to obtain this balance. Zero net boundary transport gives constant $Q_V$; the global and local statements describe the same conservation law at different scales. ^[ref].

In a steady transport state, charge density and current density are time-independent, so the charge continuity equation reduces to $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$. At an electrical circuit junction, choose each terminal electric current $I_k$ positive outward and assume the terminals account for all boundary transport. ThenKirchhoff's current law, ${\sum }_k{I}_k=0$, follows when accumulation of electric charge at the junction is negligible. During storage, retain the same balance with its nonzero derivative; charge conservation continues to hold. This makes charge conservation useful for checking electrical circuit models and for tracking the charging of a capacitor. ^[ref].

The beautiful consistency with Maxwell equations is that the electric field and magnetic field already enforce this transport balance. For sufficiently smooth fields in vacuum SI, take the divergence of the Ampère-Maxwell equation, use that the divergence of a curl is zero, and substitute Gauss's law, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{ϵ}_0$. Constant vacuum permittivity ${ϵ}_0$ givesThe displacement current term supplies the part needed when electric charge accumulates. Historically, Maxwell added that term to extend the steady-current equation; see the existing charge conservation from Maxwell equations for this connection. ^[ref].

A photograph records a path but supplies no arrow of time. The Lorentz force depends on $q\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}$: reversing both electric charge and direction of travel leaves the spatial bending compatible with the same path. Thus a particular arc can represent a Positron travelling one way or an electron travelling the other. Knowing the magnetic field's polarity is necessary but insufficient. Gravity does not justify assuming that every cosmic ray track travels downward.

The lead plate adds a physical ordering. For a single particle crossing a passive absorber without an accelerating interaction, the outgoing momentum is smaller, so the outgoing gyroradius is smaller in the same magnetic field. The less curved segment comes first. Once this direction is assigned, the cross product in the Lorentz force determines the sign of electric charge. For the convention below, $\mathbf{B}=B\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ points out of the page; at upward velocity $\mathbf{v}=v\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}=vB\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. Bending to the right therefore means positive electric charge.

Magnetic forces do no work: the change of kinetic energy occurs through interaction with the material, not through the bending magnetic field. The ideal construction suppresses multiple scattering, kinetic energy fluctuations, and loss of kinetic energy in the gas. In an actual analysis one compares arcs away from the plate and allows a change of tangent from multiple scattering; one cannot interpret every kink as a change of electric charge. Short visible arcs, uncertain projection and small bending also limit a determination of magnetic rigidity.

Electric charge is an additive, signed property of matter that determines its coupling to the electromagnetic field. Write a particle's electric charge as $q$, or a collection's total electric charge as $Q$; the SI unit is the coulomb, $\mathrm{C}$. A stationary test particle in an electric field experiences electric force $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$, while motion adds the magnetic part of the Lorentz force. Electric charge both produces an electric field and determines the response to one. For two stationary point particles in vacuum, Coulomb's law makes like signs repel and opposite signs attract. The choice of which sign to call positive is a convention, used consistently: protons carry $+e$ and electrons carry $-e$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. ^[ref].

Additivity means adding signed electric charges, rather than their magnitudes:for ordinary matter containing $N_p$ protons, $N_e$ electrons, and electrically neutral neutrons. A toy collection with seven protons and ten electrons has $Q=-3e$, however much neutral material accompanies it. Charge neutrality means $Q=0$; it does not mean an absence of charged constituents. Nor does it guarantee an absence of electric force: the spatial arrangement of positive and negative electric charges matters, as illustrated by an electric dipole. This makes a tiny imbalance in an otherwise nearly neutral object physically important. ^[ref].

Charge conservation states that a collection closed to transport of electric charge keeps its total signed $Q$. If $n$ electrons move from object A to object B without other exchange, then $\Delta Q_A=+ne$ and $\Delta Q_B=-ne$; the sum is unchanged. The amount of positive electric charge alone need not be conserved: creation of an electron and a Positron adds opposite electric charges with zero sum. These bookkeeping rules let us distinguish separation or transport of electric charge from creation of net electric charge. ^[ref].

A simple motivating experiment uses two charge-producing paddles, a conducting pail on an insulating support, a grounded outer shield and a high-input-impedance electrometer. Zero the pail, then isolate it. Rub the initially neutral paddles together, keeping their charged surfaces away from other objects. Lower each deeply into the pail without touching: the electrometer gives opposite signs. Inserting both together tests cancellation. For a separate contact test, insert one charged paddle without touching and withdraw it: the reading returns to zero. Repeat after zeroing, this time touching the inner wall before withdrawal: a residual reading shows transfer of electric charge. Zero the pail and reinsert the paddle to test how much electric charge remains on it. PASCO describes these procedures in Basic Electrostatics System manual, demonstrations 1A and 1B, printed pp. 13–16.

The crucial control is withdrawal without contact: a response during insertion can come from electrostatic induction, which redistributes the pail's existing electric charge. In the fixed-geometry approximation, the electrometer measures electric potential difference proportional to enclosed electric charge, with conversion set by effective capacitance; a voltage reading is not already a measurement in coulombs. Opposite readings and their cancellation test additivity and charge conservation within resolution. Leakage or accidental contact spoils that interpretation, and contact need not transfer all the paddle's electric charge. This macroscopic experiment cannot resolve elementary charge steps: that requires the much smaller particles of the oil drop experiment.

A cascade driven primarily by electron and Positron bremsstrahlung and photon pair production in matter. An electromagnetic calorimeter estimates the incident energy from the deposited cascade. Escaping shower particles and incomplete instrument coverage require containment and response corrections.

An electron hole is an unoccupied electron quantum state in an otherwise nearly full energy band, often the valence band. “Filled” refers to occupation of the allowed quantum states, not to filling all space with a continuous fluid of electrons. Each state, including its spin label, can hold at most one electron by the Pauli exclusion principle. The almost full energy band and its few missing occupants are therefore simpler to describe as a background plus a few electron holes. The electron hole is a quasiparticle, not a Positron inserted into the crystal.

Removing an electron of electric charge $-e$ changes the background's electric charge by $+e$. Thus an electron hole carries positive electric charge relative to that background. Promoting an electron into the conduction band creates an electron hole without changing the whole crystal's electric charge: $(-e)+(+e)=0$. An unbound pair still consists of two separate charge carriers; only a bound state of their relative motion is an exciton.

The local cartoon explains why a vacancy can move: when a neighboring electron fills it, another vacancy appears where that electron was. The vacancy has moved opposite to that particular transfer of an electron. In an extended Bloch state, use crystal momentum instead of imagining a permanently empty atomic site. For a completely filled energy band the summed electric current vanishes. Omitting one electron with group velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_v$ removes its contribution $-e{\mathbf{v}}_v$, leaving a contribution $+e{\mathbf{v}}_v$. This fixes both the positive electric charge and the velocity convention of the electron hole.

More precisely, near a parabolic valence band maximum, set its energy $E_v(0)$ as reference and define the electron hole wave vector by ${\mathbf{k}}_h=-{\mathbf{k}}_v$. ThenThe occupied electron branch has negative curvature there, while the electron hole branch has positive effective mass $m_h^{\ast }$. The velocity equality compares the electron hole with the missing Bloch state's group velocity; it does not contradict the opposite vacancy motion in a local transfer cartoon. The sign conventions are listed in Phys 460 Lecture 17.

The annihilation of an electron with a Positron, producing other particles; a common final state consists of two photons.

A particle accelerator that brings counterpropagating electron and Positron beams into collision. The known initial four-momentum and tunable center-of-mass energy make resonance scans and missing-energy measurements possible.

The 1969 SLAC-MIT deep inelastic electron scattering experiment found approximate Bjorken scaling: an estimated deep-inelastic structure function depended mainly on a ratio of kinematic variables. Its restricted angular coverage did not separately determine both deep-inelastic structure functions, and the extraction assumed transverse virtual photons. This was motivation for a microscopic theory, not already a measurement of the QCD coupling.^[ref]

The 1973 David Gross–Frank Wilczek calculation supplied a quantum field theory explanation of approximately free partons with calculable logarithmic corrections. Asymptotic freedom therefore permits approximate Bjorken scaling without requiring exact scale independence. The QCD coupling governs the corrections, while parton distribution functions and their evolution connect the short-distance calculation to a proton.^[ref]

In a later direct test, H1 collided Positrons and protons at HERA and selected deep inelastic scattering events. A liquid-argon particle calorimeter identified the outgoing Positron with an associated track; calorimeter deposits and charged tracks reconstructed particle jets in the Breit frame. Vertex, timing and longitudinal energy-balance cuts suppressed backgrounds; two simulations checked detector corrections. Fits of particle jet cross sections to next-to-leading-order QCD extracted ${\alpha }_s(E_T)$ in transverse-energy bins, consistent with decreasing QCD coupling. Hadronization, parton distribution functions and renormalization scale choices limited the inference. This measures rates and fits a coupling, rather than directly reading a force meter.^[ref]

In the reaction displayed here, an electron antineutrino interacts with a proton to produce a Positron and a neutron. It turns an otherwise hard-to-observe incident particle into two products with different detection signatures. A prompt Positron signal followed by neutron capture can identify a candidate much more selectively than a single energy deposit. Inverse beta decay is a weak interaction; the incident electron antineutrino is detected through its reaction products.

The neutron and Positron together have more rest mass than the initial proton, so a finite incident energy is necessary even before recoil is considered. In the proton's rest frame, use four-momentum conservation and a negligible neutrino mass. The initial squared center-of-mass energy is $m_p^2{c}^4+2m_p{c}^2{E}_{\nu }$; the least final squared center-of-mass energy is $(m_n+m_e{)}^2{c}^4$. Equating them gives the threshold above. At threshold the final particles share one center-of-mass velocity; they are not both at rest in the laboratory.

Writing $\Delta =m_n-m_p$, the result separates intoThe positive second term is the laboratory recoil correction. With rounded rest energies $m_p{c}^2=938.272\mathrm{MeV}$, $m_n{c}^2=939.565\mathrm{MeV}$ and $m_e{c}^2=0.511\mathrm{MeV}$, the calculated threshold is about $1.806\mathrm{MeV}$. These rounded inputs follow the recommended particle masses.^[ref]

As a further ideal energy balance, suppose the Positron stops and annihilates with an electron, and all prompt annihilation gamma rays are contained. Its prompt visible energy is $T_{e^{+}}+2m_e{c}^2$. Neglecting neutron recoil gives $E_{\mathrm{vis}}\simeq E_{\nu }-(m_n-m_p)c^2+m_e{c}^2\simeq E_{\nu }-0.782\mathrm{MeV}$. Escaping gamma rays, detector response and recoil change that measured sum. The delayed capture signal is a separate energy deposit, not an extra contribution to the incident electron antineutrino's prompt energy reconstruction.

The energy component of the difference between the known initial four-momentum and the measured visible final four-momenta. In equal-beam electron-Positron collisions it is $\sqrt{s}-{\sum }_i{E}_i$ in natural units. It can arise from escaping neutrinos, but also from detector losses; it is distinct from the missing invariant mass and missing transverse momentum.

Awarded in equal shares to Victor Franz Hess for cosmic rays and Carl David Anderson for the Positron. The Hess cosmic-ray balloon experiment and Anderson positron track experiment explain the measurements.^[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.

The two Bhabha scattering tree-level Feynman diagrams are the two panels of Solution with a photon mediator: $s$-channel annihilation with internal momentum $p_1+p_2$, and $t$-channel exchange with internal momentum $p_1-p_3$. Each interaction vertex preserves the electron species. There is no independent $u$-channel Feynman diagram, since the outgoing electron and Positron are distinguishable.

Removing the color charge factor from Solution and replacing $g$ by $e$ givesCrossing symmetry interchanges $s$ and $t$ for the exchange Feynman diagram, givingSquaring the sum of the two scattering amplitudes also produces the interference term $2\mathrm{Re}\overline{{\mathcal{M}}_s{\mathcal{M}}_t^{\ast }}$. The given third term must be this cross term: it has both propagator denominators $st$, whereas a squared individual Feynman diagram has $s^2$ or $t^2$. With the correct relative fermionic sign, its value is $4e^4{u}^2/(st)$. ThusThe coefficient of the last displayed fraction is positive, but $s>0$ and $t<0$ in the physical scattering region, so this interference is destructive. The relative sign originates in the two possible external fermion contractions; changing an external-state phase changes both scattering amplitudes together.^[ref]

For hydrogen, the leading characteristic scales areOrder-one spin and nuclear magnetic factors, and state-dependent factors, are suppressed here. Gross atomic structure is Coulomb binding. Fine structure includes relativistic kinetic and spin-orbit effects, with Thomas precession affecting the spin-orbit coefficient. Hyperfine structure couples electronic motion and spin to the nuclear magnetic moment, whose inverse nuclear mass makes it much weaker. The contact spin interaction can remain in an s state where orbital spin-orbit coupling vanishes.

For positronium, the reduced mass is $m_e/2$. Its gross levels and separation scale areThus the mean ground-state electron–Positron separation is twice the infinite-proton-mass hydrogen value: both means have the same factor $3/2$ multiplying their respective Bohr radii. Retaining proton recoil makes the ratio $2m_p/(m_p+m_e)$, very slightly below two. Separation is not the distance of either positronium constituent from its centre of mass.

Interpret the spin operators in units of $\hslash$, as required by the printed Zeeman term, so $A$ has units of energy. Two spin halves give four eigenstates. At zero field, total spin $F=0,1$ and projection $m_F$ label the singlet and triplet. At high field relative to the hyperfine scale, the individual projections $m_{s,e},m_{s,p}=\pm 1/2$ become approximately good quantum numbers. Total projection remains exact at every field, but $F^2$ does not for the two mixed states.

Choose the quantization axis along $\mathbf{B}$. The aligned-spin states $|\uparrow \uparrow ⟩$ and $|\downarrow \downarrow ⟩$ both have $E=A/4$ because their Zeeman shifts cancel. In the other product-state sector,For physical positronium $A>0$. At $B=0$ there is a triplet at $A/4$ and a singlet at $-3A/4$. At large positive field the mixed states approach $|\uparrow \downarrow ⟩$ and $|\downarrow \uparrow ⟩$, with energies $-A/4+2{\mu }_{B}B$ and $-A/4-2{\mu }_{B}B$ respectively, while the aligned pair remains degenerate at $A/4$.

The dimensionless mixing parameter is $x=4{\mu }_{B}B/A$. A crossover estimate is $x\sim 1$, rather than a sharp transition. The scale $A\sim {\alpha }^4{m}_e{c}^2$ already gives a field of a few tesla. Using the physical hyperfine interval $A/h\simeq 203.39\mathrm{GHz}$ givesThe numerical hyperfine interval is external physical input, not a number supplied by the symbolic Hamiltonian.^[ref] The high-field limit here still presumes that orbital distortion is negligible compared with Coulomb binding.