For a concrete independent example, stipulate perpendicular motion, with the elementary charge, uniform magnetic field , incoming gyroradius and outgoing gyroradius . These are invented teaching inputs. Converting SI momentum to electronvolt units gives
so and . Both a Positron and a proton with these momenta trace the same ideal arcs. Their kinetic energies differ because the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives
The second expression avoids subtracting nearly equal quantities when . For this calculation stipulate rounded rest energies and . The Positron interpretation gives and ; the proton interpretation gives only and . The corresponding proposed losses of kinetic energy are about and .
Figure 1.
Equal magnetic rigidity permits very different kinetic energies for a Positron and a proton
. Original calculation for the stipulated magnetic field, rounded rest energies, and radii used in the text. Lines use the exact relativistic energy-momentum relation; the kinetic energy axis is logarithmic. This is an energy comparison, not a measured spectrum or a historical particle range curve. Details.
The small proton kinetic energy follows from , whereas here the Positron has and . Consequently magnetic bending alone cannot reject the proton. One needs an independent material constraint: could a proton at the proposed kinetic energy penetrate the plate and then travel at least the observed visible distance in the specified gas? A particle range shorter than that visible distance contradicts the hypothesis. The visible track need not include the stopping point: it already supplies a lower bound on particle range. No numerical particle range is assigned to this teaching example; that would require stopping data for the actual material and gas conditions. The experimental insight is to combine a geometric momentum measurement with an independent test of penetration.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.